Close Menu X
Navigate

From the Pastors at Joy

Religious Pluralism and the Exclusivity of Christ

“How could there be just one true faith? It’s arrogant to say your religion is superior and try to convert everyone else to it. Surely all the religions are equally good and valid for meeting the needs of their particular followers.”

Have you ever heard this line of thinking? In Sunday’s sermon, I mentioned that in our current cultural climate – which values religious pluralism (i.e., the idea that there is no one right way to think about God, but everyone’s personal view is legitimate) – claiming that the only way to hear from the true God is through Jesus Christ is a great offense. As a result, when we share the Christian faith with others, it’s inevitable that we are going to hear the sort of response quoted above.

As Christian witnesses, this is an essential part of our testimony: the true God has spoken, and His final and best word to us is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). There is no other way that a person can or will hear from God, apart from the revelation of Himself that He has made in the person and work of Jesus. How do we respond to the charge – very common in our 21st century American context – that such an exclusive understanding of God is narrow-minded and intolerant?

I am helped in this regard by Tim Keller, who has addressed this subject countless times in his ministry in New York City, a hotbed of secular liberalism and religious pluralism. In the first chapter of his book The Reason for God, he addresses this subject in detail. I’d point interested readers to his chapter, but here I will summarize his counsel on how Christians can engage with skeptics who raise this concern about the exclusivity of the Christian claim that Jesus is God’s final and best word.

In a nutshell, Keller’s advice to the Christian is to try to help the other person see that their own view has a built-in contradiction, a fatal inconsistency. For instance, consider the common objection to claims of absolute religious truth: “Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth.” A common analogy is often cited to get the point across: several blind men trying to describe an elephant. One feels the tail and reports that an elephant is thin like a snake. Another feels a leg and claims it is thick like a tree. Another touches its side and reports the elephant is a wall. Similarly, the various religions only understand part of God, while no one can truly see the whole picture. To claim full knowledge of God, according to this logic, is arrogance.

The built-in contradiction is this: how could you know that each blind man only sees part of the elephant unless you claim to be able to see the whole elephant? Or, translating the analogy into the realm of religious truth claims: how could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality that you just claimed none of the religions can possess? So the claim that all religions see a part of the truth – while sounding tolerant and inclusive – is actually an arrogant, intolerant one. You alone have reached the peak of spiritual knowledge by which you can critique everyone else’s limited, partial view.

Likewise, can you see the built-in contradiction of the statement made at the beginning of this blog post? If, as the speaker suggests, it’s arrogant and intolerant to insist that your view of religion is right and convert others to it, then the speaker is actually guilty of breaking his (or her) own “rule”. He is taking a particular view of religion – the view that says all religions are equally valid – and trying to convert me to that view. So, on his own terms, he is being arrogant and intolerant. He is telling me that my view is wrong, and that if I was a really enlightened person, I would embrace his view. As open-minded as he sounds at first glance, he is just as narrow in his view as the one he condemns.

So, I could envision this conversation taking place with someone who is offended by my position that no one can or will hear from God apart from His revelation in Jesus:

Opponent: So, you’re a Christian? You’re not one of those bigoted people who think your view of God is the only true way, are you?

Me: Well, I believe that God has spoken finally and decisively in Jesus Christ, and that the only anyone can know God is through Jesus.

Opponent: Oh dear, that is so arrogant! Who are you to tell another person that their approach to God is wrong?! Surely God is inclusive enough that anyone who is seeking Him on any path can find Him!

Me: Hmm, it seems to me that I am not being any more arrogant than you are in holding your position.

Opponent: What do you mean by that?

Me: You’re calling me arrogant because I believe that my view of God – that He has revealed Himself once for all in Jesus, and that nobody can truly relate to God apart from Jesus – is the true, right way. But you’re doing the same thing that I am. You’re saying that your view of God – that He is open-minded and welcomes people no matter what their particular beliefs are – is the correct way to view God, and you are telling me that my view is wrong. You’re condemning me for pushing my view of God onto others, but you’re doing the same exact thing to me. That’s not fair.

Opponent: Hmm, I’ve never thought about it that way. I’ll have to think about it some more.

Me: You see, it’s no more narrow to claim that one religious belief is right than it is to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely, that they’re all equally valid) is right. We are all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, but in different ways. And what’s more, I think the religious claims of Christianity – bigoted and arrogant as you think they are – actually provide a much better basis for having peaceful, respectful dialogue with people whose views differ, than that of any other approach to God.

Opponent: How so?

That’s a question to answer in another blog post. Notice, in closing this one, that I have not even preached the gospel to this person yet. I've not said anything to convince them that Jesus is the one, true, revelation of God in human flesh. But in addressing a deep concern of theirs (hopefully with great gentleness and respect), I've exposed a hole in their thinking, and in doing so directed the conversation in such a way that I am now positioned to articulate the gopsel as it comes to bear on this matter of tolerance and humility, which seems to be so important to the person I'm talking to.

So how does the gospel provide a better basis for peaceful, respectfual dialogue between differing viewpoints than any other religious system? Stay tuned for another blog post next week…