Menu

76 Sermon Illustrations on One Way

76 illustrations Page 1 of 2

This subject emphasizes the exclusive claim of Jesus Christ as the sole way to salvation, affirming that no other paths lead to God (Acts 4:12; John 14:6). Preachers use illustrations contrasting multiple routes with the single narrow way, highlighting the necessity of faith in Christ alone for eternal life.

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.

*

Two Major Ecumenical Conferences

John 5:23

The World Conference on Mission and Evangelization at San Antonio in May, 1989, focused on the uniqueness of Christ. The director, Eugene Stockwell, waffled by implying Jesus is one voice among many. Two recent books openly question the absolute finality and normativity of Christ. Wesley Ariarajah, director a a WCC subunit, wrote that he found the absolute claims that some Christians make for Christ to be "the greatest, single hindrance to witness."

However Leslie Newbingen argues that the uniqueness, decisiveness and centrality of Jesus Christ is historic "fact" rather than subjective value. If the WCC doubts this, "it would become an irrelevance in the spiritual struggle that lies ahead of us." Delegate after delegate challenged any notion of universalism or syncretism.

#1091

*

Believing In Faith

John 2:23

Sermon on faith.

1. Misconceptions about faith.

a. Irrational and only for religious people.

2. Importance of faith.

3. What Christian faith is all about.

a. Based on facts, not emotions.

b. Reasonable.

c. Must go beyond fact to commitment.

d. Eternal issues are decided here and now.

4. God will not force us to believe. [1389]

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.

Math Helped Physician Grasp Supernatural, Biblical Faith

Acts 4:12

Math helped physician grasp supernatural, biblical faith.

“I resigned from practicing medicine because I wanted to save lives,” Michael Girouard told a Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary chapel audience Nov. 10. Girouard, who gave up his medical practice to participate in full-time ministry, is a popular speaker at Christian and secular high schools, colleges and seminaries. “I used to put people to sleep with gas, and now I just talk to them,” he joked in a message at Southwestern's Fort Worth, Texas, campus.

Now a biblical apologetics specialist, Girouard served as assistant professor of biology for the Institute for Creation Research from 1988-90. He also has participated in “Back to Genesis,” a program that defends the scientific basis for creation. Growing up Roman Catholic in Louisiana, Girouard believed the Bible was a fairy tale that could not be trusted. Yet as a college student at Southeastern Louisiana University, he began to read a Bible someone gave him. “The claims of Jesus of being the only way to God amazed me,” he said. “I knew that either Jesus got it wrong or the priests got it wrong. Salvation was either grace through faith, or it was five out of seven sacraments plus 10 commandments.”

He began his medical career while continuing to wrestle with the difference between his Catholic upbringing and the truths of the Bible. He soon began to explore the scientific aspects of Scripture. “I began to realize that the probability of all the Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled was scientifically impossible. Something supernatural had occurred,” he said.

“The probabilities that really interested me were the messianic prophecies. One man —- Jesus Christ — fulfilled 332 of those specific prophecies. To fulfill just 48 of those, the probability would be one chance in 10 to the 157th power.“ Girouard noted if an event has a probability of just one chance in 10 to the 45th power, it will never be observed to occur naturally on the earth. “If it does come true, it exceeds the natural laws of science. Based upon mathematics alone, I came to the conclusion that the Bible was the writing of a supernatural being,” Girouard said. As a result of his research, Girouard became a Christian.

“Jesus said that he was the cure for death,” Girouard said. “He promised eternal life, and that was supernatural. That was something I as a doctor hadn't been able to give to my patients or to myself.”

Copyright © 1995 Baptist Press

from Online Christianity Today (America Online) · Dena Dyer via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Conversations: Whatever Happened To Evangelism? Luis Palau Interview

Luke 13:23

Luis Palau wants to rekindle our passion for the lost.

Growing up in Argentina, Luis Palau did not feel much like an evangelist, as he was merely doing "what everyone else in [his] church was doing": winning people to Christ. But when he was 18 years old, he heard a young preacher named Billy Graham on the radio and prayed that he, too, would become an evangelist one day.

More than 40 years and 300-plus crusades later, Palau now hopes to fulfill another vision: the further development of his ministry in the U.S. with his current "Say Yes Chicago" crusade. He has already made his presence well known in Central and South America, as well as in Europe and elsewhere, through crusades that use his bilingual ability and sensitivity to a multitude of cultures.As he prepared for this April campaign, Palau spoke with CHRISTIANITY TODAY about evangelism, crusades, and American Christianity.

WHY DO YOU FEEL EVANGELISM IS THE CHURCH'S NUMBER-ONE PRIORITY?

If there is no evangelism, there is no church to deal with the other priorities. Discipleship is obviously a strong, ongoing church priority; but there's no one to disciple if you haven't evangelized in the first place. When Jesus went to heaven, the uppermost command on his mind was "Go into all the world and make disciples." Yes, the church exists for the glory of God. But in practice, evangelism should never leave a Christian's mind. The church is always one generation away from extinction. Why are you able to worship? Because God rescued you through the work of someone who evangelized you.

HAVE OTHER CHRISTIANS OPPOSED YOU ON THIS ISSUE?

I find that the people who most argue against evangelism as a priority haven't won a soul to Christ in decades. They are afraid of the nonbeliever. In almost every case, they stay within their closed circles. We scream at the world with our magazines and our microphones, but we don't mingle with the people in the world to bring them to Jesus Christ.

Sometimes we hide behind theological statements that go beyond Scripture. Sometimes we hide by saying, "I'm just much too busy carrying on my gift." And we forget that witnessing is not an option. We are all supposed to be witnesses.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PRIORITIES AMERICAN CHURCHES HAVE PUT IN PLACE OF EVANGELISM?

We see some Christian circles replacing evangelism with only social action. Now, I'm committed to social action, but when it so absorbs us that we have no time for rescuing the perishing, then we have replaced the priority. After all, evangelism is social action. It is the most fundamental social action in history -- the most profound and real act of love there is. And that's why it's so strange that we hold back from practicing it.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT CHRISTIANS BEING INVOLVED IN POLITICS?

Those who are called to enter the political arena should take it as a ministry from the Lord. I don't care if he or she is left wing, right wing, an atheist, or a religious leader; I always tell politicians, "Your position is a delegated authority from God, and you are a minister of God" (Rom. 13). So I encourage them to think of justice and righteousness, and to defend the poor and the needy. That's the role of a politician.

I think that Paul, if he were here, would encourage young people to be the salt and the light in public places. But politics has its limits. Don't expect from politics what politics cannot deliver. Don't confuse the kingdom of God with party politics.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER CHRISTIANS WITHOUT THE GIFT OF EVANGELISM DISOBEDIENT IF THEY WERE TO SPEND MORE TIME DEVELOPING THEIR OWN SPIRITUAL GIFTS?

While only some have the gift of evangelism and will do things like speak at mass crusades, all of us should be witnessing continually. This doesn't mean we're always giving out the gospel, but it does mean we are endlessly seeking open doors, pushing the doors that seem open, taking advantage of opportunities -- not obsessively, but consciously -- while saying, "I am to witness to the gospel as much as I can with the Holy Spirit's power."

SO WHEN YOU SAY "EVANGELISM," YOU'RE NOT MERELY THINKING OF LIVING OUT THE LOVE OF CHRIST IN PRACTICAL WAYS. YOU MEAN SPECIFICALLY SHARING THE GOSPEL.

