Photo by Svadilfari

In my search for truth about God and religion it has become clear to me that there is some confusion with respect to exclusive claims to truth. There is a widespread view today that it is arrogant and intolerant to make exclusive religious claims to truth because the implication is that anyone who disagrees with one’s own religion is then wrong.  Religious inclusivists who think that all religions lead to God, will often accuse Christians of arrogance without realizing that given their own criteria, they too are ‘guilty’ of this same ‘arrogance’.

You see, everyone is exclusivistic. Everyone thinks their religious view is true, otherwise why would they hold it? Honestly now, don’t you think that what you believe about religion is true? You might say, “No, I hold a much more tolerant and inclusive view – I think all religions are true or lead to God.”

But notice what follows from that. It follows that anyone who disagrees with that view is wrong. But that is exactly why the inclusivist accuses the exclusivist of arrogance, the implication that those who disagree with them are wrong. So on his own criteria the inclusivist is arrogant to hold to his view.

Religious inclusivism is just as exclusive as Christianity. Religious inclusivists think their claims are true and exclusivists’ claims are false and anyone who disagrees is mistaken. Moreover, inclusivism hides its exclusivity behind a deceptive façade of alleged openness and tolerance. But religious inclusivism is just another absolute position in sheep’s clothing, and is therefore no more open or tolerant than any other exclusive claim to truth. Only inclusivists can see the ‘real truth’ about religion.

Religious inclusivism is not only deceptive and arrogant; it is also incoherent because it espouses religious relativism. Relativists claim that “all religious claims are relative” but notice that statement itself is a religious claim that is not relative. It fails its own test and is thus self-contradictory, and self-contradictory statements are necessarily false.

Religious pluralists often impose their relativistic framework on religions and do not let them speak for themselves about what they believe. This is a clear example of arrogance. Ironically, they require the conclusion that all other religious views are not equally true, but equally flawed and that relativism is the larger, grander truth!

The philosopher W.L. Craig captures the key point here well when he writes, “the pluralist also believes that his view is right and that all those adherents to particularistic religious traditions are wrong.  Therefore, if holding to a view which many others disagree with means you’re arrogant and immoral, then the pluralist himself would be convicted of arrogance and immorality.”

But what about the atheist or agnostic?  I find it humorous and a little sad when those whom I debate from this camp try to portray themselves as more open and tolerant than the “arrogant Christian.” But again notice that atheists think that their view about religion, that there is no God, is true and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. Atheists think all religions are wrong! Clearly they think their view is exclusively true just like the “arrogant Christian.”

But surely the agnostic is not exclusivistic, is he? I have found that most people who use this label do so in what many call “a hard agnostic” way. That is, they think that no one knows the truth about God and religion and no one can know the truth because it is impossible to do so. Well, this may be the most exclusive claim of all! The hard agnostic is claiming to know that no one can know the truth about God and religion. This is an incredibly strong claim. Moreover, they think that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. So clearly this is another arrogant, exclusivist view.

The only way out of this dilemma would be to hold “a soft agnostic” position where one says “I don’t know the truth about God and religion but I am open to finding out what it might be.”

The point I am ultimately trying to make here is that no one is actually arrogant for holding to a particular religious view or an inclusivist view or an atheist or hard agnostic view.

• Christians are not being narrow minded, but acting rationally with what they think they know.
• Religious inclusivists are just acting on what they think they know – that all views are right.
• Atheists are merely acting on what they think they know, that there is no God and all religions are false.
• Hard Agnostics are just acting on what they think they know – that no one can know.

Everyone is exclusivistic, but it doesn’t mean you are arrogant! How one communicates what they believe could make one arrogant. That is why the apostle Peter told fellow Christians that when they told others about the reasons they had for what they believed, they were to do it with gentleness and respect and with a clear conscience. Good advice for everyone it seems to me.

Question: What have you noticed about the way people state their religious views? Do you think tolerance requires that we avoid making exclusive claims to truth?

One day not too long ago I was talking to a student on campus about Christianity. He was bright, intelligent, and I could tell he was well versed in science and philosophy.

“Christianity is good for YOU,” he said, “but it’s not right for ME. I think you ought to believe whatever makes you happy and gives you peace.”

“Well, you could be right about that,” I said. “I’m not here to cram my opinions down your throat. Let me throw some ideas out here, and see what you think about them. There are two kinds of truth,” I said. “There’s opinion, or preference, like ‘I like chocolate ice cream.’ Some people like chocolate. Some like vanilla. Some major in accounting, others in Spanish.

“Then there’s another kind of truth, like scientific truth. For instance, gravity works whether you believe in it or not. Before gravity was discovered, apples still fell to the ground, right?”

“Right,” he agreed.

“Now most people think religion is on the same level as OPINION,” I went on. “Like a favorite ice cream flavor. But the Bible indicates that spiritual truth is more like the LAW OF GRAVITY. It is true whether you believe in it or not.

“Now, the question of whether the Bible is true or not is another issue,” I said. “But the idea is this: the Bible says that our sin has separated us from God, and the only way to solve that problem is through Jesus Christ.

“You can believe whatever you like,” I said. “I’m not here to force you to believe my way…But if you’re right and I’m wrong, I’ve lost nothing. When I die, I simply turn to dust. If I’m right and you’re wrong, you could spend eternity separated from God. Isn’t it worth at least looking into?”

I could tell it made him think.

Most people find the idea of Christianity being the only way to heaven as repugnant. And I don’t blame them. It sounds arrogant. Heck, some Christians ARE arrogant. But I think most of the time the turnoff people feel is a simple misunderstanding. When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” he wasn’t being boastful and saying, “I am the best. And I’m only going to let people into heaven who follow my way.”

Rather, it was like saying, “There is only one way across the Grand Canyon. You can’t jump across, walk across, or drive across. You have to take a helicopter.” The nature of the problem means there is only one solution.

Our sin makes it impossible to reach God. If we’re trying to gain acceptance with God by our “good” life, we’re stuck. If we’re trying to be religious to reach God, we’re stuck. However, God could reach us. Jesus Christ came so we could be forgiven, so we could have a relationship with Him. We can try to get to God by good works or religious efforts, but Jesus was saying that won’t work.

Jesus not only said, “No one comes to the Father except by Me,” he also said, “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” Now, if there were other men, who were God, I guess there would be other ways to heaven! But Jesus is the only person in history I know of who fits the requirement!

Copyright 2000 EveryStudent.com. Used with permission.

What is tolerance? This may seem like a simple question with an obvious answer. But is it? I suggest we’d better know the answer very clearly in order to respond to those who, in the name of tolerance, impose a frightening intolerance.

In Canada, we value the concept of the “cultural mosaic” where different cultures are encouraged to retain their distinctiveness. We compare our system to the American “melting pot” concept where all cultures are amalgamated into one. Thus Canada has a neutral policy of multiculturalism.

In order for these differing views to coexist peacefully, there must be tolerance of each other’s culture and views. So far, so good.

But somewhere near here a logical jump confuses the categories of tolerance and truth. Somehow we move from simply allowing differing views to offering different views as equal. Assuming that truth only gets in the way of equality, no one view can be more true than another. Thus exclusive claims to truth promote inequality and hence intolerance.

Clearly this violates one’s rationality. What begins as tolerance of those with whom you disagree, now becomes acceptance of the views with which you originally disagreed! Anything less in intolerance.

But how can this be when the concept of tolerance implies disagreement? If there is no disagreement, there is nothing to tolerate. Eliminating differences eliminates the need for tolerance. I don’t believe that it is actually tolerance that many people really want.

When gay rights activists claim that disagreement with their views is intolerance and homophobia, it is not tolerance they are seeking but affirmation of and agreement with their lifestyle. The real intolerance is not to allow someone to disagree with their views without threat of sanctions, censorship or violence.

It is not tolerance that is actually being promoted. It is relativism, the idea that all truth is relative to cultures or individuals. Truth, therefore is not worth pursuing. Our society has been taught to value openness to all views as the highest virtue. We are taught to fear intolerance, not error. Instead of being taught to correct error, we are taught to avoid making any claims to truth.

Ironically, not only does the imposition of relativism on society discard the need for tolerance by eliminating all significant differences, it also breeds intolerance of those who disagree with relativism. That is, under the guise of tolerance, those who make exclusive claims to truth are
branded intolerant.

This relativism has already influenced public education. Secularists claim that since so many other religions exist, Christian teachings and morals should be removed from our schools. This is a ploy. The secularist is not trying to gain a hearing or a place for these other religions, but rather is trying to remove ALL religious influence from education. It is as rational as a principal looking around his school and noticing that some like to play hockey, others prefer football, others basketball and still others soccer. Given that there is such a plurality of preferences and opinion, he concludes, “I won’t allow any sports.”

Genuine tolerance allows differing views to have an equal right to exist, not necessarily an equal share in truth. These are different issues.

There is confusion here between the admirable quality of tolerance for different views and the absurd position that all claims can be or even must be equally true.

We can’t toss out truth for the sake of tolerance. We are truly intolerant when we respect the rights of others to hold a different view without the threat of violence. But we may still be firmly committed to another point of view as being true. The great value of tolerance in no way excuses us from resolving conflicting claims to truth.

We can be truly tolerant without accepting another person’s beliefs. Tolerance has nothing to do with accepting another person’s belief, only his right to have that belief.

For example, I can tolerate people who believe in a flat earth without having to agree with them. Likewise, I can tolerate the beliefs of people from other religions without having to accept their beliefs as true.

This misunderstanding of tolerance leads to the ridiculous situation of a position being considered false JUST BECAUSE it claims to be true.

A story is told of Socrates wading into the public bath in Athens. Following him, a young man taps Socrates on the shoulder and says, “Socrates, can I be your disciple?” Socrates continues walking, giving no response.

“Socrates, can I be your disciple?” the young man repeats. Again Socrates gives no response. A third time the young man pleads, “Socrates, can I please be your disciple?” Suddenly, Socrates wheels around, grabs the young man’s head and thrusts it under the water. He holds the struggling man under until the bubbles start surfacing.

Finally, when there is virtually no hope left, Socrates pulls the young man up out of the water and says eye to eye, “Young man, when you desire truth as much as you desired air, then you can be my disciple.”

We live in a world that no longer values truth. When tolerance is valued at the expense of truth, it becomes intolerance. As thinking and moral people, we should be committed to both truth AND tolerance.

Michael Horner has an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Toronto and speaks to thousands of students and faculty each year through debates and Lectures. Copyright 1996 Michael Horner. Used with permission.

I recently received a question about what to do in the face of profanity from unbelieving career associates and neighbors. “Hearing God’s name being smeared in the mud makes me very sad and angry and upset,” this person wrote. “If I think it is wrong and I continue to tolerate it without saying anything, then isn’t it wrong for me?” Not necessarily.

I replied with the following paragraph:

“I think this really depends on the relationship. If it is one with respect, then you can ask someone to alter their behavior on your behalf based on what you believe even if they don’t. In a relationship with respect, you would do the same thing for them, as long as what they were asking of you didn’t violate any of your core beliefs. But if they don’t give a rip about what you believe and have no intention of altering their behavior for you or anyone else, then what are you going to do? Ignore them? Leave them alone in their bitterness? This is where the love and compassion of the Lord comes in. Believe me, he’s put up with a lot more than bad language in order to love people!”

Imagine what God tolerates every day from a world that he loves. The Scriptures teach that God is actually shelving his anger over the wickedness of the world, because this is the season of salvation. This is when he wants to major on the gift of forgiveness he is offering in Christ. There will be a time of retribution coming, but right now, he’s tolerating all kinds of bad behavior in order to save as many as possible.

I think we also have to honestly ask ourselves whether our wish for unbelievers to change their language around us is more out of concern for ourselves than for them. So what if we feel uncomfortable? Shouldn’t we get over it for the sake of the relationship? You can’t ask someone who doesn’t care about God to act like they do just for your sake.

I am reminded about a story a New Testament prof at a Christian college once told me about his kids, one of whom was having a birthday. The other was typically jealous of the attention his sibling was receiving, and the father had to take his son aside and tell him, “Look, son. It’s not about you today; it’s all about your sister.”

Suddenly, he could envision his heavenly Father taking him aside in the face of a world that offends him constantly, and whispering, “Look, son. It’s not about you anymore; it’s about them now.”

If you think about it, isn’t that the way it should be?

Question: In what ways do our churches often promote self-absorption instead of putting God first?

About this Author: John Fischer

Several of the teens wanted to know more about God and the Christian faith and asked John if they could meet with him to learn more. They decided to meet once a week in one of the library’s common rooms, which are open for anyone to use. It was not booked, they just chose to meet at a time when the room was rarely in use.

The library administrators learned about the meetings, and told Jill that they were not allowed to meet there anymore. This was supposed to be a public space open to anyone to use.  Reluctantly, she informed John that the group  couldn’t meet at the library anymore. Undeterred, John and the group met at a coffee shop away from the library instead.

Then the library administration told Jill that, not only was the group not allowed to meet at the library, but they didn’t want them meeting anywhere, at all. The rationale was that Jill’s connection to both the library and to John made the relationship between John and the teens inappropriate.

John is still meeting with the teens away from the library.

As Jill and I talked about this situation, we wondered if the library’s reaction would have been the same if they weren’t talking about religious topics. The room was a public one, and teens themselves requested the meetings.

Do you think the library’s actions were appropriate? Does the library have the right to attempt to control activities that happen outside of its premises?  Is it simply that anything religious is unfairly excluded from the public square?

Related reading:
Talk about faith & your spiritual journey – Join our daily online chat rooms
Three Tough Questions about Faith – And how to answer them

On September 12.

Since September 11, 2001, I’ve often wondered what might have happened had her appointment been a day earlier or the terrorist attacks a day later. I could have been walking the streets of New York City with her picture.

What were your feelings that tragic day? Shock? Fear? Anger? Confusion? Sadness? How do you process those feelings now, as reminders of the attacks come in anniversary commemorations and media coverage? Nearly two-thirds of American Red Cross 9/11 adult counselees still grieve, according to a study of those directly affected by the attacks{1}.

“I Hate You!”

In the immediate aftermath, my feelings of sadness blended with intense hostility. Once when Osama Bin Laden’s face appeared on television, I spontaneously shouted, “I hate you!”

I was and am a follower of Jesus. He taught his followers to “love your enemies.”{2} Why was I yelling “I hate you!” to a picture on a TV screen?

I wondered why this guy hated my sister. If Deborah Wright had been among the victims, her death would have been included among those he applauded. If I had been a victim, he would have applauded mine. I wrote a radio series on “Why Radical Muslims Hate You” to discover historical, socio-cultural, political, religious, and psychological roots of such anger. It helped me to connect with Muslims who shared similar concerns but disavowed the radical methods.

Dust of Death

Deborah’s experience as a corporate chaplain took her back to New York to help WTC-based companies and their employees who suffered loss on 9/11 cope with the emotional and spiritual whirlwinds their worlds had become. Many suffered from survivor guilt. Failure to process grief could lead to serious consequences. Some firemen, for instance, were assigned to look after widows of fallen comrades. “There can be enormous intimacy and bonding in shared grief,” Deborah notes. “Some of the firemen and widows ended up in bed together.”

Some competitive, driven businesspersons re-examined their rat race—making big bucks and accumulating the most toys—and asked, “Is that all there is?”. Long looks at corporate culture prompted many to consider spiritual realities.

Part of helping survivors process their experiences involved taking them to Ground Zero. Deborah comments, “As I stood at Ground Zero and picked up the dust, I could not help but think that we were standing in a giant crematorium. The ground seemed hallowed to me.”

Personal Lessons from 9/11

What personal 9/11 lessons persist? Perhaps you can relate to these that seem poignant to me:

We live in a contingent universe. Human decisions and actions have consequences, often for good or evil.

Life is temporary. One early spiritual leader wrote of our lives’ fleeting nature, “You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.”{3}

Link with the eternal. Jesus of Nazareth, whom people of diverse spiritual persuasions respect as a great teacher, told a friend grieving her brother’s death, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die like everyone else, will live again. They are given eternal life for believing in me and will never perish.”{4}

Cherish your friends. In the aftermath of 9/11, many friendships were deepened as people linked with each other for encouragement, solace and support.

Understand and love your enemies and intellectual adversaries. Support national defense, but learning about state enemies can help communication with moderates who share some of their convictions. Getting to know neighbors or associates with whom you differ politically, philosophically or spiritually can help build bridges that foster civility in public discourse.

Related reading: Lorraine tells the story of her son, a NYPD officer at Ground Zero on 9/11, and how she began her own search for meaning. Hear Lorraine ‘s story.

Notes
1. Amy Westfeldt, “Study: Sept. 11 Survivors Still Grieving,” Associated Press, May 26, 2006, on AOL News. Also see full Red Cross report, http://www.redcross.org/images/pdfs/SRPClientSurvey.pdf, p. v.
2. Matthew 5:44 NASB.
3. James 4:14 NASB.
4. John 11:25 NLT.

© 2006 Rusty Wright, used by permission.

Image credit: Joseph Hoetzl, used with permission, Creative Commons 2.0 License.

One of the worst insults in modern Western culture is to be deemed “intolerant”. Of course, often that word, tolerance, is misappropriated and used in ways that make no sense, especially when it comes to moral and/or religious beliefs.  But that knowledge likely won’t help you feel more comfortable talking about faith around the water cooler.  Greg Koukl explains this further in his article “When Tolerance is Intolerant“.

Doug Pollock is currently an evangelism trainer with Athletes in Action, a ministry of Campus Crusade. On his website GodsGPS.com he seeks to help people have better spiritual conversations. He wants to find answers to the question: “How can you bring God into the conversation without shutting the conversation down?”

Take a look through the GodsGPS website, and don’t miss the extremely useful list of “Wondering Questions“ intended to spark meaningful discussions.

Have you ever talked with coworkers, neighbors, or friends about faith topics? How did you approach the topic to encourage cordial conversations?

Image credit: ohhector, used with permission, Creative Commons 2.0 License.

“… whoever believes in him shall not perish …” John 3:16

The phrase “believes in him” doesn’t digest well in our day of self-sufficient spiritual food. “Believe in yourself ” is the common menu selection of our day. Try harder. Work longer. Dig deeper. Self-reliance is our goal.

And tolerance is our virtue. “In him” smacks of exclusion. Don’t all paths lead to heaven? Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and humanism? Salvation comes in many forms, right? Christ walks upriver on this topic. Salvation is found, not in self or in them, but in him.

Some historians clump Christ with Moses, Muhammad, Confucius, and other spiritual leaders. But Jesus refuses to share the page. He declares, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6, RSV). He could have scored more points in political correctness had he said, “I know the way,” or “I show the way.” Yet he speaks not of what he does but of who he is: I am the way.

Many recoil at such definitiveness. John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 sound primitive in this era of broadbands and broad minds. The world is shrinking, cultures are blending, borders are bending; this is the day of inclusion. All roads lead to heaven, right? But can they?

The sentence makes good talk-show fodder, but is it accurate? Can all approaches to God be correct? Every path does not lead to God.

Jesus blazed a stand-alone trail void of self-salvation. He cleared a one-of-a-kind passageway uncluttered by human effort. Christ came, not for the strong, but for the weak; not for the righteous, but for the sinner. We enter his way upon confession of our need, not completion of our deeds. He offers a unique-to-him invitation in which he works and we trust, he dies and we live, he invites and we believe.

We believe in him. “The work God wants you to do is this: Believe the One he sent” (John 6:29, NCV). This union is publicly dramatized in baptism, for to be baptized, as Paul wrote, is to be baptized into Christ. (Galatians 3:27)

Believe in yourself? No. Believe in him.

Believe in them? No. Believe in him.

And those who do, those who believe “in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

From 3:16, The Numbers of Hope
Copyright (W Publishing Group, 2007) Max Lucado
Used by permission

Question: What difference does it make to believe and have faith (trust) in a person rather than a set of laws or philosophies?

About this Author: Max Lucado

This is part 3 to a 7 part series: Questions About God – Canadian philosopher Michael Horner responds to seven of the most commonly asked questions about God and Christianity.

Question 3: How could Jesus be the only way to God?

At the root of this question is a confusion between the admirable quality of tolerance for different views and the absurd position of the equal validity of all views. One can be tolerant by respecting the rights of others to hold alternative views without threat of violence, yet still be firmly committed to one point of view as true. The great value of tolerance in no way absolves us from resolving conflicting claims to truth.

1. Sincerity of belief

Sincerity of belief does not guarantee truth. One can be sincerely wrong. I may believe sincerely that a glass of liquid is water and drink it. If in fact it is hydrochloric acid, my sincere belief would have devastating consequences!

2. Contradictions

Second, the assumption by many that all religions are basically the same just doesn’t square with the facts. Although there are similarities, the differences are very significant. Eastern religions teach “monism” (all is one), that each person is a part of everything, including God, and that ultimately one needs to lose oneself in “the all” like a drop of water losing itself in the ocean. Christianity, however, affirms that each person is a unique individual and will remain such after death. Christianity teaches that God loves us; an impersonal, eastern god cannot love us. Obviously all religions are not the same; they contradict one another. Therefore they cannot all be true.

3. Moral gap

Third, there is a moral gap between each of us and God which we cannot bridge in our own power. It is like trying to swim from the West Coast of North America to Hawaii. Some of us may get farther than others, but all of us will drown far short of Hawaii.

Let’s say, though, someone in a boat comes along and says he has good news—claims he can help us. “No real problem; evil is illusion,” he says, “mind over matter—if you don’t mind it won’t matter. Just meditate and you’ll experience peace and tranquillity and oneness with the water.” Would this be a message of good news? The last time I checked “oneness with the water” is how we define drowning!

Or maybe he remembers he has some pamphlets on board entitled, “Ten Easy Steps on How to Swim.” Tossing them to us he tells us to merely read the pamphlet and do what it says. That’s not good news either, is it? We still won’t make it to Hawaii.

Perhaps he decides on the more personal touch and jumps in the water to show us how to swim. “Just cup your hands, kick your feet and breathe like this,” he says. Again this message is not good news. It still won’t get us to Hawaii.

Maybe then, getting smart, he tells us to get into the boat! But part way there he throws us back into the ocean to do the rest ourselves.

In none of these four situations would the person in the boat truly be a messenger of good news! And it is exactly the same with religion if all that it offers us is:

1. A denial that there is any moral gap between us and God—telling us to just turn inward and meditate and we will become one with the universe. When we are honest with ourselves, we know we fall short of our Creator’s standards.
2. A book of rules to follow (even if that book is the Bible). Our problem is not that we don’t know what we ought to do; our problem is we don’t do what we know we ought to do. We need both forgiveness and help.
3. An example, a model of some religious person’s life for us to emulate (even if that person is Jesus). Again, we know what we ought to do, but we just can’t seem to do it. A religion must offer us more than an example to follow if it is going to be real good news.
4. Help part of the way but insist it is our responsibility to work for and earn the majority of the merit on our own.

Good news

The only good news he could bring us is “Come on board. I’ll take you all the way to Hawaii.” Now this is exactly the uniqueness of the Christian message. All other religions say “Do, Do, Do.” Christianity says, “Done!”

Jesus Christ, through His death on the cross as a substitute for you and me, has paid the penalty for our moral failure that is a result of our attitude of independence towards God. He has cleared away what was separating us from God. “For Christ died for your sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous to bring you to God” (I Peter 3:18a).

Some think God is being “narrow-minded” if Jesus is the only way. But the issue is: “Why is there any way to God?” God has been gracious and merciful to provide us with a way back to a personal relationship with Him even though we have rebelled against Him. If humankind could have reached God by any other way, God would not have sacrificed His only Son.

Rather than complain that there aren’t more ways to God, the proper response should be to marvel that there is a way and accept it with a heart of gratitude.

Revised October 2003

Next: Does a Loving God Condemn Those Who Never Heard about Jesus Christ?

Aren’t all religions the same?

Apart from some common moral principles, all religions aren’t the same. In fact, many of the ideas that Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Hindus have about God, reality, truth, the basic human dilemma and the nature of salvation are contrary to each other.

For example, there is no question that in Islam, Allah is the religious ultimate. But that’s not the case with Buddhism. In fact, there are several strains of Buddhism and only one thinks of God in terms even close to a personal being. And the rest have differing impersonal concepts of the religious ultimate. In Hinduism, there is also a variety of god concepts. Some consider Vishnu or Krishna as personal deities. Yet other Hindus consider the entire cosmic process as an impersonal ultimate. When religions differ about God any similarities they may have in ethical teachings is merely incidental.

Not only do most religions not make the same claims, they don’t even address the same issues. Contrary statements can’t all be true. There is the logical possibility that all religions may be false. But it is not even a logical possibility that all religions are true. This means that a person can’t rule out the distinct possibility that only one religion may be true.

Some people assume that since religions function in roughly the same way in people’s lives that there must be a common reality behind them. But even if this assumption is true, the conclusion does not follow.

Imagine two men, Fred and Barney, who are married to two women, Wilma and Betty. Just because Wilma functions in Fred’s life roughly the same way Betty functions in Barney’s life, is no reason to believe that Wilma and Betty are just different names for the same entity.(1)

Isn’t this disastrous to unity?

There is a kernel of truth here but it is actually a trick question. It is true that if everyone believed all roads lead to God, then there would likely be more peace and unity. But this is like saying if everyone wore red hats, all heads would be covered. The obvious question would be “why red hats?” Likewise, if everyone believed one thing about religion, of course there would be more peace and unity but which one thing should everyone believe?

Just as any color hat will cover our heads, so too any common belief, by definition, would produce more unity. But why should that common belief be religious relativism? Why not Islam, Buddhism, atheism, wicca or Christianity? The real question is: “Which one view is true?”

The even greater danger hidden within this question is the implication that people should not be permitted to publicly claim exclusive religious truth (see CRTC and Vision TV policies). This amounts to the imposition of religious relativism via the censorship of religious exclusivism .

Isn’t this intolerant and narrow-minded?

It’s Jesus who said, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” We didn’t make that up; Jesus did. That may seem intolerant to someone who thinks that it is intolerant to make exclusive claims to truth. But there is nothing intolerant about making exclusive claims to truth (see The Truth Behind Tolerance) and there is ample historical evidence to verify that Jesus claimed He was God and rose from the dead to validate that claim. If Jesus is God then what He said is true.(2)

Some people think God is being narrow-minded if Jesus is the only way. But the issue is: “Why is there any way to God?” God has been gracious and merciful to provide us with a way back to a personal relationship with Him even though we have rebelled against Him. If humankind could have reached God by any other way, God would never have sacrificed His only Son. Instead of wondering why there aren’t more ways to God, the appropriate response would be to marvel that there is a way, and accept it with humility and gratitude.

Footnotes:

(1) This is based on a similar response in Winfried Corduan’s book, “Reasonable Faith: Basic Christian Apologetics,” Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993, pp 258, 259.

(2) See Michael Horner’s articles “Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?” and “Who Did Jesus Think He Was Anyway?”. See also W.L. Craig’s “”Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics,” Crossway Books, 1994, chapters 6-8.