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.
Dr. Seamands tells of a Muslim who became a Christian in Africa. “Some of his friends asked him, ‘Why have you become a Christian?’ He answered, ‘Well, it's like this. Suppose you were going down the road and suddenly the road forked in two directions, and you didn’t know which way to go, and there at the fork in the road were two men, one dead and one alive -- which one would you ask which way to go?’”
Most American religious believers, including most Christians, say eternal life is not exclusively for those who accept Christ as their savior, a new survey finds.
Of the 65% of people who held this open view of heaven’s gates, 80% named at least one non-Christian group — Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists or people with no religion at all — who may also be saved, according to a new survey released today by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
This means 52% of Christians do not agree with the doctrines many religions teach, particularly conservative denominations.
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, calls the findings “a theological crisis for American evangelicals. They represent at best a misunderstanding of the Gospel and at worst a repudiation of the Gospel.”
This survey on salvation is a follow-up to a highly controversial finding in Pew’s Religious Landscape survey, released earlier this year. It detailed the religious demographics, beliefs and behavior of 35,000 U.S. adults surveyed in 2007.
Pastors, theologians and Christian commentators complained that the Landscape Survey question on access to eternal life — which 70% said was open to many faiths — was too vague. “Did people mean only other religions that are similar to their own, like Baptists grudgingly admitting Lutherans might go to heaven?” said Pew research fellow Greg Smith.
So Pew revisited the topic in a new survey of 2,905 adults with more specific questions. Smith says the new findings reinforce the original finding that “Americans really are thinking quite broadly.”
Christian believers who named at least one non-Christian faith that could lead to salvation included 34% of white evangelicals, even though evangelical doctrine stresses that salvation is possible only through Jesus.
Higher levels of church attendance made some difference, particularly among white evangelical Protestants. But an overall majority (54%) of people who identified with a religion and who said they attend church weekly also said many religions can lead to eternal life. This majority included 37% of white evangelicals, 75% of mainline Protestants and 85% of non-Hispanic white Catholics.
Pew’s new survey also found that many Christians (29%) say they are saved by their good actions; 30% say salvation is through belief in Jesus, God or a higher power alone, which is the core teaching of evangelical Protestantism; and 10% say salvation is found through a combination of behavior and belief, a view closer to Catholic teachings.
The number of those who said actions determine who attains heaven, was lowest (11%) for white evangelicals, highest for white Catholics (47%).
The number of people saying theirs is the only faith that can lead to eternal life increased slightly, from 24% to 29%, between 2007 and 2008. The biggest increase was among white evangelical Protestants — up from 37% to 49%.
Overall, the new findings are “an indictment of evangelicalism and evangelical preaching,” said Mohler. “The clear Biblical teaching is that Jesus Christ proclaimed himself to be the only way to salvation.”
Mohler sees behind the statistics the impact of pluralism and secularism in U.S. society and the challenge of facing family and friends with “an uncomfortable truth.”
“We are in an age when we want to tell everyone they are doing just fine. It’s extremely uncomfortable to turn to someone and say, ‘You will go to hell unless you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus,’” Mohler says.
In America’s celebrity-driven culture, perhaps the most harmful “Pied Piper” of heresies leading millions astray is Oprah Winfrey. Her adoption of anti-biblical doctrine is on display every day this year through her satellite radio network channel “Oprah & Friends.” It’s time for Christians to “just say no” to the big “O.”
In recent weeks, I have received multiple copies of the same e-mail warning Christians about Oprah Winfrey’s promotion of New Age teaching.
Oftentimes, broadcast e-mails are baseless and erroneous -- like the one that warns Madalyn Murray O’Hair is attempting to get the FCC to ban all Christian broadcasting. In spite of numerous repudiations of this bogus warning, the claim continues to float around the Internet.
Sometimes, however, e-mails turn out to be true and worthy of our attention. Such is the case with an e-mail currently in wide circulation concerning Oprah Winfrey’s promotion of A Course in Miracles (ACIM). After receiving multiple copies of the e-mail warning about this matter, I decided to check it out for myself.
Most of the e-mails about this include an article by Warren Smith, a former New Ager and student of ACIM, who devastatingly critiques this false teaching. His November 2007 article is online here: www.crossroad.to/articles2/007smith-oprah.htm. As I’m not familiar with Smith or this Web site, I cannot more broadly attest to him or the site. But concerning ACIM, his warnings are accurate and worth attention.
At the center of ACIM is megastar Oprah Winfrey -- perhaps the most well-known woman in the world. Winfrey’s media empire centers on her long-running and popular television talk show but also includes magazines, movies and her book club, and she is well-regarded for her many philanthropic efforts. Unfortunately, too few understand Winfrey’s devotion to unbiblical teachings, especially the New Age Movement.
Cky Carrigan, an evangelism professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in a helpful article, “How to Evangelize New-Agers” (http://www.ontruth.com/newage.htm), notes Winfrey is the “most influential preacher of New Age ideas,” winning “converts every day in staggering numbers -- many from Baptist churches.”
Carrigan quotes Oprah’s view of Jesus from one of her programs:
Oprah: “There are many paths to what you call God.”
Audience Member: “There is one way and only one way and that is through Jesus.”
Oprah: “There couldn’t possibly be just one way!”
What is the New Age Movement? Carrigan writes: “The New Age Movement is an American and European form of ancient eastern religious beliefs (Hinduism and Buddhism), combined with divination, earth-based religions, self-help theory, alternative healing techniques, astrology and other non-Christian religious practices. Therefore, the New Age Movement is not really new at all, though it is new to America.”
Although New Agers rely upon many sources, ACIM is among the most popular. New Age guru Marianne Williamson is responsible for popularizing the work through her book, “A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles,” while Oprah is to be credited with launching Williamson’s career through her appearances on Winfrey’s talk show.
And now, Williamson is one of the featured stars on the “Oprah & Friends” channel on XM Satellite Radio, reprising her role as advocate of ACIM through a year-long series on the course.
ACIM, however, was not written by Williamson, but by a tag-team of psychologists from Columbia University in New York, Helen Schucman and William Thetford. Schucman, on the ACIM Web site, defers credit for the work, which she merely “scribed.” An “inner voice,” she says was Jesus, told her, “This is a course in miracles. Please take notes.”
From 1965 to 1972, Schuman experienced “Jesus’” voice through “inner dictation.” Thetford joined Schucman in scribing the voice, resulting in ACIM.
Thetford defined the purpose of ACIM as: “To help us change our minds about who we are and what God is, and to help us let go, through forgiveness, our belief in the reality of our separation from God. Learning how to forgive ourselves and others is really the fundamental teaching of the Course. The Course teaches us how to know ourselves and how to unlearn all of those things which interfere with our recognition of who we are and always have been.”