You have not been a true witness to Jesus Christ until you have openly, clearly, lovingly presented the message of John 3:16. Witnessing to Jesus Christ is done through one's life, but the life has no meaning if the lips do not speak. Until you've done that, you have not been a full witness to Jesus Christ. People cannot guess why you're such a good neighbor unless you openly, clearly express your faith in Christ.

DO YOU FEEL THAT AMERICAN CHRISTIANS HAVE LOST A SENSE OF EVANGELISTIC FERVOR?

When I was in Chicago doing launch rallies for "Say Yes Chicago," a taxi driver took me to a press conference at Grant Park. The driver was a Muslim from Sudan, very talkative and eager to make me a Muslim. He was trying to convert me in the course of a ten-minute drive. I told him I was a Christian, which began a quick discussion about Jesus Christ. After a few minutes, he said, "Islam is going to win in America. And we're going to win in the world. You Christians do not really believe Jesus Christ is the only answer and the only One."

I said, "Of course we believe that." He said, "No, you don't. I've been here for six years, and I've hardly met a single American that believes Jesus is the only One and the only way and the only answer." [used 3-31-96]

I was amazed, moved, rebuked, and ashamed. Here was a foreigner in America unashamedly trying to convert me in ten minutes. And meanwhile, we Christians beat around the bush. We are not convinced that people without Christ are truly, truly lost forever. If we did, we wouldn't be able to rest. We would jump at the chance to be part of a citywide crusade. If we believed that people were irrevocably lost without Christ, we would take advantage of every chance to preach the gospel.

WITH REGARD TO EVANGELISM, WHAT'S MISSING IN AMERICAN CHURCHES COMPARED TO CHURCHES IN OTHER CULTURES?

The passion has been lost only in the Western nations -- Western Europe, America, and Canada. The rest of the world, at this time, is fired up.

On the whole, Christians outside Western Europe and North America are utterly convinced that Jesus is the only way, that the greater good is more important than minor peculiarities, and that the unsaved are condemned to a Christless eternity.

But they also demonstrate a greater obedience and a practical conviction that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. As people begin to disobey Scripture, they begin to doubt its authority.

HOW DOES CRUSADE EVANGELISM IN AMERICA DIFFER FROM CRUSADE EVANGELISM ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD?

Interestingly enough, America is the toughest country in the world to get denominations to work together. America talks up the "one nation under God" theme, but it's pure theory. The major work in a citywide crusade is not touching the nonconverted. It is bringing the churches together to touch the unconverted.

We Christians forget that if we don't evangelize America, we have lost the nation. We have lost our children and grandchildren. Conversion is seldom talked about today. We are being so careful, so proper, we forget that, unless people are converted, they will not enter the kingdom of God.

HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THOSE WHO SAY CRUSADES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE IN REACHING UNCHURCHED PEOPLE?

Critics may be right that some crusade evangelism is not well-aimed at non- Christians. But our hope is that every person in the city or the nation we're in will hear the clear message of Jesus Christ.

Crusade evangelism isn't just the meetings at the stadium, not in our definition. We have luncheons, breakfasts, and dinners where much of the time 60 percent of those attending are nonconverted people. We use secular television; we work with the secular press in advance to get our message into the papers.

You always wish more unbelievers were at the stadium. But in this generation, the stadium is not the number-one vehicle for leading people to Christ. People like to stay home nights and be comfortable. But without the stadium, we wouldn't have the affinity groups, the luncheons, breakfasts, dinners. It would be much more difficult to buy television time, or to grab the attention of the media, or to attract the youth, if we didn't have the stadium events. But that the gospel is heard by nonbelievers is unquestionable.

________

Copyright (c) 1996 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

Volume 40, No. 4, page 38 ctap0896mrj6T403836319

Redemption, the Cost of Salvation

John 1:1

Anyone can believe that Jesus was a god: what is so hard to credit is that He who hung upon the cross was the God. That is what you are asked as Christians to believe. And it is the sword, glittering but fearful. It must cut your life away from the standards of this world, away from its thought and its measures, no less than its aims and hopes. Hard and bitter is the separation, and you will be parted from many great and noble men, some perhaps your own teachers, who can accept about Jesus everything but the one thing needful. The Christian faith, if accepted, drives a wedge between its own adherents and the disciples of every other philosophy or religion, however lofty or soaring. And they will not see this; they will tell you that really your views and theirs are the same thing, and only differ in words, which, if only you were a little more highly trained, you would understand. Even among Christ's nominal servants there are many who think a little good-will is all that is needed to bridge the gulf -- a little amiability and mutual explanation, a more careful use of phrases, would soon accommodate Christianity to fashionable modes of speaking and thinking, and destroy all causes of provocation. So they would. But they would destroy also its one inalienable attraction: that of being... a wonder, and a beauty, and a terror -- no dull and drab system of thought, no mere symbolic idealism.

-- John Neville Figgis (1866-1919), "The Gospel and Human Needs"

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."

(untitled)

While I was at Asbury

July 1987 I was walking down the sidewalk toward the classrooms one morning when I noticed a grasshopper on the sidewalk.

He just

sat there as I approached. I saw that he was pointed toward me.

Beside the sidewalk there was a sign that said ONE WAY, and the arrow pointed the direction I was going. I thought buddy, you're going the wrong way.

Today a lot of people are headed the wrong way in life. The law of God is the

One Way sign which has two messages. First, it tells them there is only one

acceptable way they can live. Second, it tells them which way that is.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database one way

Unbelief Is Always Susceptible To Christian Truth

Mark 13:11

Christians need to have an understanding of basic Christian apologetics in order to successfully dialogue with a lost postmodern world and ready their minds to hear the Gospel, Norman Geisler said in a chapel message at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.

Geisler, a leading evangelical apologist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, pointed out that the entire evangelistic technique employed by many Christians today is predicated on the belief that God does exist, a notion many postmodernists may not be willing to embrace.

Therefore, Geisler said, pointing to the Apostle Paul's defense of the faith at Mars Hill in Acts 17 as an example, Christians must be able and willing to reason with the lost, “casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”

“If a person doesn't believe in God,” Geisler said, demonstrating the evangelical imperative behind his apologetics, “they cannot believe in the Son of God. You cannot separate apologetics from evangelism.”

Given the context in which the church finds itself today, he said it is increasingly important that Christians argue for the existence of God and absolute truth, a belief that has fallen out of fashion to many today.

“Every pastor must be an apologist,” Geisler said. “If you speak the truth of the Gospel and they don't even believe in [the concept of] truth, what good does it do you?

“Every system of unbelief has a self-defeating argument,” Geisler said, referring specifically to the claim that absolute truth does not exist, which is itself a truth claim. “You can't deny truth without affirming truth. Anyone who denies it affirms it.”

Next, Geisler challenged the notion of religious pluralism, which would have all religions be tolerated equally as reliable paths to truth.

“Opposites can't be true,” he said, using the examples of Christianity and Islam, which denies the divinity of Christ. “Somebody's wrong; we can't both be right. We believe the heart of the Gospel is that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Somebody's got to be wrong."

“Truth is narrow,” he continued. “Even a pluralist who says pluralism is true is excluding all non-pluralists. Don't be ashamed to say, 'Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'“

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #25719]

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

The Death Leap

Luke 16:26

In the mountains of the West, it is related, there is a place called “The Death Leap.” It is far up in the mountains where two rocks protrude. The distance between them is about thirty feet. A deer had been chased by the hounds and had come to this “death leap.” There was no way around. It stopped and listened to the oncoming dogs. Then it backed up some distance and came bounding for the leap.

But as it came near and saw the yawning precipice its courage failed. Again it listened to the oncoming hounds which were much nearer. It was cross the pass or die. The second time it backed up even farther than before and with a mighty bound it sought to reach the other side. But the distance was too great. The deer fell, more than two hundred feet, and was crushed on the rocks below.

We may love the world and reject Christ but one day when the end comes and we look across the mighty yawning chasm we will need Christ. He said, “I am the way.” He is the way across. We will need Him and want Him then.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements · William Moses Tidwell, ''Effective Illustrations'' 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]

No Other Name

Acts 4:12

A blind man once stood on a corner at a busy intersection reading aloud Acts 4 from a portion of a Braille Bible. A gentleman on his way home stopped at the edge of the crowd that had gathered to listen. At that very moment, the sightless man lost his place. While trying to find it, he kept repeating the last three words he had just read: “No other name... No other name... No other name...”

Many smiled, but the inquisitive bystander went away impressed. He had been searching for inner peace and therefore was ready to be influenced by a few words spoken “in season.” He had heard the verse before, but that one phrase haunted him. Before morning he surrendered to the Holy Spirit’s wooing and accepted the Savior. “I see it all now,” he cried. “I’ve been trying to be saved by my own works and prayers. But Jesus alone can help me. He is my mediator. There is no other name whereby I must be saved.”

Thus a blind man’s witness, given in a stumbling manner, was used to lead a seeking soul to Christ.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database works righteousness

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.

*

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

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.

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

Every Place Is Hell Without Jesus

Mark 9:48

In their book JESUS MANIFESTO (Thomas Nelson), Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola share this: “There is a billboard in Oklahoma that reads, ‘Eternity is hell without Jesus.’ In truth, every place is hell without Jesus. The Ritz Carlton is hell without Jesus, and a ‘church’ is hell without Jesus. There is no hope in this life or in this world apart from Christ.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was moved to HolwickID #2936]

from Source not recorded via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database salvationone way

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.”

*

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.”

Deconstructing Bishop Sprague

John 5:23

Late last year United Methodist Bishop C. Joseph Sprague once again found himself embroiled in controversy when he went on record opposing the Southern Baptist Church’s evangelistic plans for the Chicago area. The United Methodist News Service reported Sprague as declaring:

I’m always fearful when we in the Christian community move beyond

the rightful claim that Jesus is decisive for us, to the

presupposition that non-Christians...are outside God’s plan for

salvation... That smacks of a non-Jesus-like arrogance.

(United Methodist News Service, Chicago religious leaders make

plea against proselytizing, Nov. 30, 1999)

Obviously there is a certain illogical quality to the bishop’s statement in that the Southern Baptists are going to Chicago precisely because they believe that non-Christians are not outside God’s plan of salvation. Evangelism presupposes it is God’s plan for non-Christians to have an opportunity to respond to the Good News about Jesus. If the Southern Baptists believed that non-Christians had no place in God’s gracious plan of redemption then they wouldn’t bother evangelizing in the first place.

Yet, the real issue for Bishop Sprague is revealed in his comments and the context in which they were made. The bishop was specifically responding to the perception that the Baptists were placing a special emphasis on converting Jews and Muslims. This offended Bishop Sprague because to attempt to convert another person is to infer that their religious views are in error. Sprague’s ensuing comments revealed that he was thinking like a deconstructionist along the lines of Stanley Fish, dean of arts and sciences at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Deconstructionists like Sprague and Fish view claims to absolute, transcendent truth as a power grab. Why? Because truth and reality do not really exist objectively but are the construction of a group and its use of language. This is exactly the reasoning that supports Sprague’s statement: “I’m always fearful when we in the Christian community move beyond the rightful claim that Jesus is decisive for us.” Here the Bishop reveals that he views that Jesus is decisive only to those within the Christian community. To “totalize” the Jesus story by asserting it is true for everyone (even Jews, Muslims, and Hindus) is out of bounds. It is a wrongful claim that is at least arrogant and may even inspire violence.

How can this be? Deconstructionists maintain that something may be true for a particular group because it is consistent with the narrative that defines that group, and yet be untrue for those in another group who do not share the same “story”. Thus, when Baptists maintain that they want to share a truth that transcends their private little construction of reality they are actually seeking to gain power over their intended audience. To Sprague and other deconstructionists this is seen as an act of violence.

With all this said it should be noted that deconstructionism need not be viewed as intrinsically hostile to the Christian faith. In fact, it helps us see that we exist in communities (groups) that provide the lenses through which we perceive reality. This needs to be taken into account in any missionary enterprise. As Christians we recognize that the language and history that define these communities are human constructs and are necessarily tainted by sin. Thus violence and the will to power can indeed flow from these communities -- even the Christian community.

However, it is the transcendent, universally true Gospel of Jesus Christ that has the power to name and judge the sin of cultural or religious coercion. It is precisely because Christians believe there is objective, universal truth (a meta-narrative in deconstructionist parlance) which stands above all competing stories that we are constrained to respect the dignity of other persons and groups.

This is why St. Peter admonished the Church in this fashion: “...In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).” Perhaps this scripture would have better served as the starting point for persuasive advice from a United Methodist bishop to the Southern Baptist Church rather than the remarks made by Bishop Sprague.

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.

*

How A Hindu Man Found Christ

John 5:23

It is with great pleasure that I recount how the Lord by his grace saved me. In order to present more clearly the abundant mercies of God in saving me, I believe it is necessary to share a comprehensive background of my life. I shall endeavor to accurately portray the various events that led to my spiritual birth.

I was born and raised in the cosmopolitan city of Bombay (now Mumbai), India. I come from a family of five. I am the only son of my parents, and I have two sisters, one older and one younger. My parents are Hindus, and by default, that was what I called myself when asked about my religious beliefs, prior to being born again. Both my parents received their medical degrees and practiced medicine for several years, but as ironical as it may sound, they chose to leave that profession and become entrepreneurs because it is easier to support a family as entrepreneurs in Bombay. They would have loved for any one of their three children to become a doctor, but we all had other plans.

My ambition in life, from early childhood was to become a professional Cricket player. For those who may not be familiar with ‘Cricket’, it is a game somewhat similar to Baseball. I can recall having a Cricket bat very early in life. Through my school years, I played a lot of Cricket in a non-competitive environment. With the exception of having competed in one inter-school tournament, it was only after going to college that I started participating in competitive tournaments. During my undergraduate work, my life revolved around Cricket, and I would spend between ten to twelve hours a day in training. My efforts proved worthwhile, when in the summer of 1987 I learned of my inclusion in a nationally selected under-19 Cricket team that was to tour England and Scotland. I toured again with different members of the same team the following year, and was pleased with my performance during the tour. Upon my return to India, with hopes of representing the country, I found myself not being selected to play for my local college team. This was very disheartening to me, and I started to lose hope of ever making it.

As my aspirations were dashed to the ground, I despaired, and attempted to drown my sorrow by using alcohol. My continued frustration with Cricket led me to start smoking and increase my consumption of alcohol. I was now even willing to try drugs, and on occasion, I tried to comfort myself with the drug Hashish. The music and literature of Jim Morrison and The Doors, the writings of Neitzche, and existential philosophy were also influencing me.

During this time, my friend’s mother was involved with the National Association for the Blind (NAB) in Bombay, and suggested that he and I volunteer to help the blind children. We complied with her wish and volunteered infrequently. At this time my friend suggested that we apply to ‘Camp America’, which is an international program that recruits volunteers from all over the world to work at summer camps in the United States. His idea was that we could do the same type of work and yet see a new country. Our application made it through the selection process and Camp Dogwood for the Blind, North Carolina recruited me. It is at this camp that I met my wife Emily.

It was at Camp Dogwood, that Emily first shared with me the love of the Lord Jesus. She seemed very different than the rest of the counselors to me. Most of the counselors, including myself, eagerly anticipated the end of the day when our duties ended, so that we could indulge in partying. Emily would forsake this time with other counselors to be around the campers and would frequently sit with them on the porch listening to their life’s joys and trials. I could not understand why someone would do such an unselfish thing. Her tender acts of kindness caught my eye, and I found myself being attracted to her. For reasons I can not understand, she reciprocated my feelings, and for the first time in my life I had a girlfriend.

Emily must have been backsliding as a Christian to go out with an unsaved person, but I thank the Lord that he permitted it. Even when she was not walking closely with the Lord she stood out to me as different from the rest. On several occasions she talked to me about the Lord. She even convinced me to attend church with her and I enjoyed the hymns, but could not accept the message of Jesus Christ being the only way to heaven. In fact, during one of our discussions, I distinctly remember having told Emily quite emphatically, “I will never, ever say, that Jesus Christ is the only way to God!” However, I continued to attend the morning devotions because I knew I would see her. Some campers too, had asked me if I believed in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, to which I would nonchalantly decline. Both Emily and I returned to the same camp the following summer.

My mother had always insisted that if I had exerted the same efforts towards school and college work as I had towards Cricket, I would surely succeed. With a lack of better direction and purpose, and with Emily being in the United States as an incentive, I decided to pursue a Masters degree in the United States. During my second summer at Camp Dogwood, I received news of my acceptance into the Masters program at Clarkson University, New York. I did not return to India after the camp as planned, but instead went directly to New York for my Masters program.

I did not have a scholarship to attend Clarkson University, and my parents were paying for my education. Since the Indian Rupee is much weaker than the US Dollar, the cost of education in the United States was formidable. I was keenly aware of my parents’ sacrifice in order to lavish on me the privilege of studying in the United States. In an attempt to ease their burden, I strove to obtain a graduate assistantship.

I decided to take only three courses the second semester at Clarkson, hoping to obtain a high grade point average, and thereby secure a graduate assistantship. I had a class on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, each one being held late in the evening. This gave me plenty of time for introspection. Although I had had a good childhood, wonderful parents, loving sisters and friends, had traveled to various parts of the world, had the privilege of studying in the United States (in India, it is considered a great privilege to be able to ‘study abroad’), I was unhappy. I knew there had to be more to life. I began asking some basic questions like “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” and “Where am I going?” Having had a Hindu background, I immediately turned to one of the sacred Hindu books (‘Gita’) for answers. As I read the book, I found the thoughts quite profound and philosophical. However, it did not have any impact on my life. After I put the book down, it was as if I hadn’t read anything, because nothing changed in my life.

About this time, I happened to meet Heather, a Christian, over the computer network at Clarkson University. She witnessed to me about Jesus Christ, and asked me what I believed. I told her that I was very open-minded and believed all religions were a way to God. She replied, “If you are so open-minded, why don’t you read the Bible?” I complied, and she gave me her red-lettered Bible that had the words of Jesus in red. She suggested that I start with the book of John. She also invited me to a Bible study/prayer meeting, and to church. I attended the Bible study/prayer meeting one time, and decided that I would never return. Emily’s sister had also given me a book called ‘Death of a Guru’ which was about a Hindu priest giving his life to Christ.

Although I did not return to the Bible study, and tried to avoid Heather as much as possible, I continued to read the Bible. As I read it, I felt as if someone in the Bible knew my every thought, although I hadn’t shared it with anybody. When I read the word ‘hypocrite’, it was as if my name was being substituted because I did all my “works” to be seen of men (Matthew 23:5). When I gave to the poor, it was because I thought of how noble I was being in doing so, and how much better I was than the others who could care less. As I felt the words of the Bible piercing my soul, I ran across Hebrews 4:12-13 “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do”. I was convinced that there was something different about this book. Across from the page I read “…today if ye hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the day of provocation…” It seemed to be alive, and someone in there seemed to know me in a very personal way. I seemed to agree with everything that Jesus said. Well, almost everything. When I came across John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”, I was very upset. “How could he make such an exclusive statement?!” I realized that if that statement was true, then I was certainly on my way to hell, and for that matter, almost everybody I knew was on the same path. I simply could not accept John 14:6.

About this same time Emily and I broke up on the grounds that I was not a Christian. She had promised her grandfather that she would marry someone who was definitely born again. I could not understand why she held such a strong view, especially because I accepted her religion without a problem. I was even willing to go to church with her.

Throughout the semester, I was greatly perturbed by John 14:6 and now, in addition to that, my break-up with Emily aggravated my frustration. I could not understand how Jesus could be the ONLY way! I could easily accept him as one of the ways, but I was upset that that was not what the Bible said. Also, I could not understand why Emily would not accept my then ‘Universalistic’ approach, when I accepted her religion.

One morning, as I sat on my bed, I was contemplating John 14:6, I had a gnawing unease about its meaning. I wanted to know the truth. I closed my eyes tightly shut and somewhat tauntingly asked Jesus Christ… “If you ARE the ONLY way, THE truth, and THE life, Why don’t you reveal yourself to me? … Or else I will not believe in you.” What followed is perplexing and to this day I do not understand it, neither do I think that it is crucial to do so. Nonetheless, here is a description of what ensued.

I saw myself surrounded by a glass cage that was mirror from the outside. Evil thoughts in the form of sentences were approaching this mirror “cage” from all sides. The mirror was really bright. It repelled these thoughts with amazing power. However, there was one persistent evil thought that kept attacking the mirror. (I don’t know have any knowledge of what that evil thought possibly was, but I knew it was evil.) It managed to make a small crack in the mirror, and kept increasing and widening the crack. I believed that if that particular thought broke through the mirror that my very life was endangered. At this point, I felt like someone lifted me out of this mirror cage, which was now slowly but surely cracking due to the evil force. At the same time, I saw a pair of caring hands dressed in white robes lifting a new born baby still attached to the mother’s umbilical cord about 2-3 ft. in the air. At that time, I believed the hands were Jesus’ hands. I also saw the words “propagate life”. After that I spoke to Emily about what I had seen, and she talked to her brothers and sisters about it. They suggested possible implications of such an event.

Also later in the day, I experienced something unusual. As I was reading Chapter 20: “New Life” of the book ‘Death of a Guru’, I felt like I was being drawn towards Christ. I looked out my window and watched the snowflakes gently settle on the trees. At this point I really felt like going to church or talking with Christians. But a voice inside of me said “Ashish, you are so obsessive, you will get all tied up in anything that appeals to you… first it was Cricket, then Jim Morrison and The Doors, and now it’s Jesus Christ… but this will not last long.” Then I tried to brush that thought aside, and continued reading the book. The very next sentence I read was “It is one thing to begin a Christian life with great enthusiasm, but it is something else to grow stronger daily in the faith and win others to Christ.”

I wrote a letter to the author of ‘Death of a Guru’ and asked… “Do you feel like Jesus is trying to tell me something through your book? Do you think he is knocking on the doors of my heart?” (At that time, not knowing to whom it was written, I believed that Revelation 3:20 was written specifically for me)… “If you dedicate your life toward a humanitarian cause, shouldn’t that help you attain salvation? Please recommend any books you feel appropriate, and enlighten me with your wisdom. I am hungry to know the truth”. I never heard from him, but I did decide to go to church that Sunday with Heather. She was ecstatic that I wanted to go.

That Sunday morning the preacher said that if anybody did not know Christ, and would like to know him, that they should see him after church. After the service, I made my way to him, and told him what had been happening in my life. I asked him if he understood the implications of what I had seen. He told me that he did not understand it, but what he did know, was that Jesus died for my sins. He asked me if I thought I was a sinner, to which I plainly affirmed “Of course”. He asked me if I wanted to know the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, and receive the gift of eternal life by asking him to come into my heart. I had come to realize that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life, and I accepted it for what it said. I asked the Lord to forgive me my sins, and to come into my life. Leaving the church, I had the assurance that my sins were forgiven.

The pastor met with me on a weekly basis, and taught me the Scriptures. I had many questions in the Old Testament, and could not understand many things. However, I did believe that the Bible was true, and that it was the inerrant word of God. As I submitted myself to its teachings, I was convinced that I should be baptized. When I told my parents of what happened, they were very upset, and asked me to not be impulsive. They asked me not to get baptized. I asked them how long I should wait for them to know that it was not an impulsive decision, but one that I had carefully thought over, and they replied “a year.” Therefore, a year from the time that I talked to my parents, I publicly acknowledged him as my savior and invited all my friends to church. I was pleased that they came.

The Lord has since given me a better understanding of the word of God, and of things that I had no knowledge of then. It is my heart’s desire to study the riches of God’s word, and to please him and to serve him. In keeping with that goal, I have decided to study the Bible in a formal environment, where I can devote more time to it. I believe it will hold me in good stead wherever the Lord will have me serve.

Sincerely,

In Christ,

Ashish Majmundar

Bob Jones University student

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

*

Is Salvation Possible Only Through Trust In Jesus?

John 5:23

Is salvation possible only through trust in Jesus?

During the 20th century, North America transitioned from being an almost exclusively Judeo-Christian region, into the world's most religiously diverse area. During the same century, the West became much less isolated from the rest of the world. These two factors, religious diversity and global integration, have forced American Christians to become aware of the beliefs and practices of other religions. They note that other religions teach various forms of salvation which can be achieved in different ways. For example:

• Islam teaches submission to the will of Allah

• Judaism teaches the importance of following the Mosaic code and religious rituals

• Buddhism urges its followers to achieve Nirvana.

Generally speaking, Christians have adopted one of three beliefs about other religions: Pluralism, Inclusivism or Exclusivism:

PLURALISM: Most liberal Christians regard all religions as

legitimate, valid, and true -- when viewed from within their

particular culture. Thus, all faith traditions are deserving of

respect. Many liberals believe that there are many paths to

salvation; trust in Jesus is only one such path.

INCLUSIVISM: Many Roman Catholics and a wide range of Protestants

regard their own faith tradition as the only completely true

religion. They view other religions as perhaps reflecting

“aspects of, or to constitute approaches to, that final truth.”2

The Roman Catholic Church considers that members of other

religions are “gravely deficient” relative to members of the

Church of Christ who already have “the fullness of the means of

salvation.”3 Salvation is thus possible to others, but is

difficult for them to achieve. Their religion may well be a

hindrance to salvation.

EXCLUSIVISM: Many conservative Christians regard their own faith

tradition as the only completely true religion. Other religions

might have elements of truth in them -- beliefs arrived at either

by accident, or by observing nature, or by following their

conscience. But their beliefs are largely false. They are often

viewed as rivals to the one true religion. Salvation within

other religions is at best very improbable -- perhaps impossible.

Exclusivism appears to be the most common belief among devout Christians in the U.S. One indication of this comes from a 1995 poll showed that only 21% of churchgoers regarded Islam as having a positive impact on society. Only 21% felt that Buddhism had a positive effect.

Most Southern Baptists and other Fundamentalist Christians follow the exclusivism belief system. Some consider other religions as forms of Satanism, led by demonic forces. They are often vigorously opposed because they are viewed as drawing their followers away from salvation towards an eternity of punishment in Hell.

EXCLUSIVISM WITHIN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

The official web site of the Southern Baptist Convention links extensively to contents of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (SBJT). It is a publication of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.4 In a 1998 issue, they published a SBJT Forum which dealt with questions of religious inclusivity.5 In it, four leading Southern Baptist theologians gave answers to questions submitted by the magazine's readers.

Timothy George, founding Dean of Beeson Divinity School and senior advisor for Christianity Today, wrote part of the Forum, referring to:

A Christian missionary, William Carey, and generations of

missionaries who followed in his wake...who “believed... that...

Personal faith in Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation for

all peoples everywhere, and those who die without this saving

knowledge face eternal separation from God.”

Christian inclusivists are in error because they trivialize “the

tragic consequences of the Fall.”

“...Non-Christian religions...are unable to lead anyone to

salvation -- because of their own falsity as well as human

fallenness.”

George does suggest that God can achieve salvation outside of a trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior. For example, infants or mentally challenged individuals who cannot comprehend the Gospel may be saved. Others may theoretically be saved by the direct action of angels.

Carl F.H. Henry, founding editor of Christianity Today and Senior Research Professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote:

Acts 4:12 implies that “...Christ is the truth, not simply one

among many. Precluded is the notion that God reveals himself in

all religions...”

D.A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School wrote:

The question of whether the Gospel of John and John's epistles

allow for salvation outside of faith in Christ is “in some

ways...perverse” and “at best... are remarkably immature.”

Carson quotes 1 John 4:23 which says “...every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.” He wrote: “Formally, this excludes those who do not acknowledge who Jesus is.”

He discusses Revelation 13 and 14, concluding that “Either one bears the mark of the beast and is thereby spared the beast's wrath, but faces the wrath of the Lamb [i.e., Jesus] or one bears the mark of the Lamb and is thereby spared the Lamb's wrath, but faces the wrath of the beast.

He concludes: “So does the Johannine corpus 'leave room for salvation through means other than specific faith in Christ?’ Certainly not in its most obvious reading.”

Scott Hafemann is Hawthorn Professor of Greek at Wheaton College, and is the author of many conservative Christian books and articles. He states that:

“...Paul plainly teaches the reality of eternal judgment for

those who do not embrace Christ....He holds no hope for those who

remain in idolatry and its lifestyles for he attributes the

practice to demons.”

He quotes Douglas Moo who wrote: “...righteousness and life are for those who respond to God's grace in Christ and that they are only for those who respond.”6

BIBLE PASSAGES SUPPORTING EXCLUSIVISM:

The authors of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) were often strongly exclusivist. Some of the most frequently quoted passages reinforce this belief. For example:

According to Christian Scriptures, salvation and the avoidance of an eternal punishment in Hell is available only to Christians:

John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (all KJV)

• Matt 7:13: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.”

Acts 4:12: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Jesus considered a follower of at least one other religion to be sub-human. According to Matthew 15:22-28, Jesus was approached by a non-Jewish woman seeking healing for her daughter. Matthew calls her a Canaanite; Mark 7:25-30 calls her a Greek/Syrophenician. Being non-Jewish, Jesus considered her to be sub-human, and not worthy of his attention; he referred to her as a dog:

Matthew 15:26 quotes Jesus as saying: “...It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.”

Mark 7:27 repeats this as: “...it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.”

According to Paul, the Gods of other religions are actually demons. One should not even befriend non-Christians:

1 Corinthians 10:20: “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.”

________

References:

2. Seena Fazel, "Religious Pluralism," at: http://bahai-library.org/encyclopedia/

3. Joseph Cardinal Retzinger, "Dominus Iesus on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the church," Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/

4. The home page of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology is at: http://www.sbts.edu/resources/sbjt.php

5. Timothy George, "The SBJT Forum: Responses to Inclusivism," http://www.sbts.edu/resources/sbjt/1998/ You need free Acrobat software to read these PDF files.

6. Douglas Moo, "The Epistle to the Romans," Eerdmans, (1996), page 336-337.

*

Don't All Religions Lead To God?

John 5:23

We live in a context of spiritual longing. Many people are searching for that which will satisfy an inner craving for meaning and significance. The artist Damian Hirst recently said this: “Why do I feel so important when I’m not? Nothing is important and everything is important. I do not know why I am here but I am glad that I am. I’d rather be here than not. I am going to die and I want to live forever, I can’t escape that fact, and I can’t let go of that desire.”

But somehow this does not always translate into people finding Christ and starting to follow him. There is a dizzying array of options when it comes to religion, and the culture around us says that they are all equally valid. It seems absolutely bizarre to people that someone would say, “This one way is the truth and the only truth.” The poet Steve Turner describes brilliantly what many think when it comes to religion: “Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves. We believe he was a good teacher of morals but we believe that his good morals are really bad. We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one we read was. They all believe in love and goodness, they only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.”

In my experience, there are usually two motivations for dismissing the idea that Christ is the only way to God, and we need to examine them both. The first objection is that it is ARROGANT to say that Jesus is the only way. How could Christians possibly be so arrogant as to say that all the other religions are wrong and Jesus is the only path to God? Often the parable of the elephant is used to illustrate the sheer arrogance of Christianity. It goes something like this: “Three blind scribes are touching different parts of an elephant. The one who is holding the tail says, “This is a rope.” Another holding the elephant’s leg says, “This is not a rope; you are wrong. It is a tree.” Still another who is holding the trunk of the elephant says, “You are both wrong. It is a snake!” The moral of the story is that all religions are like these men. They each touch a different part of ultimate reality and therefore any one of them is arrogant to say they have the whole truth.

But take a step back and think about what is being said here. Do you see the breathtaking claim that is being made? Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Moses, and Muhammad are all blind, but in fact, I can see! These leaders all had a small perspective, but I am the one who sees the full picture. Now who is being arrogant? It is just as arrogant to say that Buddha, Muhammad, and Jesus were all wrong in their exclusive claims as it is to say that Jesus is the only way. The issue is not about who is arrogant, but what is actually true and real.

The second motivation in dismissing Christ is often a question of EXCLUSION. How can you exclude all of these religions? Jesus may have said he was the way to the Father, but how can I follow him and become an intolerant person who excludes others? Again, we need to think carefully about this view because the reality is that whatever position we hold will exclude something. Even the person who believes that all ways lead to God excludes the view that only some ways lead to God or that only one way leads to God. Every view excludes something. Again, the issue is not about who is excluding people, but what is actually true and real.

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me” (John 14:6). There are a number of possibilities here for why he might have said this, and exploring these possibilities is crucial. First, perhaps he was genuinely a good person but he was deluded. He was sincere, but he was wrong; he believed that he was the Son of God, but he wasn’t. In other words, he was mentally imbalanced. Or second, perhaps Jesus KNEW he wasn’t God but went around telling people that he was the only way to God regardless. In other words, he was a sinister character purposely telling lies. Or finally, perhaps Jesus was who he said he was. Perhaps he made these radical statements because they were true and real. In other words, he is indeed the only way to God.

________

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 #34367]

Head of Episcopal Church Rejects Exclusivity

John 5:23

Katharine Jefferts Schori, who became the first woman presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church Nov. 4, 2006, at Washington National Cathedral, holds key views contrary to what her own church believes.

A CNN reporter asked Schori, “So what happens after I die?”

“What happens after you die? I would ask you that question,” Schori responded. “But what’s important about your life, what is it that has made you a unique individual? What is the passion that has kept you getting up every morning and engaging the world? There are hints within that about what it is that continues after you die.”

When Time magazine asked her if belief in Jesus is the only way to get to heaven, she said, “We who practice the Christian tradition understand Him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”

And when a National Public Radio host asked her to elaborate on that answer, Schori said, “Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm -- that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through ... human experience ... through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.”

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, noted on his blog Nov. 10, 2006, that the Articles of Religion used by the Episcopal Church clarify that “Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”

Is Jesus the Only Way? (part 4)

Mark 9:34

In the first column in this series I said that we can come to terms with Jesus’ claims to being the only way to salvation by answering three rudimentary questions. Our first two questions were “what is truth?” and “what is ethical?” Today we will look at the final question: What is required?

Perhaps you have heard the following: “It doesn’t matter what you believe. The way to heaven is paved with sincerity, goodness and belief in God.” This statement attempts to shed the offence of the exclusive claims of Jesus. However, it introduces new problems. In claiming that sincerity, goodness and belief in a generic God are the true requirements for God’s acceptance, one is making a religious claim: “This is how one can appease God.” When someone says that to me, I simply ask, “On what foundation is such a belief based? It’s not from the Bible, the Koran, or any other such book. Why should I believe it? Have you heard personally from God?

There is another problem with this assertion: How much sincerity and goodness are required? Most people would agree that despots like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who were responsible for the mass murder of millions certainly don’t make the cut. But the line blurs after that. What about Muslim terrorists who blow up innocent people in the process of doing what they believe is a service to God? Others may suggest that we just need to keep the Ten Commandments, but how many of them must we keep? Did you ever steal (even as a child), break a Sabbath, use God’s name in a disrespectful manner, dishonor your parents, falsely accuse your sibling or have an obsessive desire for something belonging to someone else? If you have, you’ve already violated six of the 10! Where should the line be drawn? If God is the one who draws it, shouldn’t we seek to know where He has drawn it?

The Bible lays out the requirements for acceptance by God: It’s nothing any of us can do (Romans 6:23); it’s all about what God has done for us in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-9); we must entrust our eternal destiny with Jesus (John 14:6); we must believe in Jesus’ deity, atoning death and resurrection (John 8:24; Romans 10:9). Jesus said that the road to heaven is narrow and few follow it (Matthew 7:13-14).

How can I share the Gospel with others, given their aversion to the exclusive claims of Jesus? I’d like to suggest three actions. First, understand the answers to the three rudimentary questions we have discussed: What is truth; what is ethical; what is required? Second, clothe Jesus’ message with love. Be winsome and humble. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Third, recognize that timing is important.

Some may think you’re being narrow-minded now. However, if a time comes when their life is falling apart, they may want you to give them the answer and will respect you for holding true to your faith.

Einbahn Strasse

Luke 15:32

Two English soccer fans in Cologne, Germany, parked their rented car and carefully noted the street - 'Einbahn Strasse.' After the meet they looked for their car, only to discover that every second street in the town was named Einbahn Strasse. It was only when they found a policeman that they were told the sign was to inform drivers that they were on a one-way street. They finally managed to find their vehicle hours later with the help of the German police.

________

Source: Ananova http://www.ananova.com

Typical Or Exceptional?

John 8:46

The claim of Christ to uniqueness is repugnant to some solely because it is unique. They have no problem with god-men and gurus who claim to be reincarnations of others; yet they have serious reservations regarding Christ. They would prefer to reduce him to manageable proportions by calling him a great teacher.

It must be said that from a philosophical perspective it is not difficult to fathom the existence of a unique approach to truth. Truth, by definition, is exclusive and narrow. Jesus’s unique claim about himself -- “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” -- is a statement that is philosophically and logically reasonable (John 14:6). Whether he had any basis for making such a claim is a separate matter, discussed in the following paragraphs. But there is no reason why Jesus’s claim should be rejected out of hand simply because it is unique. For this very reason, in fact, we ought to investigate his claims all the more seriously.

Some years ago, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, professor of eastern ethics at Oxford University, made the comment that Christians are just ordinary people making extraordinary claims. Yet elsewhere, Dr. Radhakrishnan seemed to make an extraordinary claim himself: “Jesus is not exceptional but typical.” If the claims of Jesus to uniqueness are extraordinary but untrue, what are we to make of him? What are we to make of Christianity? If Jesus is merely a typical specimen of humanity, what are we to make of his influence over the world? What are we to make of our own lives?

Jesus lived in an obscure part of the globe under Roman rule 2000 years ago. He did not travel more than 200 miles on a single journey in his lifetime; he never wrote a book and did not speak a foreign language. He lived under the stigma of an illegitimate birth, was in public ministry for only three years, and died a criminal’s death. Yet his influence has spread far and wide throughout the world. Christians claim that this man was unique, and the evidence seems overwhelmingly to sustain it. Even those who would rather dismiss him have difficulty denying his incomparable mark on human history. As biblical scholar F.F. Bruce notes, “Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth,’ but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar.”(1) Jesus’s life IN AND OF ITSELF is distinctive; that he remains a life of influence is truly exceptional.

The unique moral character of Jesus Christ is as indelibly printed on the pages of human history as it is printed on the pages of the Gospel narratives. Even his worst detractors could not point an accusing finger at him. At his trial, it was difficult to find two witnesses who would agree to any of the false charges brought against him. What’s more, Jesus himself was admittedly guilt-free of any sins of omission or commission. During the course of his life, he could ask the Pharisees, “Which one of you can convict me of any sin?” (John 8:46). Even Pilate came to the conclusion that there was nothing faulty, wrong, or criminal about this strange prisoner that had been brought before him, and he pled with the crowd to have Jesus released.

Undeniably, Jesus lived an exemplary life. He made claims of himself that remain extraordinary and startling, though reasonable and profound. We need only to read some of the autobiographies of great men and women who have gone before us to see that they were subject to the same moral frailties distinctive to you and me. Yet nothing of the sort is said about Jesus, a fact that pierces heart, mind, and conscience. Of this, historian and skeptic William Lecky writes: “[Jesus] has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists. This has indeed been the wellspring of whatever is best and purest in the Christian life.”(2) We cannot but come to the conclusion that Jesus was far from typical. On the contrary, the more we investigate, the more it seems he is exceptionally due our greatest praise.

________

1. F.F. Bruce, THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE? (Downer’s Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972).

2. William Lecky HISTORY OF EUROPEAN MORALS FROM AUGUSTUS TO CHARLEMAGNE (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1903).

________

L.T. Jeyachandran is executive director of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Singapore.

Copyright © 2006 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

Mother Teresa Was A Universalist

John 16:31

Mother Teresa, the famous Catholic nun who ministered in India, was a universalist who believed that all men are children of God, and she did not try to convert Hindus.

In the biography MOTHER TERESA: HER PEOPLE AND HER WORK, she is quoted by Desmond Doig as follows: “If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are.... What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one’s conscience. What God is in your mind you must accept” (1)

When Mother Teresa died, her longtime friend and biographer Naveen Chawla said that he once asked her bluntly, “Do you convert?” She replied, “Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him.” (2)

The April 7-13, 1990, issue of Radio Times tells the story of Mother Teresa sheltering an old Hindu priest. “She nursed him with her own hands and helped him to die reconciled with his own gods.”

How sad, she did not believe the Bible and take to heart the Word of God when answering the question of “What must I do to be saved?” “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31)

________

1. Desmond Doig, MOTHER TERESA: HER PEOPLE AND HER WORK (Harper & Row, 1976) p. 156.

2. “Mother Teresa Touched Other Faiths,” Associated Press, Sept. 7, 1997.

The Faith Club -- A Postmodern Parable

John 5:23

Want to join a Faith Club? A trio of women in New York City have established a group they call the Faith Club as an effort toward interfaith relations at the most personal level.

As reporter Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today explains, “This New York City trio is out to share with a fractious world their way of fostering interreligious understanding soul to soul.”

More:

When the news abounds with incendiary stereotypes, contradictory

theologies and confusing cultural identities, can any ordinary

person sort it all out?

Yes, if they’re bold, persistent and open-minded, say the three

women of the Faith Club: Ranya Idliby, a Muslim; Suzanne Oliver,

a Christian; and Priscilla Warner, a Jew.

The three women started meeting together shortly after 9/11 and sought to understand one another. Now, they have written a memoir of their experiences entitled Faith Club.

More from USA Today:

Gathered in Oliver’s apartment to talk about their experience,

they’re easy, laughing, finishing one another’s thoughts and

bolstering one another’s ideas, munching their favorite snacks,

such as Warner’s addictive gourmet chocolates.

But The Faith Club reveals how very hard it was when they were

spiritual strangers learning to lay down their guards and dredge

up their deepest fears and prejudices.

Through it all, they found insight into one another’s beliefs and

greater clarity in their own.

This is not what the three mothers imagined when they met in

2002. Back then, still reeling from 9/11, they set out to create

a children’s book centered on the common ties and tales of the

Christians, Jews and Muslims who all link back to the biblical

patriarch Abraham.

They finished the children’s book, but publishers were more

interested in the mothers’ challenging -- and enduring --

relationships. What emerged was The Faith Club and a guide for

forming similar groups.

Here is the most interesting part of the article:

Everywhere they go, people who already have heard of the book say

they want to start their own clubs.

There are stumbling blocks, however. Will everyone be as open,

as bold, as willing to press on with these women’s mantra of

absolute honesty, constantly asking one another, “What do you

really think?”

For anyone who reads the Quran or the Bible literally, rather

than metaphorically or in cultural context, the women say, their

views will be too liberal. For people who believe there is

exactly one way to one heaven, described and delineated only by

their own faith, The Faith Club may not offer a template.

So there is nothing so new here after all. The central weakness of most interfaith dialogue groups is that the wrong people show up. The more orthodox believers in all groups tend to be less interested in circular discussions of faith based mostly on feelings. The more liberal folk love these groups, councils, and coffee meetings.

The only interfaith dialogue worth having would involve orthodox believers of various belief systems -- not the moderates and liberals. The more liberal members hold to such a plastic concept of religious truth that conflict with other groups is translated into etiquette rather than a true exchange of convictions. Liberal Christians, liberal Jews, and liberal Muslims have little ground for serious disagreement. Instead, it’s all a matter of respecting each other’s traditions and ceremonies.

When the exclusivity of the Gospel is denied from the onset, the “Christianity” that shows up at the dialogue is not classical biblical Christianity.

Conflicts over theological conviction should be at the level of honest debate, not physical violence. We should seek a responsible means of speaking about our deepest convictions. But we cannot hold a true conversation if we hold to watered-down forms of conviction.

The Faith Club is a postmodern parable for our times.

President Carter's Implicit Universalism

Luke 16:19

In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Mr. Jimmy Carter stated once again his belief that there is salvation outside of faith in Christ. But this time he seems to have gone even further, suggesting openly that all persons will be saved.

Here is the relevant exchange at Beliefnet.com:

[BeliefNet] Do you believe that grace ultimately applies to

people who don’t presently believe in Jesus?

[Carter] Yes, I do. I remember two things. One is that in John

3:16, which is probably the best known verse in the Bible - “For

God so loved the world that He gave His only Son.” And Jesus, in

the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, said we should love our

neighbors, but also love those who despise us and hate us and our

enemies. So, the opportunity for everyone to be saved through

the grace of God with faith in Christ applies to everyone.

And I have been asked often, you know, in my Sunday School

classes, which are kind of a give and take debate with people

from many nations and many faiths - what about those that don’t

publicly accept Christ, are they condemned? And I remember that

Christ said, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” And so, my own

personal belief is one of God’s forgiveness and God’s grace.

That’s the best answer I can give.

Well, that’s not good enough. The former president’s answer is a confused mash of out-of-context biblical citations set to the music of universalism. For some time Mr. Carter has been arguing that explicit faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation. Now, he takes this argument further, and the inescapable conclusion a reader of his latest comments must reach is that President Carter evidently believes that all persons will be saved. This, in fact, is how Beliefnet.com characterized his position.

But Mr. Carter’s argument, if one can call these sentences an argument, is also self-contradictory. In one sentence, he argues that “the opportunity for everyone to be saved through the grace of God with faith in Christ applies to everyone.” Does the opportunity apply to all, or does salvation? If he means the former, how do all persons confront this opportunity? The tragic reality is that millions of persons have never heard the Gospel of Christ. As the Apostle Paul makes clear, this is the central thrust of the missionary mandate.

The apparent contradiction in Mr. Carter’s argument comes with the second paragraph of his answer, in which he argues that God’s grace and forgiveness is extended even to those who do not profess faith in Christ. He goes on to suggest that when Jesus taught love of neighbor and the limitations of human judgment, He was teaching universalism. This is nonsense, of course, since those texts mean nothing of the kind. Beyond this, Mr. Carter’s interpretation would mean that Jesus contradicted himself when He warned of Hell and condemnation for sin.

The Bible is clear that not all persons will be saved. Jesus contrasted the wide gate that leads to destruction with the narrow gate that leads to salvation. As the Lord said in Matthew 7:13:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

The fact is that many persons are embarrassed by the Gospel as revealed in the Bible and taught by Christ. The central issue of offense is the exclusivity of the Gospel of Christ, And yet, Christ left no doubt about the matter.

In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The first sentence is not the ground of offense. The second sentence is. The “but by Me” statement leaves no room for confusion.

In recent decades, some have attempted to argue that faith in Christ is indeed necessary for salvation, but this faith need not be explicit faith in Christ. This position, known as inclusivism, suggests that persons may know nothing of the Gospel, and yet be saved. This argument is often used to claim that adherents of other faiths and belief systems will be saved through the work of Christ, even though they may not hear of Him in this life. Many Roman Catholic theologians have adopted this argument. The late Karl Rahner put an interesting twist on the theme by suggesting that some persons are “anonymous Christians.” These would be persons who now think themselves devotees of other belief systems but who are actually Christians who have no explicit faith in Christ. This argument cannot be squared with the biblical witness.

Universalists take the argument even further, with most arguing that all persons will be saved, completely without regard to faith in Christ. With this latest interview, Mr. Carter appears to join these ranks.

The Apostle Paul refuted both inclusivism and universalism in Romans 10, where he insisted that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Paul explained that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ -- which means explicit knowledge of the Gospel. He explained that salvation comes to all those who confess with their mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead. Then, just in case we missed the obvious, Paul explains the missionary mandate -- a mandate completely undercut and contradicted by inclusivism and universalism (and by President Carter’s comments):

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?

And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?

And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are

they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How

beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But

they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who

has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from

hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. [Romans 10:13-

17]

The logic of Paul is clear. If they hear they may believe, but if they never hear they will never believe. And, if they never hear and believe, they will not be saved.

In a series of books, interviews, and comments, Mr. Carter has dismissed biblical inerrancy and once suggested that his faith would not be shaken, even if Jesus did not perform some of the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament. He has adopted liberal positions on a host of issues and once identified liberal theologians such as Paul Tillich as major influences in his life and thought.

Nevertheless, it is tragic to see this man of influence, now releasing another published set of his recorded Sunday School lessons, set himself so clearly against the Bible and the historic faith of the Christian church. This, like all demonstrations of theological error, is both sad and deeply dangerous. What could be worse than getting the Gospel wrong?

Heed Jesus' Question

Luke 18:8

Every major period of Christianity is characterized by a probing question from Jesus, O.S. Hawkins said, and this era’s question is, “Who do you say that I am?”

“Virtually every epoch of Christian church history has had a question from the lips of our Lord, for whom and to which it was particularly applicable. So much so . . . that it became, for them, the question of their time,” Hawkins said. “We also have a question for our time.”

Hawkins, who was speaking at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, began by saying the era of the apostles was characterized by the question Jesus asked in John 13:38, “Will you lay down your life for My sake?” Hawkins said the question characterized the early church, as men such as Paul, John, Polycarp and Ignatius died martyr’s deaths, laying down their lives for the sake of the Lord.

“Hundreds of thousands of that first epoch of Christian history . . . thousands upon thousands of them met their martyr’s deaths with that question of their time burning in their ears, ‘Will you lay down your life for My sake?’ Because they did is part of the reason we’re here today,” Hawkins said.

The second era, he said, was characterized by the question, “What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He?” That question, he said, was answered by the Council of Nicaea.

“There in that council at Nicaea the church settled, once and for all, that yes, Jesus was coequal and coexistent with the Father,” Hawkins said.

Other questions that followed for other eras were the questions of “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (John 11:40) and “When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

The latter question is used in reference to a period of great Gospel growth led by William Carey, Hudson Taylor and David Livingstone, Hawkins said.

“The great modern missionary movement was launched and began and has been followed by hundreds and hundreds of thousands of others who have gone to the ends of the earth, facing the question of that time, ‘When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?’”

Hawkins mentioned the most recently-completed era as one in which the critical question was, “Will you also go away?” which is found in John 6:61.

“We watched as one mainline denomination after another and another and another went away from the doctrinal truths of their founding fathers and the foundational doctrinal truths of the living God and to follow after liberalism and her twin children of pluralism and inclusivism,” Hawkins said. “Thank God, we who are called Southern Baptists answered the question of our time and decided we would not go away from those truths and stood firm upon the word of God.”

But the “twin children of pluralism and inclusivism” is an issue Hawkins said the church is still dealing with in the current epoch. This period, Hawkins said, is characterized by the question Jesus asked in Matthew 16:15, “But who do you say that I am?”

These two approaches are seen in how the new generation views Jesus, he said. Some people see Him as one way of many to heaven, thus falling into pluralism. Others believe there is no reason to be “born again or saved,” classifying themselves as inclusivists and believing that all people will get into heaven, Hawkins said.

“Who is He? Is He just one of another way to spirituality and to heaven? Or is He who He said he was -- the Way, the Truth and the Life? . . . This is the question of your time,” Hawkins said.

There are two kinds of leaders, he said, those who lead by public consensus and those who lead by personal conviction. The latter, he said, have convictions “in the very core and fiber of their being. They have some convictions about what is right and wrong, and they lead that way, come what may.”

Hawkins said when people lead by public consensus, the result is a rise in pluralistic compromise, political correctness and inclusivism. He said pluralism affects doctrine and what the church believes, and inclusivism affects people’s view of their duty to humanity -- to spread the Gospel.

“There is an alternative to pluralism and inclusivism,” Hawkins said. “It’s what we call the exclusivity of the Gospel of Christ. . . . It smacks in the face of a culture that has gone awry.”

When the Gospel is presented as the only way to heaven and to Christ, people call Christians narrow-minded, he noted. In today’s culture, people accept that mathematical truth is narrow, scientific truth is narrow, geographical truth is narrow and historical truth is narrow, he said.

“So why should we be surprised that theological truth is narrow?” Hawkins asked. “We have the question for our time: ‘Who do you say that I am?’”

________

Lauren Crane is a writer for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate