34 Sermon Illustrations on Pluralism

Jesus ministered in a pluralistic world, filled with Judaism and pagan

mythology and philosophy. When Jesus stood upon the Mount of Temptation and

turned his back upon the opportunity to control the economic, political,

military and religious systems of the world, he chose a Messiahship that would

worship the one true God alone and embrace a kingdom that was not of this

world. Although his life had its share of encounters with a profoundly

pluralistic society, His focus remained constant. Both His speeches and His

silences directed His examiners to issues of truth, spiritual reality and His

own divine mission. He refused to be deflected from His path to the Cross.

#1543

*

As America becomes more religiously pluralistic, Christians should demonstrate tolerance and knowledge of different philosophies about God, said an Atlanta researcher, author and professor.

Tolerance, however, does not mean Christians must accept other religious claims as true, Bill Craig told Southern Baptist interfaith witness leaders March 20.

"The concept of tolerance implies that you disagree," Craig said. "You can't tolerate something you agree with.

"Toleration is treating those with whom you disagree with respect and charity. The correct basis of tolerance is the inherent worth of the individual, who has rights to free speech."

Free speech includes sharing the gospel, but Christians should be prepared to encounter people with radically different views of God, Craig said.

To know what others believe, "do a lot of listening," Craig recommended. They may not have the principles of their beliefs logically formulated, and by listening Christians can find opportunities to witness.

For example, some people practice a principle Craig called "verificationism." They doubt claims that God exists and that God created the world because they cannot be proven with the five senses.

Yet Craig noted many ethical, metaphysical and aesthetic statements cannot be proven with the five senses either.

"Mystical anti-realism," common in the New Age movement and many Eastern religions, is the burning issue of today, Craig said. This belief is that God cannot be understood by human thought, so all people can do is have a mystical experience with him.

Mystical anti-realism teaches thoughts about God -- such as God exists -- are meaningful, but are neither true or false, Craig said. The theory denies a philosophical teaching called the principle of "bivalence" which says statements must be either true or false.

"No reason could ever be given for adopting mystical anti-realism. It could only be embraced by an irrational leap of faith," he said.

The philosophy Craig defined as "perhaps the most wild" is radical pluralism. This contends each person constitutes reality for himself, and objective truth does not exist. The basic attitude is, "That may be true for you, but not for me."

People who adhere to radical pluralism for their theology would have to refuse science and law as well, Craig said, because they also are based on principles of truth.

A group Craig called "skeptical agnostics" don't know what to believe about God, he said. They would say the existence of God and the meaning of life are issues too deep for humans to understand and it is impossible to know the truth.

That approach is "personally unlivable," Craig said, because "it leaves undecided man's deepest questions." It offers no objective standard of what is right and wrong and no hope of life after death, so people live totally for themselves.

Searchword: News Copyright (c) 1995 Baptist Press

RNb5322bmrwB5322k5323

#3942

*

Plymouth Rock -- Plymouth, Massachusetts

Thus out of small beginnings greater things have been produced by

His hand that made all things of nothing, and gives being to all

things that are; and, as one small candle may light a thousand,

so the light here kindled hath shone unto many, yea in some sort

to our whole nation; let the glorious name of Jehovah have all

the praise!

-- Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, p. 236

With these words, Governor William Bradford summarized the beauty and greatness of the Pilgrim vision. It is my contention that no vision of the modern Christian era was more brilliantly conceived, more blessed of God, or enjoyed a more far-reaching effect on humanity, than that which was conceived in a little church in Scrooby, England, transported on a vessel called the Mayflower, birthed in a township called Plymouth, and matured into a distinctively Christian nation called America.

From the beginning their message was simple: Let the Bible be a man's guide for worship and life. Remove your children from evil influences and train them to think generationally. Be willing to lose everything, even one's own life, for the mere opportunity to be a "stepping stone" for Christians yet to be born. (See page 21, OF PLYMOUTH PLANTATION).

How could Bradford have imagined the depth of God's blessing on this vision?

Could he have dreamed that 382 years after he and his compatriots landed, descendants of the original MAYFLOWER families could be found in the Pilgrim congregation still gathering on the plot where the original church met? Could he have foreseen that from the fifty-two intrepid survivors of that first harsh winter of 1620, more than twenty million descendants would arise to populate a great new nation? Could he have hoped for a day when the core principles articulated in the Mayflower Compact would inspire the very charters undergirding the law system of a nation destined to spread the Gospel to the world?

THE SYMBOL of SYMBOLS

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

Then there is the rock. That controversial, but glorious slab of stone around which patriots plotted, Presidents proclaimed peace, and orators overwhelmed audiences with polemics and prose. Notables like John Quincy Adams, Edward Everett, Daniel Webster, and Calvin Coolidge would each visit Plymouth Rock on Founder's Day to proclaim its enduring significance as America's symbol of symbols. Could Bradford have really contemplated a day when the very rock upon which Mary Chilton, that first pilgrim to disembark from the Mayflower's shallop unto the New World, would become a national icon to independence and a relic to religious freedom?

It was in 1741 that a ninety-five-year-old man would plead with his town folk to carry him to the rock. Before he died, the man insisted, he needed to once more visit the spot where his father had taken him as a boy and urged him to think generationally. Now, in the twilight of his own life, it was his turn to exhort the people to remember the rock as a symbol of the great covenant between God and the Pilgrim fathers. His name was Thomas Faunce, the esteemed elder of the Pilgrim congregation. Edward Winslow, Jr. recorded the event:

"...It was represented to Elder Faunce that a wharf was to be

erected over the rock, which impressed his mind with deep

concern, and excited a strong desire to take a last farewell of

the cherished object. He was then 95 years old, and resided

three miles from the place. A chair was procured, and the

venerable man conveyed to the shore, where a number of the

inhabitants had assembled to witness the patriarch's benediction.

Having pointed out the rock directly under the bank of Cole's

Hill, which his father had assured him was that which had

received the footsteps of our fathers on their first arrival, and

which should be perpetuated to posterity, he bedewed it with his

tears, and bid to it an everlasting adieu."

THE PILGRIM'S REGRESS

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

For more than two centuries, the grateful spirit of Elder Faunce lived on. Plymouth Rock would stand as a testimony to this vision of William Bradford and his heroic brethren. But in recent years, both the vision of Bradford and the rock which symbolized the blessing of providence have been reduced to little more than a quaint children's story; and the very story of the Pilgrims has been subject to a spate of radical historical revisionism bent on de-Christianizing the story of the Pilgrims, or simply interpreting their activities in light of Marxist social welfare theories. The new historians assure us that the nobility of the Pilgrim cause is simply myth. They proclaim the prejudice of past generations of preachers and patriots, even as they insist on the enlightenment of modern historians, a class of interpreters finally free from bias, misogyny, and, above all, Christian religious bigotry. There seems no end to the creativity with which they rewrite the Pilgrim story. Sadly, even Plymouth has been affected.

Last year we reported on the desecration of the Plymouth monuments by political radicals, and of the blackmailing of the town of Plymouth to erect historical revisionist monuments describing Thanksgiving as a "national day of mourning," and linking the Pilgrims to genocide.

This year we can report that visitors to Plymouth who board the MAYFLOWER II will learn that the Pilgrims came to America, not for reasons of faith, but purely out of financial motives; and those strolling through the museum in the visitor center of Plymouth Plantation will learn about the "myth of Thanksgiving." Even so, there is great hope...

PROGRESS for PILGRIMS

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

With thanks to God, I am pleased to report that the tide is turning in the battle for "America's Home Town." God has blessed the prayers and supplications of those who still believe that our history is worth defending. This year, the Vision Forum Ministries Faith & Freedom Tour returned to Plymouth to proclaim the truth of America's past. More than 150 of us gathered at Plymouth Rock, beside the great stone sarcophagus housing the remains of the Pilgrims who did not survive the first winter, at the colossal eighty-one-foot statue to Christian liberty called the Forefather's Monument, and by other beloved sites. We gathered to remember, to proclaim truth, but also to stand as witnesses to one of the most remarkable providences of God to come to Plymouth in more than a century: The restoration of Plymouth's past by the spiritual progeny of William Bradford.

*

In a recent television interview, Charlie Rose questioned Frank McCourt, best-selling author of "Angela’s Ashes," about his spirituality. McCourt likened all of the world’s religions to a smorgasbord or buffet before him, and he takes a little of this from here and a bit of that from there - whatever pleases him. Needless to say, religious truth is not what it used to be, and any appeals to absolutes in religion or elsewhere are considered power plays at best and discriminatory at worst.

The Apostle Paul, living in a pluralistic culture, was convinced that the Christian faith departs from other faiths in a significant way. Allow me to explain. Paul was a man of many cultures: Hebrew by birth, educated in a Greek city, a citizen of Rome. Each of those cultures had its own ideals and its own metaphor for ultimate reality. Specifically, the Hebrews gave to the world our moral categories; the Greeks have given us our philosophical categories; the Romans, our legal categories.

For the Hebrew the great pursuit of life was symbolized by light: "The LORD is my light and my salvation - whom shall I fear?" "The true Light which gives light to every man was coming into the world." For the Hebrews, light said it all.

For the Greeks, the ultimate goal was knowledge. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." "I know whom I have believed," said Paul. For the Romans, the epitome of life was symbolized by glory. Rome was a city to which all roads led. It was not built in a day. It was the eternal city - you’ve heard of the glory of the Roman Empire, the glory of the Caesars.

So we have light, knowledge, glory; the ideals of these three great cultures. Writing to believers in a city that embodied all three influences, Paul said, "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, [has] shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

How that captures every longing and ideal! All are ultimately shown to us in a face. Here we see the ultimate expression of God, the culmination of God’s revelation. It was not restricted to the philosophy of Greece, the spiritual experience of the Hebrews, or the glory of an earthly city. "Do you want to see God?" ask the writers. Look at the face of Christ. That face beckons you not to a smorgasbord of fleeting tastes but to a life of eternal joy.

_________________________

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

*

One is never more aware of pluralism’s sticky presence then when sitting in a round table discussion about faith. Like a wad of well-chewed gum that has been stepped in again and again, the strings of religious thought and life are many, and often messy, sticking to our souls at times unbeknownst and unannounced. In the end, the sticky web is not only hard to identify for what it once was, but everyone feels polluted by it. On a bad day, this is my hopeless image of the pluralistic world around me. In this picture, pluralism is far more than a mere plurality of options, but an intricate mesh of amalgamating outlooks, ideas, objectives, and practices.

Our current cultural landscape takes on both kinds of pluralism in this sense -- plurality and relativism. There are more options and isms at our reach than we know what to do with. There is also the sense that all of these options are relative, easily mingled, and chosen by personal preference. For the Christian who confesses one choice, which is not relative, nor chosen because it is preferred but because it is true, it often seems we must resign ourselves to cultural naysaying or else abandon unpopular views and join the chaos. But perhaps there is another option. We indeed live in a world where the challenge of pluralism is greater than ever because the scope of pluralism is extraordinary. Yet while this may lend itself to gloomy pictures of being stuck in horrific webs of chewing gum, the reality of our pluralistic context can also carry with it images of opportunity and hope.

As it did for Paul who used the signs of all religions to point specifically to one, pluralism can present an occasion for believers to engage a world that is “very religious in every way” (Acts 17:22). It can bring out questions that may not otherwise have been asked -- Is Buddhism really claiming anything different than Christianity? Is this particular belief something scriptural or something cultural? -- thus serving as a catalyst for examination and discovery. Our pluralistic context can also offer us a chance to live without the social power we have grown used to, without the cultural control, or the comfortable existence that so often becomes the faith’s downfall. Author John Stackhouse adds: “[M]ulticulturalism and extensive religious plurality can offer an opportunity for Christians to shed the baggage of cultural dominance that has often impeded or distorted the spread of the gospel. It may be, indeed, that the decline of Christian hegemony can offer the Church the occasion to adopt a new and more effective stance of humble service toward societies it no longer controls.”(1)

There is no doubt our present situation is riddled with the stickiness of choice and the command of preference. But for those willing to receive it, our current context of can be a fruitful gift. Like Paul, we will no doubt discover that the obstacles often stand taller than we realized and the words we have to offer fall short. Our pluralistic world wants very little to do with a great many of the things we profess. It is therefore all the more vital that we live the apologetic we attempt to preach among the barrage of choices before our neighbors. While we cannot profess that following Christ will bring fortune or erase hardship, or that discipleship will come easily or without cost, we can portray the coherence of the Christian worldview, the primacy of Christ beside life’s inescapable questions, and the hopeful reality of forgiveness, justification, sanctification, and new life. In the words of one of the first believers to recognize the apologetic of authentic living in a world of many gods, idols, and ideologies: we are to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with the God we profess. This, the world will notice whether they are listening or not.

Into this unique culture, we offer the message of Christ crucified, a message that runs counter to every culture that has ever heard it. But take heart! As with every challenge faced in the life of the Christian, we are reminded that Jesus himself told us that we would have trouble, but that he would be near.

________

1. John Stackhouse, Jr., HUMBLE APOLOGETICS: DEFENDING THE FAITH TODAY (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 36.

________

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 #19810]

You may have heard the famous story of the blind men and the elephant. In this story, a king leads several blind men to an elephant and asks them to describe it. The blind man feeling the elephant's leg says it is strong and straight like the trunk of a tree. The blind man holding the elephant's tail says it is long and flexible like a rope. The man feeling the elephant's side feels a great immovable wall, and the one touching the trunk says that it reminds him of a large snake.

This story is usually told to point out that among the plurality of world religions, each contains only a portion of the total truth. It suggests that very disparate ideas can be connected. People who tell this story want to make the point that if we could just see the total picture, we would forsake our disagreements and our exclusive claims and realize that we are all, so to speak, feeling the same elephant.

But if one leaves the story at that, its whole point is missed. Lesslie Newbigin, in his book THE GOSPEL IN A PLURALIST SOCIETY, points out an important and often overlooked aspect of this story. He writes, “If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king, and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world's religions are only groping after.”

None of us can make the claim that we see the full picture of truth. We all have access to only a small part of the total picture, just as each blind man could only feel one appendage of the elephant. Yet, we can't underestimate the fact that we have been spoken to by one who is not blind, by the king who has the whole perspective. The idea of revelation is central to the Gospel. God has made the truth known, and we are supposed to spread it as news. Paul writes, “This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:9b-10).

God has always had the total perspective; ours has always been limited. But God, in his mercy, brought us out of darkness into light by making known his perspective. He revealed Himself to the patriarchs through direct conversation, to Israel through the prophets, to the first Christians through the apostle's teaching, and to us through the record of all these things in his Word. Most importantly, God revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ, by becoming a man and speaking to us from our perspective.

We rely on other's perspectives all the time. We get our traffic reports from cameras in helicopters, our history books from people who died hundreds of years ago, and our medical diagnoses from tiny cameras in our bloodstream. We do not consider it foolish to rely upon these things because they give us information that we cannot obtain on our own. Likewise, it is not foolish to rely on the perspective of the King, the one who can see even into our hearts. As Christians, we do not need to make apologies for our bold truth claims. They are not based upon our own limited perspective, but on the testimony of one who can see perfectly. His view of reality is more trustworthy than ours, because He has seen the beginning of the story and knows the end.

____________

Copyright © 2003 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 added to HolwickID #13907]

THE LETTER TO DIOGNETUS: [The English Text of this letter follows Dr. Haykin's paper]

AN EARLY CHRISTIAN DEFENCE OF THE TRUTH IN THE PLURALISTIC ROMAN EMPIRE

DR. MICHAEL A. G. HAYKIN

Principal, The Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College

130 Gerrard Street East

Toronto, Ontario M5A 3T4

By and large the writings of the New Testament era as well as those from the period immediately following, the works of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, are concerned with establishing the faith and discipline of Christian communities. They are works that generally address those within the fold of Christianity. After 150 A.D., though, there is a noticeable shift in the orientation of Christian literature. There is now a significant stress on what we call apologetics, that is, the presentation of reasons for holding to the Christian faith, the attempt to answer the ridicule and objections of unbelievers, and an attack on alternative world-views in the Graeco-Roman world, exposing their inadequacies and problems for belief.

The Letter to Diognetus, a spirited, stirring defence of the truth of the Christian worldview, is one of the most attractive of these second-century apologies. In fact, Avery Dulles, in his A History of Apologetics, describes it as "the pearl of early Christian apologetics." {Note 1} It stems from the joyous faith of a man who stands amazed at the revelation of God's love in his Son and seeks to persuade a Graeco-Roman pagan by the name of Diognetus to make a similar commitment to the Christian faith. Who wrote this marvellous Christian letter we do not know. From the Greek of the letter it can be observed that "the author was a Christian of cultured mind, with a Classical training, who was possessed of considerable literary skill and style." {Note 2} Nor is the identity of Diognetus, the recipient, known, though some have speculated he may have been one of the tutors of the philosopher-emperor, Marcus Aurelius. {Note 3} Furthermore, beyond the fact that this masterful apologetic was written within the bounds of the Roman Empire, the geographical location of its author is also unknown. However, we do have some idea of its date. There is evidence within the text that would place it in the final quarter of the second century A.D. {Note 4}

Before we look more closely at its reasoned defence of the Christianity, a word should be said about the intriguing circumstances by which we have come to possess this document. We owe our knowledge of the text to a single thirteenth-century manuscript which was discovered in Constantinople in 1436. A western scholar happened upon it in a fish shop where it lay under a pile of wrapping paper. There is little doubt that it would have been used to wrap up a sale if the scholar had not rescued it! At some point in the following century three copies of it were made. The manuscript then disappeared until 1793-1795, when it reappeared at the monastery of Maursmünster in Alsace. At that time the thirteenth-century manuscript was deposited in the university library of Strasbourg. It was good that copies of it had been made for on August 24, 1870, the library was burned to the ground as Prussian artillery pounded the city during the Franco-Prussian war.

One further aspect of the text of the letter should be mentioned. There are three major lacunae in the text, at 7.7, 10.1 and 10.8. Apparently when the letter was discovered portions of the manuscript had been gnawed by mice! The last of these gaps is the most serious for it comes right at the end of the letter, and so we do not know how the text actually ends.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 1

In the first chapter, the author notes that Diognetus is interested in learning about the Christian faith. In fact, he has three specific questions that he wants answered: read Diognetus I. The first of these questions is rooted in the fact that the Greeks and Romans regularly accused the early Christians of being "atheists." They were "atheists" since they refused to worship the Greek and Roman gods. The second question is indeed noteworthy. Many pagans were struck by the way that the early Church was a community of love, something very different from their own experience of social relationships. The final question has its basis in the Roman reverence for antiquity. What was true had to be ancient. {Note 5} The recent origin of Christianity thus posed a major stumbling-block for acceptance of its truth claims.

It is fascinating to note the final sentence of this initial section of the letter. "I ask of God, who bestows on us the power both of speech and of hearing, that it may be given to me so to speak that you may be edified as much as possible by your hearing, and to you so to hear that I by my speaking may suffer no regret." This is nothing less than a prayer for Diognetus' conversion. In other words, the author clearly assumes that the embrace of Christian truth cannot come from reason alone. God's Holy Spirit must give Diognetus the ability "to hear" the truth.

Incidentally, this sentence also tells us something of the importance placed upon speech in Graeco-Roman society. The author does not write of "writing and reading" but of "speech and hearing." This letter, like most of the letters of the ancient world including those of the New Testament, would have been dictated to a scribe. And when it was received, the recipient would read it aloud, not silently as we would. There is a well-known passage in Augustine's Confessions in which Augustine recounts coming upon the northern Italian bishop Ambrose, who was instrumental in his conversion, reading in a garden. What Augustine found most striking was the fact that he could not hear Ambrose. It was obvious that the bishop was reading, but he was doing it in a way completely foreign to the mores of the ancient world. When one read, one pronounced the words out loud. Libraries must indeed have been very noisy places!

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 2-4:

THE FOLLY OF GRAECO-ROMAN IDOLATRY

The first three sections of the letter after the opening chapter contain a vigorous attack on both Graeco-Roman paganism and Judaism. The former engages in the folly of worshipping the products of human imagination and technology (2.1-10). The latter, the author admits, worships the true God, but with a wrong understanding, for the Jews think God stands in need of their sacrifices (3.3-5). The frontal attack made upon Graeco-Roman paganism is particularly instructive about the way in which the second-century Church went about defending its faith in a pluralistic culture.

The Greeks and Romans were unashamedly polytheistic. Their universe was peopled with innumerable gods and divine spirits. Forests and fields, homes and places of employment, earth, sky and water were thought to be filled with these beings. The Apostle Paul mentions this popular understanding of the universe in 1 Corinthians 8:5 when he states that his culture knew of "many gods and many lords" in heaven and on earth. But, the Apostle goes on in the following verse, whatever his Greek and Roman contemporaries might believe, he and his fellow Christians were assured that there was but "one God, the Father" and "one Lord Jesus Christ." As for the Greek and Roman gods the early Church recognized that they were, in Paul's words, "nothing in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:3). Undoubtedly they "existed" for those who worshipped them, but from the standpoint of reality they simply did not exist. They were, as Paul says in his speech on Mars' Hill, a classic defence of the Christian perspective on life, "something shaped by art and man's devising" (Acts 17:29).

Drawing upon this monotheistic foundation and critique of Graeco-Roman idolatry, the author of the Letter to Diognetus seeks to first show Diognetus that the gods and goddesses whom he worships are nothing more than the products of human technology: Diognetus 2.2-6. This passage is not only indebted to the Pauline texts that we have noted above. It also goes back to passages in the Old Testament which ridicule the foolishness of the idolatry of the pagan nations around Israel. Consider, for instance, Jeremiah 10:3-10. {Note 6}

The author then seeks to reason with his pagan correspondent. By rejecting their society's idolatry, Christians have drawn upon themselves the opprobrium of their fellow citizens (2.6). But, in fact, are not those who worship these gods and goddesses more disrespectful of them? Diognetus 2.7-8. The author could say a lot more about the folly of Graeco-Roman religious rites and views, but he suffices with one final comment: "Christians are not in bondage to such gods" (2.10). To understand this comment one must bear in mind the Apostle Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians of the idolatry of his day. Paul, as we have seen, maintained first of all that the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses had no objective reality. Yet, he went on to argue, this did not mean that pagan religion was harmless. In fact, it was "the locus of demonic activity, and … to worship such ‘gods' is in fact to fellowship with demons" (1 Corinthians 10:19-20). {Note 7} These demonic powers used traditional Greek and Roman religion with its various rites and myths as so many masks to ensnare men and women and so bring them into a state of bondage. {Note 8} Conversion to Christianity then not only meant coming to the realization that Graeco-Roman religion was a "grand illusion," {Note 9} but also spelled freedom from the tyranny of numerous demonic powers.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 7-8:

THE "MASTER AND MAKER OF THE UNIVERSE"

A good defence of the Christian faith not only displays the problems with rival worldviews, but also sets forth how Christians view the world. Thus, after the author of this second-century apology has differentiated Christian worship from that of Judaism (3.1-4.6) and discussed the ways in which the Christian life-style is at once identical to and yet radically different from that of their pagan neighbours (5.1-6.10) {Note 10}, he turns to answer his friend's first question: who is the God in whom Christians trust?

The writer begins by indicating that the Christian concept of God is not the product of human thought or philosophy. He has already mentioned this fact back in chapter 5: "This lore of theirs [i.e. Christians] has not been discovered by any design and thought of prying men, nor do they champion a mere human doctrine, as some men do" (5.3). Now, in chapter 7, he gives a much fuller statement: Diognetus 7.I-2. Here the author affirms unequivocally that Christian truth is ultimately not a matter of mere human reason or religious speculation. Rather, it is rooted in God's revelation of himself. The writer assumes that ultimately we can know nothing about God unless he reveals himself.

The same point is made yet a third time in 8.1-5. Two philosophical speculations about the nature of God are here mentioned and rejected, both of them from the earliest period of Greek philosophy. The first, the assertion that God is fire comes from the philosopher Herakleitos of Ephesus (fl. 500 B.C.), who could also make the pantheistic statement: "God is day and night, summer and winter, war and peace, fullness and want." The declaration that God is water appears to be a reference to the Ionian thinker Thales (fl. 580-540 B.C.), the father of Greek philosophy. Unlike some of his Christian contemporaries, notably Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165 A.D.), who regarded Greek philosophical thought as playing an important, albeit subordinate, role in preparing Graeco-Roman civilization for the gospel, the writer of this letter flatly asserts the opposite. In the words of H. G. Meecham, "All such strivings after God are discredited." {Note 11} God was unknown before he revealed himself (8.5), and that revelation was made through the incarnation of his Son: Diognetus 7.2.

From a scriptural perspective, God's revelation of himself certainly preceded the incarnation. As we read in Hebrews 1:1-2, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son." Failure to take into account God's revelation of himself in the Old Testament era will cause problems for the author of this letter when he comes to answer Diognetus' question concerning the antiquity of Christianity. But more on this later.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 7:

THE "BELOVED CHILD"

Christianity, then, is ultimately not a human attempt to find God, be it by philosophical speculation or religious ritual. Rather, it is founded on God's revelation of himself, and that in a person, his Son. Although the personal name of the incarnate Son, Jesus, is not mentioned in this text, there is no doubt that this is the person of whom the author writes so eloquently. The Son, by whom God made the heavens and the earth (7.2) {Note 12}, was sent to reveal God: Diognetus 7.4-5. These lines reveal a high Christology indeed. Who is this One whom God sent to reveal himself? Well, he is "a son." He is sent "as God." When he called men to repentance and faith, it was God who was calling. As L. B. Radford comments: "He is God so truly that His coming can be described as the coming of God." {Note 13}

That he does not belong to the order of creation is also clear from 7.2. Whatever the precise import of the various names listed at the beginning of this verse — "some servant," angel, ruler, "one of those who administer the affairs of earth," "one of those entrusted with the ordering of things in heaven" — the Son's dominion over the entirety of nature, and by implication his deity, is trumpeted forth.

A reasoned defence of the Christian faith cannot, therefore, leave out of consideration the person of Christ. Indeed, upon his uniqueness the entirety of the faith hangs.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 8-9:

THE ANTIQUITY OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE CROSS

This discussion of the way in which God has revealed himself opens the way for the author to provide an answer to what would have been a basic question for most peoples in the Roman Empire, be they Jew, Greek, or Roman: "why is it that this new race of men or mode of living has entered into our world now and not formerly?" (Letter to Diognetus 1) It was axiomatic among the ancients that what was true was old and what was new was questionable and probably false. This raised an obvious problem for those seeking to convince men and women of the truth claims of Christianity, for Christianity took its rise from the appearance of Christ. The standard answer among Christian apologists was that the Old Testament era predicted the coming of Christ. Seen in this light, Christian truth had a much better claim to antiquity than either Greek or Roman thought, neither of which were over a millennium old.

The Letter to Diognetus, however, does not take this approach. Earlier, in the sections dealing with Judaism, the author had taken such a hard stance against Judaism (3-4) that the impression is given that Judaism was of no value at all, not even as a forerunner of Christianity. Thus, the author is forced to argue: Diognetus 8.9-9.2.

Even though this argument is probably the only major weakness of the letter, it does provide yet another support for embracing the Christian faith. The author argues that God revealed his plan of salvation to none but his "beloved Child" until men realized their utter and complete inability to gain heaven by their own strength. Then, when men were conscious of their sin and the impending judgement, God … Diognetus 9.2-5. This is a truly marvellous text, as the author, overwhelmed by what took place at the cross, is lost in rapture and wonder. Here, as so often happens in the writings of Paul, theology gives way to doxology. Yet, the doxological nature of this passage should not lead us to overlook the way that it also contributed to the author's defence of the Christian worldview. Why should the truth claims of Christianity be weighed seriously? Because, unlike other religions, it deals decisively with the problem of human sin. The renowned historian of this era, Henry Chadwick, puts this point well when he states that one of the major reasons for the growth of the church was the fact that the gospel it preached "spoke of divine grace in Christ, the remission of sins and the conquest of evil powers for the sick soul, tired of living and scared of dying, seeking for an assurance of immortality." {Note 14}

This passage also reminds us surely that apologetics, though using reason, need not be dry and lifeless. It can, and should, speak to the heart as well as to the mind.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 10:

THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND MARTYRDOM

Finally, the author of this letter presents two "evidences" for the truth of Christianity. The first is the Christian community. Diognetus, like many other pagans, had been amazed at the love shown by Christians for one another. Listen to the way that Lucian of Samosata (ca. 115-ca. 200 A.D.), a pagan satirist, portrays the Christian church in his satire The Passing of Peregrinus, which deals with the career of a shyster by the name of Peregrinus. For a while in his career Peregrinus pretended to be a Christian, and in fact, became a teacher in a Christian community in Asia Minor (now modern Turkey). Finding himself in prison for his professed faith, Peregrinus was soon the centre of attention from members of the church. "First thing every morning," Lucian wrote, "you would see a crowd of old women, widows, and orphans waiting outside the prison" bringing him "all sorts of food." In fact, Lucian went on to say, Christians "are always incredibly quick off the mark, when one of them gets into trouble like this — in fact they ignore their own interests completely." And why do they do this? Well, Lucian explained to his pagan audience, the Christians' "law-giver," by whom he means Christ, "has convinced them that once they stop believing in Greek gods, and start worshipping that crucified sage of theirs, and living according to his laws, they are all each other's brothers and sisters." {Note 15} Coming from a pagan author not at all well-disposed towards Christianity this is a remarkable testimony to the way in which many early Christian communities were centres of love.

Pagan life was characterized by passions quite different. "Living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another" (Titus 3:3) is the way that Paul depicts the social fabric of the Empire in the first century. No wonder, then, Christian communities stood out like brilliant lights in a dark firmament (see Philippians 2:14) and no wonder Diognetus asked, "what is the affection they [i.e. believers] have for one another? (Letter to Diognetus 1)" The answer is found in the final extant chapter of the letter: Diognetus 10.2-7. Christians love one another because God first loved them and showed that love through the sacrificial gift of his own beloved Son. Embracing the Son's death for one's sins by faith alone (see 8.6) leads to a desire to imitate God, the great lover of mankind. And it is in the mutual love of believers for one another and for their neighbours that evidence will be seen that "God lives in heaven" (10.7). Christian love is thus one key evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 5-6:

EARLY CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Further discussion of the remarkable nature of these Christian communities is found in Diognetus 5. Christians are not, the author stresses, distinguished from their culture by virtue of their geographical location, language, or customs of dress, food and other matters of daily life (5.1-2, 4). In other words, Christians did not seek to escape from involvement in their society. Yet, their worldview did draw certain lines of demarcation between themselves and their surrounding culture. The fact that they were destined for heaven, "a world of holy love," to quote a later Christian author, Jonathan Edwards, meant that their lives in this world were ordered differently from that of their pagan neighbours. In essence, they lived in the world, but did not belong fully to it: Diognetus 5.5, 8-9.

In particular, this paradoxical relationship to their society is well seen in their attitude towards child exposure and sexual expression. In common with the rest of Graeco-Roman society Christians married and bore children (5.6a). Unlike their culture, however, they utterly refused to endorse the practice of child exposure: 5.6b. This practice was common throughout the Graeco-Roman world for such reasons as having too many mouths to feed, an unwillingness to divide one's worldly wealth among too many heirs, etc. A frank statement of this practice has been found recently in a letter written around the year 1 B.C. by a man who was away on a business trip. His pregnant wife in Alexandria, who was about to give birth, was instructed as follows: "When you give birth, if it is male leave it, if a female, cast it out." {Note 16}

A second area where the Christian communities differed radically from their culture was in the area of sexual ethics: Diognetus 5.7.

A second piece of evidence has to do with the way that Christians respond to the hatred of Graeco-Roman society towards the church. This hatred and the Christian response to it is mentioned a number of times in the letter. For example, see Diognetus 5.11-17. As this passage lays bare, Christians were verbally abused by their fellow Greeks and Romans, despoiled, put on trial as evil-doers, and condemned to death. Notice, how they reacted: with love: 5.11.

The mode of execution varied, for Roman punishment was tailored to the social status of the criminal rather than the crime. Thus beheading was' the major form of execution for citizens of the Empire who committed a capital offence. Others would be exposed to a whole range of horrific means of execution, including burning and being mauled to death by ferocious beasts. Both of the latter are mentioned in this letter. In 10.8 we read of believers who "endure for righteousness' sake the fire which is but for a season." And at the close of chapter seven the author mentions death by "wild beasts": Diognetus 7.8. Notice the way in which the author views the martyrdoms of believers. They are, first of all, a means by which the church grows. As the North African theologian Tertullian (fl. 190-215 A.D.) put it: "the blood of the martyrs is seed." Second, the author of the Letter to Diognetus, sees in the steadfastness of the martyrs nothing less than a proof for the truth of the martyrs' testimony. Apologetics in the early Church took place not only by means of reasoning through the spoken word and such tracts as this letter, but also in the midst of horrific martyrdoms. Justin Martyr, who himself was martyred, was brought to Christ by watching the way that believers died in the arena. "When I myself revelled in the teachings of Plato," he tells us, "and heard the Christians misrepresented and watched them stand fearless in the face of death and every other thing that was considered fearful, I realized the impossibility of their living in sinful pleasure." {Note 17} 17 Similarly, Tertullian spoke of the apologetic power of those who shed their blood for their love of Christ: "whoever beholds such noble endurance will first, as though struck by some kind of uneasiness, be driven to enquire what is the matter in question, and, then, when he knows the truth, immediately follow the same way." {Note 18}

LESSONS

1) Vital importance of prayer;

2) Answer the questions being asked;

3) Use of the Scriptures, God's divine revelation;

4) Focus on Christ and the human condition;

5) Importance of the Christian community as a vehicle of witness.

~~~~~ Footnotes to above paper ~~~~~

1. A History of Apologetics (New York: Corpus Instrumentorum / Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 28.

2. L. W. Barnard, “The Enigma of the Epistle to Diognetus” in his Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background (New York: Shocken Books, 1966), 172. For a listing of possible authors, see ibid., 171-172

3. See the discussion of Dulles, History of Apologetics, 28-29.

4. See the discussion of Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), 178-179. Barnard (“Epistle to Diognetus”, 172-173) would date it no later than 130 A.D.

5. Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1984), 21-22.

6. See also the critique of idolatry in extra-biblical Jewish literature, for instance, The Wisdom of Solomon 13.10-15.17. It should be noted that there was also a long philosophical tradition among the Greeks that ridiculed the superstitions of polytheism. See Dulles, History of Apologetics, 23.

7. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1987), 370.

8. Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom. Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), 27.

9. This description is that of Brown, ibid., 27.

10. For a discussion of chapter 5, see Bruce Fawcett, “Similar yet Unique: Christians as Described in the Letter to Diognetus 5", The Baptist Review of Theology, 6, No.1 (Spring, 1996), 23-27.

11. “The Theology of the Epistle to Diognetus”, The Expository Times, 54 (1942-1943), 98.

12. For biblical attestation of this same truth, see John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2.

13. The Epistle to Diognetus (London: 1908), p.39. See also Joseph T. Lienhard, “The Christology of the Epistle to Diognetus”, Vigiliae Christianae, 24 (1970), 288.

14. The Early Church (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1967), 55.

15. The Passing of Peregrinus 11-13 [trans. Paul Turner, Lucian: Satirical Sketches (Harmondsorth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1961), p.11] .

16. P. Oxy. 4.744.

17. Apology 2.12.

18. To Scapula 5.

___________________________________________________________________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS

[This is the English text only from "The Epistle to Diognetus: The Greek Text with Introduction, Translation, and Notes" by Henry G. Meecham, (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1949), pages 75–89. For presentation purposes the style of the notes and document have been changed. Technical notes ("ad loc") referenced are not included in this document.]

I

SINCE I perceive, most excellent Diognetus, that you are exceedingly zealous to learn the religion of the Christians and are making very clear and careful inquiry about them — both who is the God in whom they trust and how they worship Him, so that all disdain the world and despise death, and neither account those to be gods who are esteemed such by the Greeks, nor observe the superstition of the Jews; and what is the affection which they have for one another; and why it is that this new race of men or mode of living has entered into our world now and not formerly — I welcome this eager desire in you, and I ask of God, who bestows on us the power both of speech and of hearing, that it may be given to me so to speak that you may be edified as much as possible by your hearing, and to you so to hear that I by my speaking may suffer no regret.

II

1. Come then, clear yourself of all the bias that occupies your mind, and get rid of the habit that deceives you, and become as it were from the beginning a new man, as one too who is to hear a new story, even as you yourself also acknowledged. See not only with your eyes, but also with your understanding, what substance or form they chance to have whom you declare and esteem to be gods. 2. Is not one a stone, like that which we tread on, another bronze, no better than the implements which have been forged for our use, another wood already decayed, another silver, which needs a man to guard {Note 1} it lest it be stolen, another iron eaten through by rust, another earthenware, not a whit more pleasing than that made for the meanest service? 3. Are not all these of perishable matter? Have they not been forged by iron and fire? Did not the sculptor fashion one of them, the brass-worker another, the silversmith another, the potter another? Before they were modelled by these men's arts into the form of these gods, was not each of them subjected to transformation — and still is so even now — at the hands of each artificer? Might not the vessels now formed out of the same material, if they met with the same workmen, be made similar to such images as these? 4. Again, could not these things which are now worshipped by you become at the hands of men vessels like the rest? Are they not all dumb? Are they not blind? Are they not without souls? Are they not destitute of feeling? Are they not without motion? Are they not all rotting away? Are they not all in course of decay? 5. These things you call gods! These are what you serve! These you worship and in the end you become like them! 6. For this reason you hate (the) Christians — because they do not think that these are gods. 7. For is it not you, who, although you consider and think that you are praising the gods, are much more despising them? Are you not much rather mocking and insulting them, when you worship those of stone and earthenware, which you leave unguarded, and yet those of silver and gold you lock us at night and in the day-time set guards by them, lest they be stolen? 8. And by the honours that you think to offer them you are punishing them rather, if indeed they are endued with sense; but, if they lack sensibility, you are refuting {Note 2} them by the very fact of worshipping them with blood and steaming fat. 9. Let anyone of you endure this treatment, let him bear with these things being done to him! Nay, there is not a single man who will, if he can help it, suffer this infliction, for he has sense and reason. But the stone suffers it, for it has no feeling. You do not then (by your offerings) show up its sensibility! {Note 3} 10. Well, I could say many other things about the fact that Christians are not in bondage to such gods. But if to anyone even these arguments should not seem sufficient, I think it needless to say more.

III

1. In the next place I suppose that you arc especially anxious to hear why they (Christians) do not worship in the same manner as the Jews. 2. The Jews indeed, since they abstain from the religion described above, rightly deem that they worship the one God of the universe and think of Him as Master; but in offering this service to Him in like fashion to those already mentioned they go utterly astray. 3. For whereas the Greeks furnish an example of foolishness by making offerings to images void of sense and hearing, these Jews ought rather to consider it folly maybe, not piety, in thinking that they are offering these things to God as though He were in need of them. {Note 4} 4. For "He who made the heaven and the earth and all things that are in them" and provides us all with what we need would not Himself need any of these things which He Himself supplies to those who imagine that they give to Him. 5. But those who think that they are rendering due sacrifices to Him by blood and fat and whole burnt offerings, and that they are doing Him reverence by these tributes, seem to me in no way better than those who show the same lavish honour to deaf images. For the one class seem to offer sacrifices to things unable to partake of the honour, the other to Him who is in need of nothing.

IV

1. But, in truth, I do not think that you need to learn from me that, after all, their qualms concerning food and their superstition about the Sabbath, and the vaunting of circumcision and the cant of fasting and new moon, are utterly absurd and unworthy of any argument. 2. For how can it be other than unlawful to receive some of the things created by God for man's use as created ‘good' and to refuse others as useless and superfluous? 3. And is it not impious to slander God as though He forbids the doing of a good deed on the Sabbath day? 4. And to glory in the mutilation of the flesh as evidence of their election, as if they were on this account especially beloved by God — does this not call for derision? 5. And their star-gazing and watching of the moon, so as to observe months and days and to distribute at their own inclinations the orderings of God and the changes of the seasons, making some into feasts and others into times of mourning — who would consider this an example of piety and not much more of folly? 6. Well then, I think that you have learned sufficiently that Christians are right in keeping aloof from the general fatuity and deceit and from the meddlesomeness and pride of the Jews; but as for the mystery of the Christians' own religion, do not expect to be able to learn this from man.

V

1. For Christians are distinguished from the rest of men neither by country nor by language nor by customs. 2. For nowhere do they dwell in cities of their own; they do not use any strange form of speech or practise a singular mode of life. 3. This lore of theirs has not been discovered by any design and thought of prying men, nor do they champion a mere human doctrine, as some men do. 4. But while they dwell in built Greek and barbarian cities, each as his lot was cast, and follow the customs of the land in dress and food and other matters of living, they show forth the remarkable and admittedly strange order of their own citizenship. 5. They live in fatherlands of their own, but as aliens. They share all things as citizens, and suffer all things as strangers. Every foreign land is their fatherland, and every fatherland a foreign land. 6. They marry, like all others; they breed children, but they do not cast out their offspring. 7. Free board they provide, but no carnal. bed. 8. They are "in the flesh", but they do not live "after the flesh". 9. They pass their days on earth, but they have their citizenship in heaven. 10. They obey the appointed laws, yet in their own lives they excel the laws. 11. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. 12. They are unknown, yet they are condemned; they are put to death, yet they are made alive. 13. "They are poor, yet they make many rich". They suffer the lack of all things, yet they abound in all things. 14. They are dishonoured, and yet are glorified in their dishonour. They are evil spoken of, yet are vindicated. 15. "They are reviled, and they bless"; insulted, they repay with honour. 16. When doing good they are punished as evildoers; suffering punishment, they rejoice as if quickened into life. 17. By the Jews they are warred against as foreigners, and are hunted down by the Greeks. Yet those who hate them cannot state the cause of their hostility.

VI

1. Broadly speaking, what the soul is in the body, that Christians are in the world. 2. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians throughout the cities of the world. 3. The soul dwells in the body, but is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, but "are not of the world". 4. The soul, itself invisible, is guarded in the body which is visible; so Christians are known as being in the world, but their religion remains unseen. 5. The flesh hates the soul, and, though it suffers no wrong, wars against it, because the flesh is hindered from indulging its pleasures; so too the world, though in no wise wronged, hates Christians, because they set themselves against its pleasures. 6. The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and the limbs; so Christians love them that hate them. 7. The soul is enclosed within the body, but itself curbs {Note 5} the body; and Christians are detained in the world as in a prison, but themselves restrain {Note 6} the world. 8. The soul, though immortal, dwells in a mortal tabernacle; and Christians sojourn among corruptible things, awaiting the incorruptibility which is in heaven. 9. When faring ill in food and drink the soul becomes better; so Christians when buffeted day by day flourish the more. 10. To so high a rank has God appointed them, and it is not right for them to refuse it.

VII

1. For this is not, as I said, an earthly discovery which was committed to them, and no mortal idea which they think it their duty to guard with such care, nor have they been entrusted with the stewardship of mere human mysteries. 2. But in truth God Himself, the all-sovereign and all-creating and invisible God, Himself from heaven established among men the truth and the holy and incomprehensible word and fixed it firmly in their hearts, not, as one might surmise, by sending to men some servant, or an angel, or ruler, or one of those who administer the affairs of earth, or one of those entrusted with the ordering of things in heaven, but the very Artificer and Maker of the universe himself, by whom He created the heavens, by whom He confined the sea in its own bounds; whose mysteries all the elements faithfully guard, from whom the sun has received the measure of its daily rounds to keep, whom the moon obeys as he bids her shine by night, whom the stars obey as they follow the course of the moon, by whom all things have been ordered and determined and placed in subjection, the heavens and the things in the heavens, the earth and the things therein, the sea and what is in the sea, fire, air, abyss, the things in the heights, the things in the depths, the things in the realm between him He sent unto them. 3. Did He send him, as a man might conclude, to rule in tyranny and terror and awe? 4. Not so, but in gentleness and meekness He sent him, as a king sending a son who is a king, He sent him as God, He sent him as Man unto men. He was as it were saving when He sent him, (as) persuading, not compelling (for force is no attribute of God). 5. When He sent him God was calling, not pursuing; He sent, him as in love, not in judgement. 6. For He will send him to be our judge, and who shall stand at his coming? 7. Do you not see them thrown to wild beasts that they may deny the Lord, and yet unconquered? 8. Do you not see {Note 7} that as more of them are punished, so much do others abound? These things do not seem to be the works of man; they are a mighty deed of God; they are proofs of Hls presence.

VIII

1. For what man had any knowledge at all of what God is, before he came? 2. Or do you accept the vain and trumpery statements of those specious philosophers of whom some said that God was fire (what they themselves are destined to go to, that they call God!), and others water, and others some other of the elements created by God? 3. And yet, if any of these arguments is admissible, each one of the other created things could in like manner be declared God. 4. But these things are mere miracle-mongering and deceit of the magicians. 5. No man has either seen or known Him, but God manifested Himself. 6. And He manifested Himself through faith, by which alone it is given to see God. 7. For God, Master and Maker of the universe, who made. all things and disposed them in their due order, proved Himself not only a lover of man but also long-suffering. 8. Nay, such He ever was and is and will be, kind and good and free from anger and true, and He alone is good. 9. And having conceived a great and unutterable design He communicated it to His Child alone. 10. And so long as He held it in a mystery and guarded His is wise counsel He seemed to have no concern or care for us. 11. But when He revealed it through His beloved Child, and manifested the things prepared from the beginning, He bestowed upon us all things at once, both to share in His blessings and to see and understand. Who of us would ever have expected these things?

IX

1. Having therefore planned everything already in His own mind with His Child, He suffered us up to the former time to be borne along by unruly impulses, as we willed, in the clutches of pleasures and lusts. Not at all because He took pleasure in our sins, but out of His forbearance; not in approval of the season of iniquity which was then, but creating the season of righteousness which is now, so that we who in past time were from our own deeds convicted as unworthy of life might now by the goodness of God be deemed worthy, and when we had shown clearly that of ourselves it was impossible "to enter into the kingdom of God", might be made able by the power of God. 2. But when our iniquity was fulfilled and it had been made fully manifest that its reward of punishment and death was awaited, and the season came which God had appointed to manifest henceforth {Note 8} His own goodness and power (O the exceeding kindness and love of God!), He did not hate us or repel us or remember our misdeeds, but was long-suffering, bore with us, Himself in mercy took on Him our sins, Himself gave up His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for the wicked, the innocent for the guilty, "the just for the unjust", the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for mortals. 3. For what else could cover our sins but his righteousness? 4. In whom was it possible for us, wicked and impious as we were, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? 5. 0 the sweet exchange, O work of God beyond all searching out, O blessings past our expectation, that the wickedness of many should be hidden in one righteous Man and the righteousness of the One should justify many wicked! 6. Having then convinced us in the former time of the powerlessness of our nature to gain life, and having now shown the Saviour in his power to save even powerless creatures, in both these ways His will was that we should believe His goodness, and regard Him as guardian, father, teacher, counsellor, healer, mind, light, honour, glory, strength, life, and have no anxiety about clothing and food. {Note 9}

X

1. If you also long for this faith and first obtain knowledge of the Father … {Note 10} 2. For God loved men for whose sake He made the world, to whom He subjected all things which are in the earth, to whom He gave reason, to whom He gave mind, whom alone He permitted to look upward to Him, whom He formed after His own image, to whom "He sent His only-begotten Son", to whom He promised the kingdom which is in heaven — and He will give it to them that have loved Him. 3. And when you have this knowledge, with what joy, think you, will you be filled? Or how will you love Him who so first loved you? 4. Loving Him you will imitate His goodness. And do not wonder that a man can become an imitator of God. By the will of God he can. 5. For happiness lies not in lordship over one's neighbours, nor in the desire to have more than one's weaker brethren, nor in being rich and coercing the more needy. Not in these things can any man imitate God. Nay, these things are outside His majesty. But whosoever takes upon himself his neighbour's burden, whosoever wishes to benefit another who is poorer in that in which he himself is better off, whosoever by supplying to those in want the things which he has received and holds from God becomes a god to those who receive them — this man is an imitator of God. 7. Then though your lot is on earth you will see that God lives {Note 11} in heaven, then you will begin to speak the mysteries of God, then you will both love and admire those who are being punished for their refusal to deny God, then you will condemn the deceit and error of the world, when you know what is the true life in heaven, when you despise the apparent death here below, when you fear the real death, which is kept for those that shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall punish up to the end those that were delivered to it. 8. Then you will admire those that endure for righteousness' sake the fire which is but for a season, and you will count them blessed when you know that other fire. … {Note 12}

~~~~~ Footnotes to Letter to Diognetus (references are to Greek text, not included here. ~~~~~

1. Reading phulaxontos. See note ad loc.

2. Perhaps better ‘exposing’, ‘showing them up’. See note ad loc., and cf. ii. 9.

3. See note for this rendering.

4. For the rendering of this passage see note ad loc.

5. For this rendering see note ad loc.

6. Ibid.

7. There is a lacuna in the MS. at this point. See note ad loc.

8. Or ‘at last’.

9. For the last clause see notes ad loc.

10. For the apparent lacuna see note ad loc.

11. Or ‘rules’. See note ad loc.

12. See note ad loc [re this lacuna].

Something that is counterfeit is, by definition, intended to closely resemble what is genuine. Counterfeits are made of things that are valuable: jewels, works of art, currency. The more closely they resemble the genuine article, the bigger the threat they pose. The Department of Treasury does not concern itself with studying Monopoly money, and curators do not waste time examining poor copies of masterpieces. Those charged with protecting something precious realize that imitation is the most dangerous form of thievery.

Living as we do in a culture that has adopted pluralism as a supreme value, we would do well to take some time to think about the nature of counterfeit. Time and again I have had the same conversation in which people who reject the exclusivity of the Christian faith will say something to the effect of, “But surely you recognize that figures such as Mahatma Gandhi or the Dalai Lama are far more spiritual than most Christians. Look at their compassion! Look at their enlightenment! Do you mean to suggest that they are not truly spiritual?”

A simple “yes” is likely to shut down this conversation. But if we examine the nature of counterfeit, we may go a bit deeper. Consider that “spiritual” figures who do not bow to the lordship of Christ are practicing a kind of counterfeit spirituality. This takes into account that they may show genuine compassion. It acknowledges that they may have sacrificed their lives for others. They may be more disciplined or learned than we will ever be. But if they are not a genuine way to the Father, these virtues become even more dangerous. The beauty and mystery of false religion are the pied piper's tune leading souls to destruction.

Imagine that you go to your bank to withdraw some money. The teller gives you a stack of bills, which you discover are not genuine currency. When you protest, he or she points out the intricate beauty of the design on the bills, claiming that they must be the work of a master counterfeiter. Recognition that you are in possession of high quality counterfeit would probably not make you more inclined to accept it.

Some people use the word counterfeit interchangeably with the word hypocritical. If they say, “All religions are counterfeit” they really mean, “No religion is genuine.” Yet counterfeit currency would not exist if there were not such a thing as genuine currency. Likewise, the existence of counterfeit spirituality actually testifies to the reality of a true spirituality. False messiahs exist because they are imitations of the true Messiah; they cannot gain us access to the God of the universe. Make no mistake, we are all spiritual beings. But the spirituality that God accepts is based on a relationship with Christ, and the indwelling of his Spirit.

Jesus Christ made the bold and polarizing claim that no one could come to the Father except through him. In other words, no other currency could satisfy our debt but the blood of the Lamb who was slain. He freely offers to pay our debt. There is plenty of exquisite counterfeit available, but only the genuine article can purchase eternal life.

________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

What do you get when you hold a conference with 1,200 people who are all afraid of offending one another? I'll tell you what you DON'T get. You don't get unity, and you don't get agreement on anything.

That's what happened when the Spiritual Activism Conference took place recently in Washington, D.C. According to the NEW YORK TIMES, this group of religious liberals came together to discuss “taking back religion from the conservative Christians.” But the conference members had trouble getting anything specific done.

The TIMES hit it right on the nose when it explained, “Turnout at the Spiritual Activism Conference was high, but if the gathering is any indication, the biggest barrier for liberals may be their regard for pluralism: for letting people say what they want, how they want to, and for trying to include everyone's priorities rather than choosing two or three issues that could inspire a movement.” Never mind even setting policy goals; some conference members were afraid that singing hymns might be enough to upset some members. Instead of coming away with a clear set of objectives, the conference members mostly came away frustrated.

Ironically for a group that prides itself on tolerance, it seems the only thing the conference could agree on was its opposition to the “religious right.” But frustrating as it was for them, the group had to concede that the “religious right” is a lot better at getting things done. BELIEFNET suggests this was because “religious conservatives are willing to argue there is one correct view on policy issues.”

You see, that's the crux of the liberals' problem. This conflict is not about political or social divisions. It's about authority — specifically, whether or not Christians are willing to acknowledge that the Bible is our authority.

Tony Campolo certainly recognized this. Though Tony and I disagree on lots of things, I really like Tony. He's honest, and he loves the Bible. He tried to explain at this conference the necessity of following Scripture. But one participant retorted, “I thought this was a spiritual progressives' conference. I don't want to play the game of 'the Bible says this or that,' or that we get validation from something other than ourselves.”

There you have it. Validation from ourselves simply means you make up your own god. We Christians may interpret the Bible differently; we may apply it to life differently; we may have arguments over exegesis. But the Bible has to be the ultimate authority. Otherwise we end up worshiping the goddess of tolerance and believing that tolerance takes precedence over truth.

Dorothy Sayers, the great English writer, said it best: “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”

This kind of so-called “tolerance” can never bring people together, but only as we saw in Washington, pull them farther apart.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #18044]

At times the trend to replace the use of the word “Christmas” with the more generic “holiday” seems ironic. I recently saw an advertisement for a symphony production of Handel's MESSIAH which described the oratorio as a “favorite holiday tradition.” The work's very title conveys its message: that Jesus Christ is the one who fulfills the many prophecies of the Old Testament (prophecies which make up the majority of the MESSIAH'S lyrics). No doubt this message is offensive to many, but does calling it a “holiday” tradition instead of a Christmas tradition make anyone feel any better (if in fact that is what the advertiser hoped to accomplish)?

I find that it is more often secularists (those who wish to keep religion out of the public square) than pluralists (those who believe that every religion deserves a voice in the public square) who champion the use of the word holiday. This is highly ironic and shows how few in our society pay attention to what words actually mean. “Holiday” is none other than the contraction of the words “holy day.” Although Christmas in the West may have degenerated into a celebration of food, gifts, and time off work, secularists unwittingly keep reminding us that it should, above all, be observed as a holy day!

The holiness of God is the heart of Christmas. It is God's holiness that prevents Him from being able to allow sin in his presence. But God made a way to be reconciled to us where there was no way. He took his perfect son and sent him into our midst. When Jesus Christ was born, there entered our world a holiness so true that it wouldn't be stained by the sin that the rest of us live and breath. Zechariah, the aged father of John the Baptist anticipated God's reconciliation at work, and prophesied over his own son:

“And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;

for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,

to give his people the knowledge of salvation

through the forgiveness of their sins,

because of the tender mercy of our God,

by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven

to shine on those living in darkness

and in the shadow of death,

to guide our feet into the path of peace.” (Luke 1:76-79)

The birth of Christ guides us into the path of peace because the road Christ walked and the death he died brought about the forgiveness of sins. He did not come merely to sympathize with us in our weaknesses or to make God seem more accessible, he came to reveal to us the holiness of God's wrath, wrath which he would bear for us.

The next time someone wishes you a happy holiday, I invite you to stop and consider just how holy was the child whose birth we celebrate. His holiness gives us our hope, for unless we are clothed in his righteousness, we are ill-fitted to approach the Holy One of Israel. This hope is captured in the words of the beloved Christmas hymn:

O Holy night, the stars are brightly shining;

It is the night of the dear Savior's birth!

Long lay the world in sin and error pining,

Till He appeared and the soul felt His worth.

A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices,

For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.

Fall on your knees! Oh, hear the angel voices!

O night divine! O night when Christ was born!

O night divine! O night, O night divine!

________

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

*

Recognizing the Holy Spirit in other religions, tolerating homosexual marriage and denouncing the U.S. war on terror were among the views advocated at the 9th World Council of Churches Assembly Feb. 14-23 in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Founded in 1948, the WCC describes itself as “the broadest and most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose goal is Christian unity,” according to the group’s website. The WCC has 347 member denominations in more than 120 countries, including most of the mainline Protestant denominations in America.

In its pursuit of unity, the WCC has advanced an agenda that includes opposing wars and weapons systems, criticizing free markets, promoting a worldwide redistribution of wealth and seeking common ground with non-Christian religions.

“The World Council of Churches has long been a boutique of paganism in Christian garb,” said Russell D. Moore, senior vice president for academic administration and dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. “This year’s assembly happenings, including the recognition of ‘the Holy Spirit’ working in non-Christian world religions, only continues the downgrade.

“Regenerate believers across the world, whatever their denomination or communion, recognize the sprit of the World Council for what it is: the spirit of antichrist. The only differences between the WCC of today and the WCC of the mid-twentieth century are first one of degree and second one of relevance. No one listens to the World Council of Church anymore, and for that we should be thankful to God.”

HOLY SPIRIT IN OTHER RELIGIONS

“The church is called to discern the signs of the ‘hidden’ Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit in other religions,” WCC central committee moderator Aram I said in his report to the assembly, according to a release by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Speaking on the need for unity among Christians, Aram, the Armenian Catholicos of Cilicia (one of the Lebanese church’s four major leaders), said a divided church cannot offer a credible witness to the world.

To reach the world, he advocated “a church beyond its walls” that is “liberated from its self-captivity” inside “dogmatic, ethical, theological, ethnic, cultural and confessional walls.” Aram went on to suggest that the Holy Spirit operates in non-Christian religions.

“According to biblical teachings, God’s gift of salvation in Christ is offered to the whole humanity,” he said. “Likewise, according to Christian pneumatology, the Holy Spirit’s work is cosmic; it reaches in mysterious ways to people of all faiths.”

Changes in the church and the world demand that Christians adopt new approaches to ecumenical organizations in the 21st century, Aram said. He noted that inter-religious dialogue can help believers get away from an “exclusivist, monological and self-centered self-understanding” and “look at the basics of our faith in a broader perspective.”

Aram’s comments on other religions were absent from the WCC’s official news release on his report, which focused on Aram’s call for Christian unity.

U.S. ‘RAINING DOWN TERROR’ ON THE WORLD

Throughout the assembly, delegates expressed anti-American sentiments regarding the war in Iraq and made claims of U.S. imperialism.

At a press conference Feb. 18, Leonid Kishkovsky, chief ecumenical officer of the Orthodox Church in America and former president of the National Council of Churches, presented a letter described as representing the WCC delegates from U.S. denominations. The letter portrayed U.S. military actions to thwart terrorism in terms of aggression against innocents.

“[O]ur country responded [to Sept. 11] by seeking to reclaim a privileged and secure place in the world, raining down terror on the truly vulnerable among our global neighbors,” the letter stated. [...]

“Nations have been demonized and God has been enlisted in national agendas that are nothing short of idolatrous,” the letter stated. “We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice.”

U.S. denominations represented at the WCC included the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church and various African-American Baptist and Methodist denominations.

Anti-American sentiments also were expressed in a Feb. 19 press conference on the church in Latin America. Speaking under the auspices of the WCC, Argentinean Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel denounced American policies in Latin America and spoke against U.S. President George W. Bush.

“Dictatorship in Latin America was imposed by the United States,” he alleged. “All the methods of oppression which we see come from over there, from the Empire [the United States].”

Speaking against the American President, Pérez Esquivel, said, “When Bush prays, God covers his ears.”

HUMAN SEXUALITY WORKSHOP

Any sexual act that is done with an attitude of love and respect is morally legitimate, regardless of whether it occurs in marriage, said Erlinda Senturias, a Filipino member of the WCC’s “international reference group” to guide the council’s conversations regarding human sexuality.

Senturias made her comments Feb. 18 in an unofficial workshop on the WCC’s recent dialogues about sexuality. When a young Irish man in the audience asked whether it was acceptable for him to engage in sexual relations with his girlfriend, Senturias offered a clear answer.

“A sexual experience is a spiritual experience,” she said, according to an IRD report. “If it is done in a spirit of mutual respect and love, it is a very beautiful experience -- whether you are married or not.”

George Mathews Nalunakkal, a Syrian Orthodox priest from India spoke against “conservative” views of human sexuality.

“When this appeal to the Bible [in a literal way] is combined with natural law,” he said, “it leads to exclusive and conservative positions.” He also objected to “statements [that] reflect a rather negative anthropology, where man is seen as a ‘fallen’ creature and sin is sexual.”

In the same workshop, Sara Baltodano of Costa Rica presented a summary of conclusions reached by regional WCC meetings in Costa Rica and India. The presentation stressed the importance of “sexual rights.”

“Sexual rights are also human rights,” the summary said. “Right and responsibility go together. This does not mean that we promote sexual rights without the attendant responsibilities of being non-abusive within relationships, and faithful within whichever configuration of relationship one chooses to be in.”

Alan Wisdom, IRD interim president and reporter from the assembly, said Baltodano’s comments reveal a low view of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Her remarks “revealed the attempt to dethrone marriage from its traditional place at the center of Christians sexual ethics,” he said. “Instead Baltodano’s summary would affirm ‘whichever configuration of relationship one chooses to be in’ –- not exactly a biblical category of thinking, or even a clear rational category.”

Archbishop Desmond Tutu expressed the WCC’s pluralistic thinking in a Feb. 20 address on unity.

“Bush, bin Laden, all belong, gay, lesbian, so-called straight -- all belong and are loved, are precious,” he said.

Wisdom said that moving forward, the WCC is facing issues of survival, not just relevance.

In America and elsewhere, mainline denominations continue to suffer in influence while orthodoxy is growing; if the WCC persists in trying to rally churches around the agenda of western liberals instead of around biblical orthodoxy, it faces the prospect of extinction, he said.

“The question is where the WCC will find any unity,” Wisdom said. “The continued pursuit of the political agendas of the Western left -- a rapidly declining contingent in the global church -- will relegate the council to accelerating irrelevance. But a reappropriation of the orthodox and evangelical Christian faith that is growing in so many African, Asian and Latin American churches would promise a much brighter future.”

Wisdom did not speculate on whether the WCC had the will to abandon liberalism and ecumenicalism for the evangelicalism that is driving Christian movements worldwide.

*

[A prominent internet news dispenser gives his take on religious freedom, with the emphasis being all his:]

It’s not a big controversy like some THIS IS TRUE stories have generated, but there has been considerable CONFUSION generated by two stories from the 13 August 2000 issue. Now, it’s true that I write ambiguously on purpose sometimes to spark the reader to THINK about an issue. WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT, NOW? isn’t such a bad response sometimes. But with the two stories in question, I was perhaps TOO subtle, TOO ambiguous, in my sarcasm and criticism, leaving readers unclear on just what I meant or, worse, thinking I meant the opposite of what I wished to convey. This page is an attempt to change that. First, the stories, then some background, and then some feedback.

WE THE PEOPLE

A group of 450 Muslim families in the predominantly white, Christian

town of Palos Heights, Ill., had no place to worship, so they agreed to

purchase an unused church for $2.1 million and turn it into a mosque.

Local townspeople were aghast, and when one suggested to the City

Council that the Muslims should convert to Christianity or “go back to

[their] own countries,” the Council voted to give the group $200,000 to

drop their purchase plans. Mayor Dean Koldenhoven called the action

embarrassing, fiscally irresponsible and an insult to Muslims, and

vetoed it. (AP) ...PER THE CONSTITUTION, “FREEDOM OF RELIGION” MEANS

FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR EVERYONE.

IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION

The Colorado Board of Education has voted to encourage schools to post

the motto “In God We Trust” in all schools. No way, says the Jefferson

County School Board, which oversees the bullet-riddled Columbine High.

“In a time where there are already many lines dividing our children in

schools, one more reason to point to differences cannot help,” said

Anti-Defamation League regional director Saul Rosenthal in applauding

the decision. The state points out that the motto is included on U.S.

currency and would be “a way to celebrate national heritage.” (AP)

...DESPITE THE CONSTITUTION, “FREEDOM OF RELIGION” DOESN’T INCLUDE

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

The first is pretty straightforward; virtually everyone understood that I was praising the mayor, and lecturing the city council (hey, morons: “Freedom of Religion” applies to EVERYONE, not just you idiotic public servants”!) (Update: After the mayor was voted out of office for having the audacity to uphold religious freedom in his city, he was awarded THE JOHN F. KENNEDY PROFILE IN COURAGE award.)

The second story -- or, really, its tagline (my follow-on comment at the end) -- is not as clear. Here it is spelled out in painful detail: THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES “FREEDOM OF RELIGION”, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES “FREEDOM FROM RELIGION” -- THE FREEDOM NOT TO WORSHIP. DESPITE THAT GUARANTEE, NOT EVERYONE ACTUALLY GETS THAT FREEDOM. What’s my thinking on that? Americans tend to think religion is the EXACT SAME THING as Christianity. Of course, it isn’t -- the vast majority of the world population is not Christian. So since “Belief in God” and “religion” are considered absolutely equal by so many, few see anything wrong with promoting God -- to the point where school boards are insisting that mottos such as “In God We Trust” and Christianity’s Ten Commandments should be posted in public (read: government-funded) schools. But what of the people who DON’T believe in the Christian God? Not just atheists, but (say) Buddhists? Or Muslims? The attitude of the people of Palos Heights, Illinois -- that these people should convert to Christianity or “go back to [their] own countries” -- is disgusting, but common. In other words, the freedoms this country were founded on are only good for SOME people -- the “right kind” of people -- and not to others -- the WRONG KIND of people, DIFFERENT people. BULL!

The First Amendment’s guarantee is for ALL Americans. And what a powerful thing it is: One hundred years ago, social scientists predicted that belief in God would decrease by the end of the century because of the secularization of society. In fact, the opposite has occurred. (Source: HOW WE BELIEVE: THE SEARCH FOR GOD IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE by Michael Shermer, 1999.) Yet despite the fact that the First Amendment has allowed religion to grow like it never has before, SOME Christians would deny others the same right to practice their own religion. Forcing slogans on people such as “In God We Trust” denies the rights of people to make up their own minds, to pursue their own rights. Such thinking deserves to be revealed as the hypocrisy it is.

Many people think a motto such as “In God We Trust” is very innocuous and, really, not particularly religious. They point to the fact that it is on every piece of money issued by the United States government. That motto is, in fact, on money FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS -- contrary to the clear words of the First Amendment. It’s not just my opinion that it’s there for religious reasons: the U.S. Treasury readily admits it in their history paper, “History of the Motto ‘In God We Trust’” (available online at http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html), which admits in part:

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely

because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil

War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals

from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United

States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury

Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a

letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by

Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville,

Pennsylvania.

[. . .]

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864 [to allow the motto on]

the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin....

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint

Director, with the Secretary’s approval, to place the motto on all gold

and silver coins that “shall admit the inscription thereon.”

[. . .]

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909,

and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold

coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar

coins struck since July 1, 1908. A law passed by the 84th Congress

(P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the

President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN

GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST

was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-

dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto

entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and

Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process.

During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the

back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

The history notes that the slogan was first used on paper money in 1957, but was not widely on currency until the mid-1960s.

If you’re an American, all the money in your pocket declares a motto which you may not believe in or, worse, declares something you specifically may NOT believe. Tough: it’s there anyway. Thus, you are not being afforded a right GUARANTEED to all citizens by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, hence: DESPITE THE CONSTITUTION, “FREEDOM OF RELIGION” DOESN’T INCLUDE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

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.

Many Americans regard religion, for all the good it does, as a source of conflict. They think of places like Northern Ireland, South Asia, or the Middle East and wonder if a little less religion might not be good for social peace. But as a recent Wall Street Journal article points out, they’re not looking close enough to home.

Naomi Schaefer Riley points to what she calls the “riddle of American exceptionalism.” How is it that “one of the most religiously fervent [countries] in the world” is, at the same time, “one of the most religiously tolerant”? As she puts it, “generally, societies are one or the other.”

She’s right. For example, Iran is very religious, but no one would call it “tolerant.” Likewise, Scandinavian countries are very tolerant but no one would call them “religiously fervent.”

So why is America both? Citing the work by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Riley credits what she calls “religious bridging” — that is, having friends and acquaintances of a different faith.

According to the data, among the average American’s five closest friends, between two and three “are of other faiths.” What’s more, half of all Americans are married to “someone of a different faith from the one in which they were raised.”

This “bridging” has the effect of changing people’s attitudes toward different religions. For example, simply getting to know a real, live evangelical, as opposed to the media caricature, increases a person’s positive feelings toward evangelicals in general.

According to Riley, “This finding bodes well for the health of American religion and for American tolerance.” She is encouraged that Americans seem more willing to overlook “abstract lessons we were once taught” in favor of “facts on the ground.”

But I think that Riley and the people at Pew have missed the real reason that Americans are both religious and tolerant. It’s because we remembered those lessons — we didn’t overlook them — the lessons, that is, that Christianity teaches about the dignity and sanctity of the person.

Unlike other religions, Christianity does not require a choice between fervor and tolerance. We believe that our God created us in His image and gave us a free will so that we could love Him. If we were forced to accept Him, it wouldn’t be love.

Free will is the very essence of what we believe as Christians, which makes tolerance a must. By “tolerance,” I don’t mean the mushy, politically correct way the word is used today. Not a license to do anything you want; but the real kind of tolerance that respects the deepest convictions of other human beings, and regards them as worthy of respect — even if we strongly disagree.

This irony — that it is America’s specifically Christian religious fervor that makes tolerance possible — is what’s missing from this story. It couldn’t happen in Islamic or even Buddhist societies, as recent events in Sri Lanka illustrate.

What’s more, Riley was wrong in claiming that overlooking “abstract lessons we were once taught” produces tolerance. That only produces indifference. And it’s hard to respect other people’s convictions when you don’t even notice them.

No, when believers apply those so-called abstract lessons about freedom and human dignity — that’s when we see true tolerance.

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

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.

At times the trend to replace the use of the word “Christmas” with the more generic “holiday” seems ironic. I recently saw an advertisement for a symphony production of Handel's MESSIAH which described the oratorio as a “favorite holiday tradition.” The work's very title conveys its message: that Jesus Christ is the one who fulfills the many prophecies of the Old Testament (prophecies which make up the majority of the MESSIAH'S lyrics). No doubt this message is offensive to many, but does calling it a “holiday” tradition instead of a Christmas tradition make anyone feel any better (if in fact that is what the advertiser hoped to accomplish)?

I find that it is more often secularists (those who wish to keep religion out of the public square) than pluralists (those who believe that every religion deserves a voice in the public square) who champion the use of the word holiday. This is highly ironic and shows how few in our society pay attention to what words actually mean. “Holiday” is none other than the contraction of the words “holy day.” Although Christmas in the West may have degenerated into a celebration of food, gifts, and time off work, secularists unwittingly keep reminding us that it should, above all, be observed as a holy day!

The holiness of God is the heart of Christmas. It is God's holiness that prevents Him from being able to allow sin in his presence. But God made a way to be reconciled to us where there was no way. He took his perfect son and sent him into our midst. When Jesus Christ was born, there entered our world a holiness so true that it wouldn't be stained by the sin that the rest of us live and breath. Zechariah, the aged father of John the Baptist anticipated God's reconciliation at work, and prophesied over his own son:

“And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;

for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,

to give his people the knowledge of salvation

through the forgiveness of their sins,

because of the tender mercy of our God,

by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven

to shine on those living in darkness

and in the shadow of death,

to guide our feet into the path of peace.” (Luke 1:76-79)

The birth of Christ guides us into the path of peace because the road Christ walked and the death he died brought about the forgiveness of sins. He did not come merely to sympathize with us in our weaknesses or to make God seem more accessible, he came to reveal to us the holiness of God's wrath, wrath which he would bear for us.

The next time someone wishes you a happy holiday, I invite you to stop and consider just how holy was the child whose birth we celebrate. His holiness gives us our hope, for unless we are clothed in his righteousness, we are ill-fitted to approach the Holy One of Israel. This hope is captured in the words of the beloved Christmas hymn:

O Holy night, the stars are brightly shining;

It is the night of the dear Savior's birth!

Long lay the world in sin and error pining,

Till He appeared and the soul felt His worth.

A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices,

For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.

Fall on your knees! Oh, hear the angel voices!

O night divine! O night when Christ was born!

O night divine! O night, O night divine!

________

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

*

[A prominent internet news dispenser gives his take on religious freedom, with the emphasis being all his:]

It’s not a big controversy like some THIS IS TRUE stories have generated, but there has been considerable CONFUSION generated by two stories from the 13 August 2000 issue. Now, it’s true that I write ambiguously on purpose sometimes to spark the reader to THINK about an issue. WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT, NOW? isn’t such a bad response sometimes. But with the two stories in question, I was perhaps TOO subtle, TOO ambiguous, in my sarcasm and criticism, leaving readers unclear on just what I meant or, worse, thinking I meant the opposite of what I wished to convey. This page is an attempt to change that. First, the stories, then some background, and then some feedback.

WE THE PEOPLE

A group of 450 Muslim families in the predominantly white, Christian

town of Palos Heights, Ill., had no place to worship, so they agreed to

purchase an unused church for $2.1 million and turn it into a mosque.

Local townspeople were aghast, and when one suggested to the City

Council that the Muslims should convert to Christianity or “go back to

[their] own countries,” the Council voted to give the group $200,000 to

drop their purchase plans. Mayor Dean Koldenhoven called the action

embarrassing, fiscally irresponsible and an insult to Muslims, and

vetoed it. (AP) ...PER THE CONSTITUTION, “FREEDOM OF RELIGION” MEANS

FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR EVERYONE.

IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION

The Colorado Board of Education has voted to encourage schools to post

the motto “In God We Trust” in all schools. No way, says the Jefferson

County School Board, which oversees the bullet-riddled Columbine High.

“In a time where there are already many lines dividing our children in

schools, one more reason to point to differences cannot help,” said

Anti-Defamation League regional director Saul Rosenthal in applauding

the decision. The state points out that the motto is included on U.S.

currency and would be “a way to celebrate national heritage.” (AP)

...DESPITE THE CONSTITUTION, “FREEDOM OF RELIGION” DOESN’T INCLUDE

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

The first is pretty straightforward; virtually everyone understood that I was praising the mayor, and lecturing the city council (hey, morons: “Freedom of Religion” applies to EVERYONE, not just you idiotic public servants”!) (Update: After the mayor was voted out of office for having the audacity to uphold religious freedom in his city, he was awarded THE JOHN F. KENNEDY PROFILE IN COURAGE award.)

The second story -- or, really, its tagline (my follow-on comment at the end) -- is not as clear. Here it is spelled out in painful detail: THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES “FREEDOM OF RELIGION”, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES “FREEDOM FROM RELIGION” -- THE FREEDOM NOT TO WORSHIP. DESPITE THAT GUARANTEE, NOT EVERYONE ACTUALLY GETS THAT FREEDOM. What’s my thinking on that? Americans tend to think religion is the EXACT SAME THING as Christianity. Of course, it isn’t -- the vast majority of the world population is not Christian. So since “Belief in God” and “religion” are considered absolutely equal by so many, few see anything wrong with promoting God -- to the point where school boards are insisting that mottos such as “In God We Trust” and Christianity’s Ten Commandments should be posted in public (read: government-funded) schools. But what of the people who DON’T believe in the Christian God? Not just atheists, but (say) Buddhists? Or Muslims? The attitude of the people of Palos Heights, Illinois -- that these people should convert to Christianity or “go back to [their] own countries” -- is disgusting, but common. In other words, the freedoms this country were founded on are only good for SOME people -- the “right kind” of people -- and not to others -- the WRONG KIND of people, DIFFERENT people. BULL!

The First Amendment’s guarantee is for ALL Americans. And what a powerful thing it is: One hundred years ago, social scientists predicted that belief in God would decrease by the end of the century because of the secularization of society. In fact, the opposite has occurred. (Source: HOW WE BELIEVE: THE SEARCH FOR GOD IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE by Michael Shermer, 1999.) Yet despite the fact that the First Amendment has allowed religion to grow like it never has before, SOME Christians would deny others the same right to practice their own religion. Forcing slogans on people such as “In God We Trust” denies the rights of people to make up their own minds, to pursue their own rights. Such thinking deserves to be revealed as the hypocrisy it is.

Many people think a motto such as “In God We Trust” is very innocuous and, really, not particularly religious. They point to the fact that it is on every piece of money issued by the United States government. That motto is, in fact, on money FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS -- contrary to the clear words of the First Amendment. It’s not just my opinion that it’s there for religious reasons: the U.S. Treasury readily admits it in their history paper, “History of the Motto ‘In God We Trust’” (available online at http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html), which admits in part:

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely

because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil

War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals

from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United

States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury

Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a

letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by

Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville,

Pennsylvania.

[. . .]

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864 [to allow the motto on]

the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin....

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint

Director, with the Secretary’s approval, to place the motto on all gold

and silver coins that “shall admit the inscription thereon.”

[. . .]

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909,

and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold

coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar

coins struck since July 1, 1908. A law passed by the 84th Congress

(P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the

President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN

GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST

was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-

dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto

entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and

Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process.

During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the

back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

The history notes that the slogan was first used on paper money in 1957, but was not widely on currency until the mid-1960s.

If you’re an American, all the money in your pocket declares a motto which you may not believe in or, worse, declares something you specifically may NOT believe. Tough: it’s there anyway. Thus, you are not being afforded a right GUARANTEED to all citizens by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, hence: DESPITE THE CONSTITUTION, “FREEDOM OF RELIGION” DOESN’T INCLUDE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.