Introduction
Today we begin a series responding to the most common objections to Christianity.
I have two goals in this series: to help investigators better understand
Christianity so you can make an informed decision about how you will respond
to Jesus Christ, and to equip Christians to be more helpful and effective
in sharing Christ with their friends.
OBJECTION #1: “How can there be only one way to God?” This
objection is the voice of religious relativism. Religious relativism
is the belief that all religions are simply different perceptions of the
same ultimate reality, or "Many faiths are but different paths
leading to one reality, God." (DIFFERENT MOUNTAIN ROADS WHICH ALL
LEAD TO SUMMIT). Over the last 30 years, religious relativism has become
such a consensus in America that most people uncritically accept it. Several
factors have led to this situation.
The roots & “new-speak” of religious relativism
Life in a “global village” confronts us with the tremendous
diversity of humankind. Travel, immigration, and communications technology
have shrunk the world as Marshall McLuhan predicted. We can no longer
live our lives in contact only with people who look like and live and
believe as we do.
This fact has influenced most Americans to unconsciously accept a new
definition of appropriate diversity that lumps together two very different
matters: matters of culture (dress, food, music, language, etc.)—in
which acceptance of diversity is appropriate and important, and matters
of truth (religious belief and morality)—in which acceptance
of diversity is much more problematic, as we will see.
History teaches us that religious absolutists often persecute people
who disagree with them. Sometimes this has been consistent with the religion,
as with Islam (ISLAMIC JIHAD); sometimes it has been inconsistent, as
with Christianity (CRUSADES; N. IRELAND). This fact has promoted a fear
of all religious absolutism, and has forged a new definition of “religious
tolerance.”
The former (and biblical) definition of “tolerance” made
a distinction between people and their religious beliefs. It meant that
people should have the legal freedom to practice the religion of their
choice, and that you should personally respect and love them, even if
you conclude that their beliefs are false.
Today’s “tolerance” has removed the distinction between
persons and their beliefs. It means that you must never call others’
beliefs false or untrue, or you are an arrogant, intolerant bigot.
This comes across in a recent “Dear Abby:”
Dear Abby: Your answer to the woman who complained that her relatives
were always arguing about religion was ridiculous. You advised her
to simply declare the subject off-limits. Are you suggesting that
people only talk about trivial, meaningless subjects so as to avoid
potential controversy? It is arrogant to tell people there are subjects
they may not mention in your presence. You could have suggested she
learn enough about her relatives’ cult to show them the errors
contained in its teachings.
Abby: In my view, the height of arrogance is to attempt to show people
the “errors” in the religion of their choice.
Consider this recent USA Today article:
"Paige Patterson, the leader of the 15.8 million member denomination
(Southern Baptist Convention) that includes (President) Clinton as
a member, said he was offended by White House spokesman Joe Lockhart's
comments Dec. 16 (1999).
According to the Baptist Press, Lockhart was asked about a
Baptist campaign to pray for and share the Gospel with Hindus, Jews,
and Muslims.
'I think the president has made very clear . . . how
one of the greatest challenges going into the next century is dealing
with intolerance, dealing with ethnic and religious hatred and coming
to grips with the long-held resentments between religions,' Lockhart
said. 'So I think he's been very clear in his opposition to whatever
organizations, including the Southern Baptists, that perpetuate ancient
religious hatred.'"[1]
Most importantly, philosophical relativism now dominates our culture.
This is the idea that “There is no such thing as absolute truth;
different people can define truth in conflicting ways and still be correct.”
A recent survey indicates that 64% of American adults strongly agree or
agree somewhat agree with this statement. The percentage who agreed with
this statement was obviously greatest among young people (Baby Busters:
71%), and (more surprisingly) adults associated with Protestant churches
(73%)![2] This leads to the position that
to claim one’s beliefs are absolutely true (true for everyone regardless
of their beliefs) is arrogant dogmatism, and that it is therefore inappropriate
to “proselytize” others. There are two tremendous ironies here
that most people miss.
First, the claim of philosophical relativism is itself an absolute
truth claim. The claim that “there is no such thing as absolute
truth” is an absolute claim. And as such, it is self-defeating
because for this statement to be true, there must be at least one absolute
truth, which means that that statement is false.
Second, while philosophical relativism condemns religious proselytizing,
it aggressively proselytizes people! This is a pernicious hypocrisy.
Religious relativism is profoundly intolerant and aggressively evangelistic—but
no one else is allowed to be the same! It condemns absolute religious
truth claims as bigoted, but it is the new dogma, and you will be shamed,
scorned and mocked unless you accept it.
So much for the background of religious relativism. What about a response
to it?
Religious relativism is intellectually untenable.
This is because it violates the law of non-contradiction. This
is the most foundational law of logic: If two statements about one particular
issue contradict one another (“The earth is flat.” And “The
earth is a sphere.”), then they are both false or only one of them
is true, but they cannot both be true. To say that they are both true
is literally "nonsense" because it violates the most basic common
sense there is.
It is inconsistent with how we form conclusions on other important
truth issues. We don't operate like this in other important areas
of life that deal with truth claims. If we did, life as we know it would
cease!
No traveler receiving contradictory directions to a destination ("I-71
NORTH GOES TO CLEVELAND." vs. "I-71 NORTH DOES NOT GO TO
CLEVELAND.") concludes “They’re both correct in their
own way, so it doesn’t matter which directions I follow.”
No financial institution says “We say you owe us $43,000 on
your mortgage, but you say you only owe $4300. Both are true.”
Would you want to work for this banker?
No engineer says “8 + 32 = 40 or 8 + 32 = 53. Both answers are
fine with me.” Would you want to trust a bridge this engineer
built?
Why is it that we reject such thinking in all other areas of life,
but accept it when it comes to the issue of religious truth? Though
the truth in religious truth claims may be more difficult to determine,
the law of non-contradiction still applies.
While all religions have superficial similarities (WEBSTER'S:
"The service and adoration of God or a god expressed in forms of
worship"), they make contradictory claims about foundational
issues. “We believe that all religions are basically the same . . . They
all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.”[3] Is this a caricature of the facts?
Hardly! Consider the disagreement between the five great religions of
the world on these crucial issues:
|
|
WHAT IS GOD?
|
OUR SPIRITUAL DILEMMA
|
WHAT IS SALVATION?
|
THE WAY OF SALVATION
|
|
CHRISTIANITY
|
Personal & Trinitarian
|
Separation from God because of moral guilt
|
Conscious, personal fellowship with God for all eternity
|
Receive the gift of God's forgiveness by faith in Jesus Christ
|
|
JUDAISM
|
Personal & Unitarian
|
Separation from God because of moral guilt
|
Conscious, personal fellowship with God for all eternity
|
Turn to God & live a moral life
|
|
ISLAM
|
Personal & Unitarian
|
Separation from God because of moral guilt
|
Enter Paradise for an eternity of sensual
pleasure
|
Perform the 5 Pillars of Faith
|
|
HINDUISM
|
Pantheistic or Polytheistic
|
Ignorance that all is one
|
Freedom from conscious, individual existence ("moksha")
|
Better reincarnation by improving karma
|
|
BUDDHISM
|
Pantheistic or Atheistic
|
Ignorance that all is one
|
Freedom from conscious, individual existence ("nirvana")
|
Escape reincarnation by following 4 Noble Truths & 8-Fold Path
|
NOTE: There is no assurance of salvation in the other four because
it salvation is dependent on your works. But there is in Christianity
because salvation depends on Christ's work (PRODIGAL SON: accepted
back with undeserved forgiveness vs. BUDDHIST STORY: work off the
penalty of past misdeeds by years of servitude).
SUMMARIZE: God can’t be personal and impersonal at the same
time. Salvation can’t be conscience existence and personal annihilation
at the same time. The way of salvation can’t be a free gift
and a wage earned at the same time. Consider the conclusion of these
two world-renowned scholars of world religions:
ANDERSON (Christian): “The fact is that generalizations about
religion are almost always misleading. Nothing could be further
from the truth than the dictum . . . ‘Religion
has not many voices, but only one.’ . . . Even
the most cursory examination of the theology of these different
religions reveals far more contradiction than consensus.”[4]
ZAEHNER (Hindu): “To maintain that all religions are paths
leading to the same goal, as is so frequently done today, is to
maintain something that is not true . . . (T)he
basic principles of East and West . . . simply
are not starting from the same premises. The only common ground
is that the function of religion is to provide release; there is
no agreement at all as to what (we) must be released from. The
great religions are talking at cross purposes.”[5]
CLENDENIN (Christian): "Contrary to the idea that all the
religions teach the same thing, by virtue of their historical particularity
and specificity the many religions offer us radically divergent
pictures of God, the world, life, death, the afterlife, and humanity . . . Historically
and empirically it is obvious that a common essence is precisely
what religions do not have; they aim at different goals, teach contradictory
doctrines, and prescribe radically different experiences. Religion
as a common genus simply does not exist."[6]
NETLAND (Christian): "It is difficult indeed to escape the
conclusion that some of the central affirmations of Christianity,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto are opposed; as long as the
meanings of the doctrines within the respective religious communities
are preserved, they cannot be jointly accepted without absurdity."[7]>
PANIKKAR (Pluralist): "(Pluralists must abandon their quest
for a common essence because) the incommensurability of ultimate
systems is unbridgeable . . . (and any) alleged
common denominator is a sheer reductionist abstraction."[8]
Therefore, the “DIFFERENT MOUNTAIN ROADS WHICH ALL LEAD TO SUMMIT”
analogy is simply untrue. The roads are on different mountains, they
lead in fundamentally different directions and they end on completely
different summits!
Religious relativism is personally dishonest.
It necessitates a willful distortion of the different religions’
truth-claims.
The above chart and quotes make this clear. Hinduism or New Age or
Bahai may seem more “inclusive” when they acknowledges Jesus
as “the blessed Lord Jesus Christ,” but this statement is
a deliberate distortion of the biblical meaning of this title. When
you look into it, they are really saying, “Jesus lied or was mistaken.
He is not the unique Savior of the world who died for humanity’s
sins against a holy and righteous God. He is one of many avatars who
realized his oneness with the All.” This is a deliberate distortion
of Jesus’ claims, not a more “inclusive” religion.
Therefore, the claim to accept all religions as equally true is actually
a rejection of all religions as false! Wouldn’t it be more honest
to just say “I don’t believe in any of them,” or “I
haven’t yet decided which one is true?”
No one really accepts all religious views as true or valid.
How many of you are really prepared to say that Baalism (with mandatory
child-sacrifice), or African Islam (with mandatory clitorectomy), or
Papua New Guinea animism (with headhunting) are valid religions?
How open-minded would you be about your children converting to these
religions? How many of you would be able to say with a clear conscience
“I’m glad you’ve found what’s true for you?”
How many of you are ready to accept Hinduism’s teaching that women
cannot enter the eternal state, or the Koran’s teaching that (Jihad)
holy war is a virtuous way to spread the faith?
"Do we really want to say . . . that all religions
and religious practices without exception are pathways to God? . . . What
about Hindu widow-burning, female infanticide, or Aztec human sacrifice
(Hans Kung notes that 20,000 people were sacrificed in four days at
the consecration of a temple in Mexico in 1487)? . . . But
in assessing religion, pluralists have the problem of avoiding radical
relativism, which . . . is inherent in their position.
In fact, consistent relativism would render both praise and blame impossible.
As the pluralists themselves acknowledge, without some criteria it is
impossible to distinguish between Jim Jones and Mother Theresa, between
an Amish village and David Koresh's Waco compound. To make critical
judgments of any sort requires some standard or standards, but to introduce
such criteria in order to judge religions is to no longer accept them
all as equally true and good."[9]
It often masks a desire to avoid investigation and decision about religious
truth-claims.
Maybe the most honest thing to admit is “I’m too apathetic
to investigate and decide, but I want to be viewed by my peers as tolerant
and enlightened.”
Jesus is up front about the nature of truth and the necessity of choice.
He demands that you either accept him and his claims as absolute truth
or reject him as false. There is no middle ground. Consider the following
statements:
Read Jn. 3:16-18. Not only is belief in Jesus proclaimed as the
means to avoid death and gain eternal life; refusal to believe in Jesus
will be judged.
Read Jn. 8:24. Failure to believe that Jesus is who he says he
is results in dying in your sins.
Read Jn. 14:6. Jesus is far from saying "Believe what you want
because all roads ultimately lead to God." Not only does he proclaim
himself to be the way, truth and life; he also says no one
comes to God except through him.
Why is Jesus so absolutist on this point? Maybe it’s because
our sins really do separate us from God, because we really
can’t earn God's acceptance by good works, and because only
Jesus really has paid the penalty for our sins for us.
GOSPEL: On an issue as important as this one (ULTIMATE DESTINY &
DIRECTION IN THIS LIFE), and with an offer as appealing as this one
(FREE GIFT), you owe it to yourself ask God to lead you to the truth,
to examine the evidence, and to make a decision (Check out Christianity:
The Faith That Makes Sense)! If there is good evidence that Christianity
is true, what good reason is there for not trying it out?
NEXT: “Does evolution discredit the Bible?”
Footnotes
[1] "Baptist Leader Blasts Clinton,"
USA Today, December 23, 1999, p. 2A.
[2]George Barna, What Americans
Believe (Ventura: Regal Books, 1991), p. 83
[3]Steve Turner, British Journalist;
quoted by Ravi Zacharias in Harvard lecture "Is Atheism Dead? Is
God Alive?" in November, 1993.
[4]Sir Norman Anderson, Christianity
and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1984), p. 15.
[5]Colin G. Chapman, The Case
for Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1981), p. 143.
[6] Daniel B. Clendenin, Many
Gods, Many Lords (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), pp. 64,108.
[7] Harold Netland, Dissonant
Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 110,111.
[8] Raimundo Panikkar, "The
Jordan, the Tigris, and the Ganges," in Hick and Knitter, eds., The
Myth of Christian Uniqueness (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988), p.
110.
[9] Daniel B. Clendenin, Many
Gods, Many Lords, pp. 50,51.