As would be expected from this definition, ACIM is full of heresy, often wrapped in confusing, contradictory, nonsensical rhetoric. Sometimes, however, ACIM is blatantly clear in its false doctrine. And, since Jesus was supposedly the voice heard by Schucman, these assertions are especially outrageous.
For example, Lesson 70, headlined: “My salvation comes from me,” opens with this comment: “All temptation is nothing more than some form of the basic temptation not to believe the idea for today. Salvation seems to come from anywhere except from you. So, too, does the source of guilt. You see neither guilt nor salvation as in your own mind and nowhere else. When you realize that all guilt is solely an invention of your mind, you also realize that guilt and salvation must be in the same place. In understanding this you are saved.”
Contrary to the Bible’s clear teaching that our guilt is the result of the fact that we truly are sinners, separated from God by our sin, and rightfully under God’s judgment for our sin, ACIM teaches that we must realize “all guilt is solely an invention of your mind” and in this realization is salvation.
Warren Smith has helpfully summarized some of the other false doctrine of the course in the previously referenced article:
• “There is no sin.”
• “Do not make the pathetic error of ‘clinging to the old rugged cross.’”
• “The name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol.... It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray.”
• “God is in everything I see.”
ACIM is in wide use, even at the grassroots level in local churches. I came across a promotion of ACIM in the Lufkin (Texas) Daily News Feb. 29 for Unity Church of Christianity which offers the course, noting the “class is designed to teach people how to apply spiritual principles in their daily lives. No experience is necessary, just an open heart and an accepting mind.”
Such is the result of Oprah’s promotion of ACIM. Winfrey’s influence is vast. Tragically, far too many Christians -- including many who would consider themselves conservative, Bible-believing evangelicals -- are more likely to take their theological cues from Oprah than they are from their faithful pastors.
These Christians need to pattern their lives after those of the Bereans who “received the Word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether” what they were being taught was true (Acts 17:11). Because they were rightly concerned with testing what they were taught according to the Scriptures, the Bereans were not likely to fall prey to false teachers.
The Apostle Peter describes the challenge of false teachers and how believers should respond to them in his second letter (2 Peter 2:1-22). He warns against “false teachers ... who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them ...” (v.1). He says “many” believers will be beguiled by the false teachers’ “sensuality,” resulting in the maligning of the truth (v.2). These false teachers are “springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved” (v. 17).
Peter’s warnings are clearly applicable to Oprah, Williamson and A Course in Miracles for undermining the faith with a false gospel and counterfeit “Jesus,” which in the end bring no actual spiritual nourishment or relief. Tragically, these teachers are leading people straight to hell.
Christians should flee from Oprah and her cohorts and recommit themselves to careful Bible study, in the context of a local body of believers with whom they have covenanted for mutual edification and accountability, led by a faithful pastor.
Of course, this isn’t as glamorous as Oprah -- but neither is eternal punishment in hell.
The recent [June 2008] Pew Forum study on religion, widely reported in the media, shows that the vast majority of Americans remains religious: 92 percent believe in God. This percentage has remained relatively stable for more than half a century.
Atheists remain a tiny proportion of the population with some interesting anomalies: 21 percent of self-identified atheists say they believe in God, with nearly 10 percent of them “absolutely sure” of it. What this means is that 21 percent of self-described atheists are highly confused and 10 percent are certified nut-cases.
What got the most attention, however, was Pew’s discovery that a majority of religious Americans believe that other religions make valid claims about God and can lead to heaven. Around 80 percent of Catholics, Protestants and Jews, as well as 55 percent of Muslims, reject the idea that their religion is the only way.
These findings, however, hardly suggest that pluralism has overtaken truth as the defining feature of American religion. First of all, Christianity is the only religion to hold another religion to be wholly true. That religion is Judaism. Second, Catholics and Protestants have become increasingly convinced that it is fidelity to creedal Christianity -- and not the denominational differences of past centuries -- that is decisive for salvation. Finally many people don’t realize that just as Christianity sees itself as succeeding and incorporating Judaism, so Islam sees itself as coming after and incorporating both Judaism and Christianity. Consequently I’m not surprised that most Muslims view Jews and Christians as fellow monotheists rather than hell-bound infidels.
I recently had a debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens and Jewish radio host Dennis Prager. The debate had some fiery and fascinating exchanges. At one point Hitchens sought to alienate me from the Jews in the audience by asking me if good and decent Jews can go to heaven. I said I believe they can. This is no denial of the central Christian proposition that Christ is the way to salvation. The Bible clearly specifies that there is salvation through Christ for his followers.
But Scripture and Christian teaching leave open the question of what happens to virtuous non-Christians who either lived before Christ or who have not had a chance to accept him. My hope and belief is that God’s mercy can extend to them also, as it did to Moses and Abraham and the God-fearing Jews of the Old Testament. If so, they too would be saved through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, even if they did not consciously and explicitly embrace that sacrifice. As for atheists who reject God and affirm with Hitchens that they want nothing to do with heaven, we can be reasonably confident that God will respect their free will and reluctantly grant their wish.
There are two kinds of pluralism: the kind that holds that truth does not matter, and the kind that holds that truth matters greatly but as flawed human beings our reason and experience gives us only limited access to the truth. The first kind of pluralism is deadly for religion, and is typically embraced by flaccid people who are too lazy to think or who have been seduced by postmodernist flimflam. The second kind of pluralism is the shared ground of debate between intelligent believers and unbelievers. The stakes could not be higher.
A June 2008 report by the Pew Research Center revealed some interesting statistics: 57 percent of the evangelical surveyed reported believing that “many religions can lead to eternal life.”
But that result was not as surprising as another discovered by Pew: 21 percent of those who identified themselves as “atheist” said they believe in a God or universal spirit. One must wonder whether many of those polled understood what it means to be an evangelical or an atheist. I also suspect that Kelly Boggs is correct in a recent Baptist Press article that many evangelicals confused the term “religion” with “denomination” -- which, if true, casts doubt on the validity of the 57 percent figure. (A LifeWay Research poll found that 31 percent of Protestant churchgoers believe a person can obtain eternal life through “religions other than Christianity.”) The Pew Forum said that further research will be conducted to answer these questions.
But it would be helpful to understand why Christians in the U.S. who refer to themselves as evangelical believe that other religions can lead to eternal life. Is it a result of cultural influence from political correctness? I have spoken on numerous university campuses and know that many of today’s Christian students, including evangelicals, are biblically illiterate. This is alarming. So, let’s take a look at this matter of whether Jesus is the only way to God.
Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” I must admit that of all the biblical teachings, the claim that Jesus is the only way to God is one of the most troubling for me. Is God being unfair in requiring others to believe only in Jesus in order to get into heaven? Or is it merely a matter of some Christians interpreting the Bible in this manner?
Jesus Himself claimed to be the only way to God. Not only are His claims multiply attested, but His earliest followers Peter and Paul taught that he is the only way (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22; 12:8-9; John 3:36; Romans 10:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:5; Acts 4:12; Heb. 10:26-27). In fact, there are no claims to the contrary by the earliest Christians. Consider these statements of Jesus:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the
Father but through me” (John 14:6).
“For unless you believe that I am who I say I am, you will die in
your sins” (John 8:24).
These are pretty amazing claims. Imagine if a famous Christian pastor were to appear on “Larry King Live” and utter similar statements. We may still regard him as a nice guy who has done much for society. But make no mistake about it: We would also think of him as being a few French fries short of a Happy Meal! Jesus’ claims appear as outrageous today as they were to many of those who heard Him and His disciples utter them. So, what are we to do with Jesus’ unrestrained claims to be the only way to God?
Since many have made similar claims to having the exclusive truth about God, we may first ask whether these claims of Jesus are true. When asked for proof that He was whom he claimed to be, Jesus replied that He would provide only one: His resurrection from the dead. This is a pretty good test and differs from those offered by other religions. The Koran tells us that its divine inspiration is verified by the fact that no human can create a sura like one in it (a sura is an independent chapter, like a psalm. The Koran is composed of 114 suras). The Book of Mormon tells us that God will inform us of its truth if we read it and ask God with a sincere heart to show us whether it’s true.
For anyone interested in taking these tests, read Koran 108:
“Lo! We have given thee Abundance;
“So pray unto thy Lord, and sacrifice.
“Lo! It is thy insulter (and not thou) who is without prosperity.
“It is not difficult to conceive of something else having at least equal beauty and meaning.”
Now, consider Psalm 117:
“Praise the LORD, all nations;
“Laud Him, all peoples!
“For His lovingkindness is great toward us,
“And the truth of the LORD is everlasting.
“Praise the LORD!”
Or how about the following early Christian hymn preserved in 1 Timothy 3:16? It is said that Jesus:
“Was revealed in the flesh,
“Vindicated in the Spirit,
“Seen by angels,
“Proclaimed among the nations,
“Believed on in the world,
“Taken up in glory.”
A Muslim may claim that Koran 108 contains superior linguistic beauty when read in Arabic. But a Christian or Jew may counter that Psalm 117 is a song that contains similar linguistic beauty when read in Hebrew. The hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16 was Greek in its original form and has beauty in both its sound and grammatical structure when read in that language. So the test provided by the Koran boils down to a matter of personal taste. Do you prefer the beauty of Arabic, Hebrew or Greek? This is similar to choosing between Bach, Beethoven and Bernstein.
I have also read much of the Book of Mormon while praying sincerely that God would show me through his Spirit whether it is true. Although I read and prayed, God was silent while a number of archaeological facts weighed against its divine inspiration. So, the tests provided by the Koran and the Book of Mormon are quite subjective.
The test Jesus provided, however, is quite impressive: His resurrection from the dead. Such a test does not depend on one’s personal taste or a warm feeling. He either: 1) rose from the dead confirming his personal claims or 2) He didn’t, revealing Himself to be just another false prophet. Space does not permit me to provide a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection. Gary Habermas and I have done so in a book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.”
If we may assume for the moment that Jesus was truly who He claimed to be, this goes a long way toward reconciling His claim to being the exclusive route to God with the uneasiness it brings. Notwithstanding, there are still a number of objections which pop up that I would like to address. It is my opinion that we can come to terms with most objections to Jesus’ claims to being the only way by answering three rudimentary questions. We will discuss these over the course of my next three columns.
Pop quiz: If you don’t really believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to salvation, would you...
• pray for the lost at home and abroad?
• give hard-earned money to support missionaries around the world?
• consider becoming a missionary?
• participate in mission projects or evangelistic ministries?
• risk your personal safety to spread the Gospel in hostile places?
• encourage anyone in your church or family to take such a risk?
• bother telling your hurting neighbor that Jesus is the answer to his or her desperate questions about life?
No? I didn’t think so. I wouldn’t, either.
If the Good News (Gospel) of salvation in Christ alone is not true, what’s the point of spreading it? That would be hypocrisy, fraud, false advertising, bogus journalism. The Christian mission stands or falls on the exclusive truth of the Gospel -- as does Christianity itself, which has always been a missionary faith.
This basic reality bears repeating -- with increasing urgency -- every time another study of American religious beliefs appears. The latest is the second installment of the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (released in June), compiled from telephone interviews with 35,000 Americans.
The survey explored many aspects of American faith, but the headline statistic was this: “70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation say that many religions -- not just their own -- can lead to eternal life.” Among Protestant evangelicals surveyed, 57 percent agreed with that statement -- including an astonishing 61 percent of Southern Baptists contacted. Solid majorities of several other conservative, evangelical denominations echoed the universalist response.
Some much-needed perspective on the validity of these responses was quickly provided by evangelical commentators (see “Wording of Pew poll question criticized” in Baptist Press June 26). They suspect many evangelical respondents confused the word “religion” with “denomination.”
That suspicion is “bolstered by the fact that among nondenominational church members (responding to the Pew survey), the percentage of those claiming many religions can lead to eternal life is much lower,” Baptist Press reported. “For example, 34 percent of nondenominational evangelicals ... agreed with the ‘many religions’ option” -- still a disturbingly large number, but only about half the percentage of denominational church members who picked the same option.
LifeWay Research, the research arm of LifeWay Christian Resources, also parted company with the Pew survey. As part of a major study to be published in book form this fall, the Southern Baptist entity asked 2,500 Protestant respondents, “How much do you agree/disagree: If a person is sincerely seeking God, he/she can obtain eternal life through religions other than Christianity.” Only 31 percent “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed. Forty percent “strongly” or “somewhat” disagreed. Among self-identified evangelical believers, fully 80 percent disagreed.
That’s reassuring, but the continuing trend in American churches toward mushy theology -- or no theology at all -- is clear.
Brad Waggoner, vice president of the B&H Publishing Group, wrote the forthcoming book “The Shape of Faith to Come,” which explores the results of the LifeWay study. He warns that the “shape of faith to come is in some ways discouraging. Christians are becoming more universalistic and lack biblical views on a host of other issues” -- particularly Christians under age 30.
Christian researcher George Barna, among others, has been sounding the alarm for years about biblical ignorance, theological confusion and the pick-and-choose approach to doctrine among evangelicals. Of all the challenges U.S. churches face, this is the greatest, because it undermines the most basic essentials of the faith: The Lord our God is one. Jesus Christ is His only Son, our only Savior and the only way to forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. He commands His followers to love and worship Him alone, to proclaim the Gospel, to baptize and to make disciples among all peoples of the earth (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8).
Would Jesus’ first disciples have died the martyrs’ deaths most of them suffered for an optional Savior? Would the Apostle Paul have endured innumerable beatings, death threats, chains and imprisonment for a multiple-choice Gospel? Would William Carey have risked and forsaken so much in Bengal? Would Lottie Moon have given her all in China?
I’m thankful that several young Christians believed in Jesus’ unique saving power enough to share it repeatedly with a high school hoodlum lost in sin (me) -- even as I made fun of them. Eventually the message sank in, and I took the Lord’s outstretched hand.
What a loving Lord He is, filled with grace and mercy toward all who seek Him. But He is Lord. There is no other.
________
Erich Bridges is senior writer for the Southern Baptist International Mission Board.
In yesterday’s column I ended by saying we can come to terms with Jesus’ claims to being the only way to salvation by answering three rudimentary questions. Today we will take a look at the first of these questions: What is truth?
When Jesus was brought before the Roman governor Pilate, he said he had come into the world to proclaim the truth. Pilate asked him, “What is truth?” Many today get upset when a Christian repeats Jesus’ claim to be the only true way to God and often respond by saying something like, “Truth is broader than your narrow concept and differs between people.”
So, what is truth?
A statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with reality. My wife Debbie and I have been married for 21 years. Our ideas of comfort differ. She has a lot of German blood and is comfortable in cooler temperatures, while I’m more comfortable in warmer temperatures (my dad was from Honduras). If it’s 70 degrees in our house, she’s turning on the fans and I’m putting on a sweater. In this case, truth is both personal and relative: Debbie is warm and Mike is cool. But there is a truth irrespective of our perceptions: It’s 70 degrees in the room.
This applies in other areas. I’ve always been fascinated with outer space. When I was a child I wanted to be an astronaut. I was glued to the television -– as were most Americans –- when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon. When the Hale-Bopp comet neared Earth in 1997, it was visible to the naked eye. There was also some news at the time related to the comet: A speck appeared in the sky next to it that astronomers claimed was the planet Mars. But the leader of a small cult, Marshall Applewhite, convinced 38 of his “Heaven’s Gate cult” followers that the speck was a spaceship trailing the comet and that it would rescue them from earth before destroying it. Applewhite’s followers trusted him so much that they followed him in committing suicide, believing that the spaceship would take their souls to another galaxy named Heaven.
Let’s assess the truth-claims of the Heaven’s Gate cult. The earth was not destroyed as Applewhite had predicted. And Applewhite was a shady character: he was arrested at age 43 for stealing credit cards and fired from his job as music professor because of what the school called “health problems of an emotional nature.” If we can assess the truth-claims of the Heaven’s Gate cult, we can assess the truth-claims of other religions. There was a truth that is personal and relative: members of the Heaven’s Gate cult said they obtained peace, hope and fulfillment from following Applewhite. But there is an objective truth that holds true for everyone: Applewhite was a false prophet and his followers were duped. Sincere belief to the point of taking their own lives did not change the truth.
Followers of other religions may find that their religious beliefs and practices bring them peace, hope and give them a purpose for living. In fact, a number of valuable benefits have been realized by followers of non-Christian religions. However, if Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive way to God is true, then the following statement is false: Muhammad provided an effective way to be acceptable to God. In other words, a religion can be true in a subjective sense while being false in an objective one. I am interested in following religious teachings that are true in both senses.
I realize that this can be quite offensive. But we must not be so captive to our politically correct culture that we are led astray from truth. Since the truth of a statement can be measured by how closely it corresponds with reality, if Jesus claimed to be the exclusive way to God and rose from the dead in order to confirm his claims, the following statement has a very high probability of being true: Jesus is the exclusive way to God. Tomorrow we will take a look at a second question that will help us come to terms with Jesus’ claim.
A 2008 Pew Forum survey found that 65 percent of Americans believe many religions lead to eternal life -- and that 52 percent of American Christians believe salvation can be found in at least some non-Christian religions.
At a time when American belief is shifting toward religious pluralism -- the idea that all religions are equal in offering truth -- New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary’s annual Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum addressed the question: “Is Christianity the one true religion?”
“The topic is very important given the politically correct, tolerance-laden culture we find ourselves living in today,” said Robert Stewart, director of the Greer-Heard Forum and associate professor of philosophy and theology at NOBTS. “Ultimately we need to take a stand on the clear teaching of God’s Word, which teaches us that Jesus is the only Savior of the world.”
Evangelical Christians as a whole are not embracing pluralism, Stewart said, but some are drifting away from an exclusive view of salvation.
“Some Christians are probably more inclusivistic in their theology than pluralistic,” he said. “The recent Pew Forum survey found that a majority of American Christians believe that some non-Christian faiths lead to eternal life and that 37 percent of those Christians were evangelical Christians.”
The keynote speakers for the forum, Harold Netland of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Paul Knitter of Union Theological Seminary, presented divergent answers to the question of pluralism.
Citing the often-conflicting and contradictory views of various religions, Netland rejected pluralism as a viable option. He argued in favor of the evangelical position that Christianity is the one true religion. Knitter, who identifies himself as a Christian and disciple of Jesus Christ, argued that Jesus “is a way open to other ways.”
Netland opened the forum by acknowledging, “The assertion that Christianity is the one true religion for all people strikes many as hopelessly out of touch with current realities.” Such a claim, he said, “seems to display generous amounts of both intellectual naivety and arrogance.”
“Nevertheless, with proper qualification, I do believe that the Christian faith as defined by the Christian scriptures is true and that this sets the Christian faith apart from other religious traditions,” Netland said.
Affirming the truth of Christianity does not deem all aspects of other religions false; Netland said other religious traditions do contain beauty and goodness -- often in the area of moral and ethical teachings. However, beliefs that are incompatible with essential Christian teachings must be rejected, Netland said.
Netland said he rejects pluralism in part because the major world religions tend to make often-exclusive truth claims. Religious adherents from most traditions are expected to regard the claims of their religion as true, he said. These truth assertions are not meant to be taken as personal or mythological.
“Each religion regards its own assertions as correct or superior to those of its rivals,” Netland said. “When we consider carefully what the religions have to say about the religious ultimate and the nature of, and conditions for salvation ..., there is significant disagreement.”
Netland suggested focusing on the essential or defining beliefs of a religion in determining its truth; a religion is true only if these essential beliefs are true.
“For Christianity to be true, the defining beliefs of Christianity, namely certain affirmations about God, Jesus of Nazareth and salvation must be true,” Netland said. “If they are true, Christianity is true.”
Netland said that some argue for “epistemic parity” among religions. Epistemic parity holds that no religion can claim rational superiority over another religion because the data is insufficient to prove one claim over another. Netland, however, sees epistemic parity as an argument for agnosticism rather than pluralism.
“For if there are not good reasons for accepting any single religious tradition as true, why should we suppose that all of them collectively are equally true?” Netland said.
On the other hand, Knitter claimed that true Christianity would never make an exclusive claim to truth. He offered a case for pluralism based on four categories: history, ethics, theology and Scripture.
“If we look at our history, there has been a change in Christian beliefs about this question,” Knitter said. “Although at one time, almost all the churches held firmly that Christianity is the only true religion, today many Christian churches do not.”
Knitter cited the 2008 Pew Forum study as evidence that many Christians are moving away from a belief in Christianity as the one true religion.
“The fact that our question has already been answered by a broad group of Christians ... we have to take [this] into consideration,” he said. “Our job as theologians is to work with what people are actually believing.”
Knitter said the shift away from an exclusive belief in Christianity has not diminished the commitment or discipleship of individual Christians. He argued that a further shift could be made -- a complete shift to religious pluralism.
Knitter noted that viewing Christianity as the one true religion carries the danger of hindering dialogue among the religions.
“The religions of the world have a moral obligation to engage each other in a peacemaking dialogue,” Knitter said. “Dialogue is the mutual exchange to which all sides seek to help each other grow in the knowing and the doing of what is true and what is right.”
Dialogue is impossible, however, if one side makes an exclusive claim to religious truth, Knitter argued, saying it is a grievous error to hinder dialogue.
If dialogue is “a moral imperative,” he said, “what impedes a moral imperative looks to be immoral itself.”
Exclusive claims to truth not only impede dialogue, but such claims can foster violence, Knitter said. While rarely the cause of violence, he said exclusive truth claims can rally followers to a leader’s cause.
In his theological case for pluralism, Knitter appealed to God’s love. He said that “the God of Jesus is a power of pure unbounded love” and that the New Testament’s teachings show God’s desire to see all people saved.
“As my teacher back in Germany, Karl Rahner, insisted, ‘if God wants to save all people then God will act in a sure way as to make this a real possibility for all people,’” Knitter said. “Rahner went on to claim that the religions are among the most available and ready at hand ways in which God will make this offer of His saving grace. A God who loves all will offer that love to all.”
For his scriptural argument, Knitter claimed that the exclusive language of the New Testament is confessional language, or love language that was intended to be superlative, not exclusive. Statements such as “no other name,” “one mediator,” and “no one comes to the Father except by me” are meant to communicate something positive about Jesus, not something negative about other religions, Knitter said.
“I must confess my faith that Jesus is indeed the way that is open to other ways and that in order to be a faithful follower of this Jesus I must recognize and engage the truth that the Spirit may be offering me in my Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Native American and Shinto brothers and sisters,” Knitter said.
Knitter closed with the famous quote from Martin Luther: “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.”
During the response time, Netland sought clarification on a number of points from Knitter in areas such as application of Scripture, the meaning of truth in religion and the religious ultimate.
“How exactly is the New Testament ... normative for us today?” Netland asked. “How does Paul Knitter understand the concept of truth in religion?”
Netland also asked Knitter to explain his view of the religious ultimate (God).
Knitter did not directly address Netland’s questions but was content to present a further argument on the nature of religious language. Appealing to the mystery of God, Knitter said all of human language about God is symbolic, poetic and metaphoric.
This religious language, Knitter said, calls people to action. For him, right practice should be emphasized over right belief.
“Orthopraxis has a certain primacy over orthodoxy. The two are essentially related and you can’t have one without the other,” Knitter said. “The truth of a symbol will be in its ability to affect our life. Religious truth is truth for me when it enables me to find a context in which I find meaning and purpose.”
After the event, Greer-Heard director Robert Stewart said he hopes students learn to be “both properly charitable and properly critical in evaluating claims with which they disagree.” While he disagrees with the position of Knitter and other pluralists, Stewart sees value in engaging their ideas. He hopes exposure to scholars such as Knitter will help NOBTS students better defend the truth of Christianity.
“As a philosopher I don’t find the hermeneutical arguments that pluralists make on this point strong enough to overcome the case for the traditional reading of passages like John 14:6 and Acts 4:12,” Stewart said. “The purpose of the Greer-Heard Forum, however, is that we are training Christians for ministry in today’s world and must thus trust that we have given them what they need to interact critically with the wide range of opinions that they will encounter in real-world ministry.”
Begun in 2005, the Greer-Heard Forum provides a platform for dialogue between a noted evangelical scholar and a non-evangelical academic on matters of faith and culture. The event is designed to teach students, ministers and laypeople how to interact with a person from an opposing view.
[Article on inclusiveness from a (very) liberal Baptist perspective]
In 2 Samuel 7, David wants to build God a house, but God doesn’t want a house. Perhaps one reason God doesn’t want a house is because once a house is built, the temptation will forever be to limit and confine God to God’s house, which is what we so often do with our creeds and doctrinal statements and our particular religious traditions.
I certainly did. I was trained in a particular tradition that taught certitudes about God and discouraged serious questions and inquiry. Now, don’t misunderstand me. There is nothing wrong with worshiping and serving God in a particular house, in a particular tradition. In fact, it is important to be able to call some place home. But when we start thinking that our house is the only house where God can dwell, then we severely limit our understanding and experience of God.
More Christians will come to this awareness and will embrace a more inclusive faith when they realize that “the Christ” cannot be confined to Jesus. The best in our Christian scriptures and traditions point to this. For Christians, Jesus of Nazareth is our quintessential revelation of the Word made flesh. Jesus is our definitive expression of what God looks like and how God loves. That’s the house we live in. For us Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He is our way into the heart and nature of God. But that, of course, is not true for a Buddhist or a Hindu for example.
The divine reality that we call “the Christ” is big enough to include Buddhists and Hindus and their way of coming to know and experience God. Jesus is our way of knowing and experiencing God, but “through Jesus” is not the only way to know and experience God, because “the Christ,” while including Jesus, is a much larger and greater reality than the man, Jesus. Our scriptures suggest as much.
In the early preaching of Jesus reflected in Acts, the titles Lord and Christ are assigned to Jesus after God raised him from the dead (Acts 2:36). However, this early preaching points us beyond a direct equivalence between Jesus and the Christ. In Acts 2 the “man” Jesus is emphasized as the one put to death: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power (2:22) ... this man, handed over to you ... you crucified and killed (2:23) ... But God raised him up (2:24).” Then it is the raised up/exalted Christ (whose title includes Jesus) who pours out the Spirit (2:33). A clear distinction is made between Jesus and the Spirit and yet the Spirit, usually referenced as the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts, is also called the Spirit of the Lord (Acts 5:9; 8:39). The Spirit is clearly not “the man” Jesus. So, while Jesus is raised/exalted and given the title Lord and Christ, the reality that is intended in these two designations is larger and greater than the man Jesus.
Paul, in his letters, makes it clear that he understood the designation “Christ” to be broader and more inclusive in meaning than what is meant when simply “Jesus” is referenced. For Paul, the title “Christ” or the “Spirit of Christ” includes Jesus — Jesus is the unique human revelation of the Christ — but the Christ is a greater reality than the human Jesus. Christ is not Jesus’ last name. It’s not Jesus the man who indwells us and empowers us, but rather the Spirit of Christ — the very Spirit that “filled” and “led” Jesus of Nazareth and empowered his ministry.
For example, Paul uses the term Spirit interchangeably with “Christ.” In Romans 8:9-11 the terms “Spirit,” “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ” and simply “Christ” are all used interchangeably. Clearly the Christ or the Spirit of Christ is not the exact equivalent of Jesus of Nazareth who lived among us and whom God raised up.
Paul spoke of Christ living in us (see in addition to Romans 8:10 also Col. 1:27 and Gal. 2:20). Paul often spoke of our being “in Christ” and Christ being “in” us. Clearly, Paul understood Christ to be a more inclusive, larger, greater, broader, universal reality than the earthly and limited divine/human person of Jesus of Nazareth.
In 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 Christ is identified as both the Lord and the Spirit. Paul even says that “the Lord is the Spirit” that works in our lives now transforming us into Christ’s image. Jesus is the Christian’s definitive expression of that image. So the Christ image includes Jesus but is not confined to Jesus, or else how could the Christ be in us? It is not the man Jesus whom God raised from the dead who is in us, but the Christ. As we are able to see and reflect that image, we are progressively transformed “from one degree of glory to another.”
Incarnation can never be limited to one house, to one person or tradition. Incarnation was happening before Jesus, it was happening after Jesus, and it’s happening right now, hopefully in your life and mine. Paul understood this, and this is why he called us the body of Christ. He even envisioned a universal restoration and reconciliation where all things in heaven and on earth are brought together in Christ (Eph. 1:10, also Col. 1:20). Paul (or if not Paul, then a disciple of Paul carrying Paul’s teaching to its logical conclusion) apparently believed it was not a question of “if” but “when.” Perhaps he reasoned from his own encounter with the Christ that once the light of God’s mercy and grace breaks into one’s experience, no one will resist it.
Paul, according to Luke, told the philosophers in Athens “we are all God’s offspring” and in God (the Spirit, the Christ) “we live, move, and have our very being” (Acts 17:28). Paul goes on to argue that since we are all God’s offspring we all ought to repent and live a transformed life (17:29ff). Faith is a matter of claiming and becoming who we already are.
The wonder and mystery of “the Christ” is that we cannot not live in the presence of God. We are totally surrounded by God all the time everywhere. The prayer attributed to Saint Patrick captures it well: God beneath you, God in front of you, God behind you, God above you, God within you. We do not earn this. It’s all grace. But our experience of this Mystery is largely a matter of being tuned in, being aware, being able to trust and surrender to this Greater Love at work everywhere all the time.
How long will it take for God’s children to realize what a big house God lives in?
For Americans who are both political junkies and faithful churchgoers (guilty as charged), Sunday mornings can mean a painful choice between watching the Sunday talk shows for scoops (or gaffes) from newsmakers, or attending services to meditate on the wisdom of ancient scripture and tradition.
But thanks to Brit Hume and “Fox News Sunday,” we didn’t have to choose. On yesterday’s program the panelists were discussing predictions for the coming year and when talk turned to Tiger Woods, Hume weighed in with some serious preachifying:
“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a
person, I think, is a very open question. And it’s a tragic
situation.... But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies
out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, seems to me to
depend on his faith.
“He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind
of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.
So my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and
you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’”
Bet a lot of churchgoers didn’t get such a straightforward sermon. And how many preachers got in a shot at Buddhism? At THE DAILY DISH, Andrew Sullivan blasted “the pure sectarianism” of Hume’s comments and got in a good line about “the slow morphing of Fox News into the 700 Club.”
Hume’s homily was understandable, because, well, this is Fox News, but also because Hume himself reconnected with his faith in a serious way after his son committed suicide in 1998 and his faith clearly carried him through. As USA Today’s Cathy Grossman NOTES, in a 2008 INTERVIEW with The Hollywood Reporter on the occasion of his retirement as FNC’s Washington bureau chief, Hume said this when asked what he wanted to do in retirement:
“I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done.
I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business.
I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son
died, I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a
person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what
you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time,
you’re not really living it.”
In his “Fox News Sunday” remarks, Hume was correct in that BUDDHISM DOES NOT have the same concepts of forgiveness and redemption. But Buddhism certainly provides paths for healing and the kind of recovery that Hume seems to be talking about. And there have been any number of rebuttals from Buddhists, as rounded up at USA Today’s FAITH & REASON site. Among my favorites is Kyle Lovett, a.k.a. THE REFORMED BUDDHIST:
Could Hume get away with saying something like this about Jewish people
or Black People or the Muslim Faith? You betcha he couldn’t. Why
should he be able to skate away scot-free when speaking about Buddhists?
Christians may have some quibbles as well. From what I can tell, Hume’s framing of his altar call to the wayward golfer raises at least two debatable points:
One is the purpose of Christianity: It is eternal salvation through belief in Jesus Christ. That is the entry point, the foundation of it all. Christian belief should lead believers to behave in upright ways, to sacrifice themselves totally, and to live as Christ did. But if that happens, it is really a welcome result of belief. In his remarks, Hume almost sounds like all those Christian “life coaches” and prosperity gospel preachers who see Christianity as a means to a happy and successful life. Christianity is more about what has been called “the sanctification of failure,” namely through Jesus on the cross. In that sense Tiger has plenty of opportunity to be a witness.
The other problem with Hume’s comments is that they are contradicted by so much evidence. Anecdotally, one need look no further than the sanctimonious Christian politicians-turned-philanderers, or the many high-profile pastors who turn out to have feet of clay. Statistics also show that Christians are as likely to divorce or abort as everyone else, and Bible Belt states often have much higher rates of marital breakdown and teen pregnancy than other regions.
So Buddhism -- or any number of other religious or secular philosophies -- could get Tiger to the Promised Land that Brit Hume wants for him. (Though RUMORS of Tiger partying it up in the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan would lead one to believe he isn’t listening to Pastor Brit or any other religious leader at the moment.)
On the other hand, there’s a good argument to be made that Tiger should just do what he does best: play golf. That’s the direction in which “Fox News Sunday” regular William Kristol, who was clearly nonplused at Hume’s comments, hoped to steer the conversation:
“Well, Brit is concerned about Tiger’s soul, which is admirable. I’d
just make a more straightforward sports prediction, which is that he’ll
come back and win the Masters. Because, you know, he’s still an awfully
good golfer, despite the chaos and bad news about his personal life.”
Any takers on Woods at the Masters?
It’s amazing how many celebrities wreck themselves trying to ride a motorcycle. The long list includes Bob Dylan, Ben Roethlisberger, Gary Busey, Liam Neeson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, T.E. Lawrence, Keanu Reeves, Duane Allman, and French actor Gerard Depardieu, who’s been in over a dozen crashes, one of them breaking a leg in five places. But he keeps riding, saying he’ll never be able to give up the “feeling of freedom.”
When I see professing Christians, indeed professing preachers, go goofy over Gandhi, I think of the amateur motorcycle enthusiasts enjoying the frisson of their first rides. Despite generous biblical warning, they jump on the Gandhi machine and roar down the road toward pluralism. I have no doubt it makes them feel good and the waves and cheers from the sidewalks can be intoxicating. But the cost is dreadful.
Which brings us to Rob Bell, author of the hot-seller, “Love Wins.”
He begins his book with an anecdote and some “penetrating” questions. His church held a “peacemaking” art show, and one of the pieces featured a quote from Gandhi. When someone attached a piece of paper saying, “Reality check: He’s in hell,” Bell headed to the Harley dealership:
“Really? Gandhi’s in hell? He is? We have confirmation of this? Somebody knows this? Without a doubt? And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?” (page 7)
First, it’s important to note what he doesn’t say. He might have attempted a conciliatory defense, something like this: “Granted that Gandhi needed to accept Jesus as his Savior and that, without Christ, he did, indeed, face hell, we can still appreciate some of his words. And though this is a Church-sponsored show, it doesn’t hurt to draw from outside sources for wisdom. Indeed, all truth is God’s truth. Besides, the Mahatma might have privately turned to the Lord for salvation in the days or moments before his death. We’ll never know this side of the grave. We can only pray that he had a heart change which he didn’t have time to express.”
Of course, Bell has no taste for this. He’s saying something else -- that such a great, sensitive guy as Gandhi may well have gotten into heaven on some sort of great-sensitive-guy track.
Actually, he doesn’t quite have the oomph to say this, so he goes the haughty-question route, which protects the “inquirer” from heresy charges, even elevating him above the merely orthodox to the higher plane of disinterested, non-parochial reflection. This approach is akin to that taken by those who want to slam something but they prefer to test the waters before they commit, as in “What did you think of today’s chapel speaker?” A bit less than manly, I would say.
I suggest that Bell catch up on his reading. He might start with Richard Grenier’s 1983 book, “The Gandhi Nobody Knows,” a reaction to adulation generated by Richard Attenborough’s worshipful and Oscar-winning film, “Gandhi.” Or Andrew Roberts’ “Among the Hagiographers” in The Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ review of the new Gandhi bio, “Great Soul” by Joseph Lelyveld, picks up on the book’s evidences that Gandhi was in no more position to stand in the judgment on his own merits than anyone else.
Check out these sources and you’ll find that Gandhi was callous toward his wife and kids. He was contemptuous of God’s good gift of sexual intimacy within marriage while, at the same time, taking grotesque liberties in intimacy. Though he softened his stance toward “untouchables,” renaming them “children of God,” he never rejected the Hindu classification system. He urged the English to surrender to Hitler, while he, himself, refused to surrender to Christ. And you can read the rest.
Of course, Gandhi was fortunate that he took on the British. His efforts would not have gone down so well had the colonialists been Muslim, Shinto or Stalinist. And he’s been very fortunate to enjoy the adulation of those inclined to declare him spiritually acceptable if not transcendent. But it’s time for a reality check. As Jesus said, in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” That’s true for Gandhi as well as for you and me.
________
Mark Coppenger is professor of Christian Apologetics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and director of the seminary’s Nashville extension. This column first appeared at the blog of BibleMesh.com, a Christian website with the goal of helping “people learn the comprehensive story of Scripture” and applying “it to all aspects of life.”
It’s not fashionable to talk about “the truth” in matters of religion. A popular objection to religious tradition goes, “I don’t believe that any single religious tradition can claim to have figured out the truth. Look at how many different religions there are. Look at their different cultural backgrounds, their different basic assumptions. How could anyone rationally adjudicate between all their contesting claims about ultimate reality? And if no rational decision can be made between them, then it’s sheer arrogance for any religion to make an absolute and exclusive claim to the truth.”
The problem with this popular sentiment — what I call “the pluralistic objection” — is that it leaves itself with nowhere to stand. For we are all in the business of making exclusive truth-claims, even though we all stand within some particular perspective or tradition. I think that these two facts are not incompatible, and that it still makes sense to talk about “the truth,” even in this pluralistic age.
I see three positions that the pluralist objector might adopt.
The first is a kind of strong atheism: the “I think all religions are false” view. The problem with this view is that it is inconsistent with the original objection. Declaring that a religion is false is itself an absolute truth-claim. So strong atheism is not an option for the pluralist objector.
The second possibility is to say, “I think all religions are equally true.” This is the view that all religions are really saying the same thing. They are different paths up the same mountain. Their truth-claims are not exclusive but complementary.
The natural response to this view is to ask (politely) whether the objector has truly listened to what all the different religions are actually saying. Religions disagree with each other about the nature of ultimate reality. Christians say that the man Yeshua of Nazareth was in fact the same person who created time and space. Muslims and Jews say he wasn’t. They do not believe that they are talking about or responding to the same ultimate reality in different ways.
One might reply that, deep down, all religions are expressing the same ultimate reality, and they just don’t realize it. But to say “they just don’t realize it” is an absolute truth-claim at least as sweeping and audacious as any religious truth-claim. So this view is not an option for the pluralist objector, either.
The third view rightly rejects the claim that all the paths are headed up the same mountain, but is still incredulous that any one religion could have the whole truth. The solution, under this view, is to recognize the salvageable bits of each religion: “I think all religions get some things right and other things wrong. I believe what Jesus taught about mercy and forgiveness, but not the final judgment. I believe the Taoist doctrine that true power comes from stillness, but not the doctrine of yin and yang.” And so on.
The problem is, if the objector ever intends to say which bits of any religion are right and which bits are wrong, she must replace those religious truth-claims with her own equally absolute truth-claims. The objector must become their own private religious authority. And this too seems incompatible with the pluralistic objection.
The pluralistic objection is no defeater for the exclusive truth-claims of religious tradition. It is perfectly possible to respect other religions, to practice tolerance and open-mindedness, whilst also defending the claim that “there is truth and I think I’ve found it.” That is not necessarily arrogance. As G. K. Chesterton said, “The purpose of an open mind, like an open mouth, is to close on something solid.”
So where does this leave us? How does one adjudicate between religious traditions? I can only begin to sketch an answer here, and it begins with trying to view the world through the lenses of each religion. And that means participating in religious community. As Markus Bockmuehl has remarked, there’s only so much you can say about stained glass windows of a chapel from the outside.
I remember when I first got glasses. “Tell me which is clearer. One ... or two ... one ... or two,” said the optometrist. I remember my astonishment when I put on the finished glasses and my world (I had never realized how foggy it was) suddenly became clear as crystal. I remember thinking, “People aren’t supposed to be able to see this far.”
Eventually I came to accept that my vision, in its natural state, was not in fact optimal or normative, and that this new, bright, sharp-edged world was truly what people were “supposed to be able to see.” It made the old world more intelligible.
________
Stephen G. Mackereth (Harvard class of 2015) is a joint mathematics and philosophy concentrator living in Mather House. He is editor-in-chief of the Harvard Ichthus, a journal of Christian thought and expression.
You cannot buy your way into heaven.
You know this, but rich people think a little differently. Back in 2006 Warren Buffett announced that he was giving his fortune to charity. At the time Buffett was worth $44 billion just in stocks. He said he was giving away $37 billion. Most of it went to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. By anyone’s thinking ... that’s a lot of money.
When he presented his gift to the Gateses, he made the remark, “There is more than one way to get to heaven, but this is a great way.”
It is certainly a generous gift, but not a sufficient to get to heaven. $37 billion is not enough. Only the blood of Jesus can get you in.
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.
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
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]
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.
*
Apathetic about the unsaved? Here's how to put spark back in your witnessing.
Main questions: Are people really lost? Terminology seems too harsh. We prefer to call sinners "seekers." Is Jesus the only way? Multiculturalism rejects this.
1. Catch the passion from others.
2. Open your eyes.
3. Put yourself in their position.
4. Study their biblical fate.
5. Ask God for a "divine appointment."
6. Be imitators of Jesus.
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
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.
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]
"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)
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]
A June 2008 report by the Pew Research Center revealed some interesting statistics: 57 percent of the evangelical surveyed reported believing that “many religions can lead to eternal life.”
But that result was not as surprising as another discovered by Pew: 21 percent of those who identified themselves as “atheist” said they believe in a God or universal spirit. One must wonder whether many of those polled understood what it means to be an evangelical or an atheist. I also suspect that Kelly Boggs is correct in a recent Baptist Press article that many evangelicals confused the term “religion” with “denomination” -- which, if true, casts doubt on the validity of the 57 percent figure. (A LifeWay Research poll found that 31 percent of Protestant churchgoers believe a person can obtain eternal life through “religions other than Christianity.”) The Pew Forum said that further research will be conducted to answer these questions.
But it would be helpful to understand why Christians in the U.S. who refer to themselves as evangelical believe that other religions can lead to eternal life. Is it a result of cultural influence from political correctness? I have spoken on numerous university campuses and know that many of today’s Christian students, including evangelicals, are biblically illiterate. This is alarming. So, let’s take a look at this matter of whether Jesus is the only way to God.
Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” I must admit that of all the biblical teachings, the claim that Jesus is the only way to God is one of the most troubling for me. Is God being unfair in requiring others to believe only in Jesus in order to get into heaven? Or is it merely a matter of some Christians interpreting the Bible in this manner?
Jesus Himself claimed to be the only way to God. Not only are His claims multiply attested, but His earliest followers Peter and Paul taught that he is the only way (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22; 12:8-9; John 3:36; Romans 10:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:5; Acts 4:12; Heb. 10:26-27). In fact, there are no claims to the contrary by the earliest Christians. Consider these statements of Jesus:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the
Father but through me” (John 14:6).
“For unless you believe that I am who I say I am, you will die in
your sins” (John 8:24).
These are pretty amazing claims. Imagine if a famous Christian pastor were to appear on “Larry King Live” and utter similar statements. We may still regard him as a nice guy who has done much for society. But make no mistake about it: We would also think of him as being a few French fries short of a Happy Meal! Jesus’ claims appear as outrageous today as they were to many of those who heard Him and His disciples utter them. So, what are we to do with Jesus’ unrestrained claims to be the only way to God?
Since many have made similar claims to having the exclusive truth about God, we may first ask whether these claims of Jesus are true. When asked for proof that He was whom he claimed to be, Jesus replied that He would provide only one: His resurrection from the dead. This is a pretty good test and differs from those offered by other religions. The Koran tells us that its divine inspiration is verified by the fact that no human can create a sura like one in it (a sura is an independent chapter, like a psalm. The Koran is composed of 114 suras). The Book of Mormon tells us that God will inform us of its truth if we read it and ask God with a sincere heart to show us whether it’s true.
For anyone interested in taking these tests, read Koran 108:
“Lo! We have given thee Abundance;
“So pray unto thy Lord, and sacrifice.
“Lo! It is thy insulter (and not thou) who is without prosperity.
“It is not difficult to conceive of something else having at least equal beauty and meaning.”
Now, consider Psalm 117:
“Praise the LORD, all nations;
“Laud Him, all peoples!
“For His lovingkindness is great toward us,
“And the truth of the LORD is everlasting.
“Praise the LORD!”
Or how about the following early Christian hymn preserved in 1 Timothy 3:16? It is said that Jesus:
“Was revealed in the flesh,
“Vindicated in the Spirit,
“Seen by angels,
“Proclaimed among the nations,
“Believed on in the world,
“Taken up in glory.”
A Muslim may claim that Koran 108 contains superior linguistic beauty when read in Arabic. But a Christian or Jew may counter that Psalm 117 is a song that contains similar linguistic beauty when read in Hebrew. The hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16 was Greek in its original form and has beauty in both its sound and grammatical structure when read in that language. So the test provided by the Koran boils down to a matter of personal taste. Do you prefer the beauty of Arabic, Hebrew or Greek? This is similar to choosing between Bach, Beethoven and Bernstein.
I have also read much of the Book of Mormon while praying sincerely that God would show me through his Spirit whether it is true. Although I read and prayed, God was silent while a number of archaeological facts weighed against its divine inspiration. So, the tests provided by the Koran and the Book of Mormon are quite subjective.
The test Jesus provided, however, is quite impressive: His resurrection from the dead. Such a test does not depend on one’s personal taste or a warm feeling. He either: 1) rose from the dead confirming his personal claims or 2) He didn’t, revealing Himself to be just another false prophet. Space does not permit me to provide a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection. Gary Habermas and I have done so in a book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.”
If we may assume for the moment that Jesus was truly who He claimed to be, this goes a long way toward reconciling His claim to being the exclusive route to God with the uneasiness it brings. Notwithstanding, there are still a number of objections which pop up that I would like to address. It is my opinion that we can come to terms with most objections to Jesus’ claims to being the only way by answering three rudimentary questions. We will discuss these over the course of my next three columns.
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]
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.
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate