Christians claim that Jesus spoke the truth about God. Jesus, in turn, claimed “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:7 NIV). This certainly comes across as very exclusive.
Jesus, however, founded just one of many world religions. Can we take his exclusive claims seriously? Doesn’t the great plurality of world religions somehow undercut Jesus’ credibility? We will see.
Philosopher Paul Moser offers a very helpful discussion of religious exclusivism in his book The Evidence for God. In what follows, I’ll summarize his classification of various species of religious exclusivism—views that entail that certain religions exclude other religions or even other people. Some versions of exclusivism, at least, are undeniably true.
Here is a quick breakdown of the versions to be discussed:
- Logical religious exclusivism
- Redemptive religious exclusivism
- Strategic redemptive exclusivism
- Personal redemptive exclusivism
- Conditional personal exclusivism
- Actual personal exclusivism
Logical religious exclusivism
At the very least, we ought to all agree that different religions make contradictory claims. If one is true, then the other is not. Indeed, “the claims of various religions are logically inconsistent: they cannot all be true. (It is almost incredible that anyone would suggest otherwise after even a quick review of the religions in question.)”[1]
For example, “Judaism and Hinduism in their most prominent forms… disagree on monotheism.”[2] These two religions therefore logically exclude each other. Christianity, furthermore, claims that Jesus is divine. Judaism and Islam deny this. There can be no logical reconciliation in cases such as these. That much ought to be uncontroversial.
Put simply, all religions (including atheism) may be wrong, but they can’t all be right.
Redemptive religious exclusivism
This is “the view that some religions are redemptively exclusive, that is, exclusive regarding the redemption, or salvation, of humans by God.”[3] Redemption (or salvation) is a major theme in religion. How shall we live in light of the human condition? Will we survive death? Religions often speak on such topics.
There are two versions of redemptive religious exclusivism: strategic and personal.
Strategic redemptive exclusivism
This version “states that some strategies or programs for religious redemption exclude some other strategies and programs.”[4] Religions disagree as to how one should live in light of the human condition. They disagree over how to (and if one can) survive death.
For example, one might attempt to work towards or merit salvation. Do good, one might say. Good people go to heaven, etc. This, however, directly conflicts with the Christian message. Christianity regards all attempts to earn salvation from death as futile and misguided. Jesus alone offers redemption as a gift. This gift cannot be earned, only willingly received.
As such, it ought to be uncontroversial that religions disagree about how one ought to face death and the human condition. Indeed, strategic redemptive exclusivism is just a special case of logical religious exclusivism.[5] Therefore, “Any sustainable philosophy (or history or sociology) of religion will embrace strategic redemptive exclusivism, given the conflicting programs of redemption across various religions.”[6]
Personal redemptive exclusivism
This version of redemptive religious exclusivism holds that “given certain religions, some people are excluded from divine redemption or salvation.”[7] This view is also subdivided into two versions: conditional personal exclusivism and actual personal exclusivism.
Conditional personal exclusivism
This view holds that “If certain religions are correct in what they state or at least imply, then some people are excluded from divine redemption.”[8] This view “is clearly true, because it is clear that some religions deny universalism about salvation. That is, they deny that all people will be redeemed by God. This is a straightforward empirical fact about some religions, quite aside from whether all people actually will be redeemed by God.”[9]
Note that conditional personal exclusivism doesn’t tell us about whether anyone is actually excluded from redemption. That would require a different form of exclusivism involving one religion being correct about exclusion.
Actual personal exclusivism
At length we arrive at a controversial version of exclusivism, namely that “Religion X is correct in stating or at least implying that some people are excluded from divine redemption.”[10] Specifically, is Jesus correct in claiming to provide exclusive access to God? Are those who reject Jesus left without a valid hope for redemption?
Note that Jesus cannot be one way among many. The logical reality of strategic redemptive exclusivism precludes that possibility. The question, rather, is whether Jesus is the way or whether there are other ways instead of Jesus.
On what basis?
Actual personal exclusivism invites a “crucial question: on what basis, or in virtue of what, are some people (allegedly) excluded from divine redemption forever?”[11] Christians disagree over the best way to answer that question.
Moser reminds us, however, that any Christian doctrine of exclusion must befit a God worthy of worship. Since a God worthy of worship is morally perfect, and will therefore do what is morally best for all people, exclusion from God is best understood as human self-exclusion.[12]
If Jesus is indeed the only way of human redemption, then those who willingly reject his challenge of unselfish love will find themselves separated from God. How one responds to Jesus’ present day challenge to love one’s enemies (by his power) would be “important indeed relative to one’s ultimate destiny.”[13]
Conclusion
It turns out that many versions of religious exclusivism are evidently true upon closer inspection. The real question is whether any one religion—or more specifically whether Jesus—is correct in its (his) exclusive claims.
If Jesus’ exclusive claims are correct, then he cannot be regarded as one way among many. The way of Jesus is either exclusive or false. Given Jesus’ character—reflective of a God worthy of worship—exclusion from Jesus’ redemption is likely best understood as self-exclusion. This deserves more discussion.
[1] Paul K. Moser, The Evidence for God : Religious Knowledge Reexamined (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 234.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 238.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 239.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 240.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 241.
[12] Ibid., 252.
[13] Ibid.
Originally posted on Cognitive Resonance.
So Muslims are going to Hell, because the Christian god cannot find out a way to communicate to people who pray to him 5 times a day.
‘If Jesus is indeed the only way of human redemption, then those who willingly reject his challenge of unselfish love will find themselves separated from God. ‘
Yes, praying to God 5 times a day and devoting your life to worshipping God will find the Christian god turns his back on you and lets you go to Hell.
Jews reject Jesus.
If you think what Hitler did to the Jews was bad, wait until Jesus gets through with them for rejecting him.
Steven,
Your response assumes that praying 5 times a day entitles us
to some divine benefit, as if we have given God something that He didn’t have before. It also assumes that we humans can be good enough to merit divine payment and that God is unjust if He doesn’t pay up.
This represents a misunderstanding of biblical revelation – that our only hope is in the mercy of God.
If we are honest with ourselves, we recognize our sinfulness and hopelessness. However, we are in denial about who we truly are. In other word, we are self-righteous and have convinced ourselves that God owes us.
Instead, He has given us the gift of life and the possibility to receive His forgiveness. Consequently, it is we who owe Him, and not He us!
‘Your response assumes that praying 5 times a day entitles us
But, of course, you have totally misunderstood that if somebody sincerely prays to God 5 times a day, your god will send them to Hell because you claim they are not sincerely looking for God.
Sincerity? This is the very thing we lack according to Jesus:
John 3:19-21 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But
whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen
plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
Why do Christians think they can get to say that 800 million Muslims are all insincere?
Do they get an injection of arrogance when they are baptised?
Or do they simply not realise what impression they make when they open their mouths and speak?
Steven, It does not seem that you are engaging what I have written. The Bible claims that we are ALL insincere – all sinners – and all in need of the mercy of God:
Romans 3:“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
In contrast to this dismal picture of humanity, you suggest that God owes us. Instead, we humans live lives of self-delusion, deluding others. And we are taken in by the facade. We may be lovable, but we are also treacherous.
Hi Steven,
This is a late reply because I didn’t notice the comment until now. There are lots of different versions of Christian exclusivism. You are criticizing the view that all Muslims and Jews are excluded (i.e. going to Hell). Fair enough, that type of exclusivism may not be true. However, the quote of mine you use doesn’t describe that sort of exclusivism.
People need not necessarily recognize unselfish love as coming from Jesus in order to accept or reject it. People reject God’s loving character all the time without ever being formally introduced to him–just look at how they treat their neighbours. Perhaps some people accept God’s character, the loving character demonstrated by Jesus, without explicit knowledge of Jesus. Such people would not be excluded on this view. Accordingly, some cultural Christians may reject God’s loving character (I almost guarantee it) and will be surprised to find themselves excluded too.
Jesus warned about many coming in his name to deceive many. Paul and Peter talked about false teachers bringing in destructive heresies. The abundance of heresies and false Christ’s should do nothing to undermine the initial credibility to the Christian truth claims. “Hold fast to the faith that one delivered to the saints”. Unfortunately in our culture’s laziness to evaluate the most important claims to our existence, many just throw up their hands and give up claiming “there are too many options!” But just because there are a thousand ways to be wrong doesn’t mean there is no right (just look at any math problem). I’d suggest that, instead of proving the thousand answers wrong, you work through the equation and demonstrate the one answer as right.
I agree with you up to your last sentence. I still think it’s worth taking the time to point out that we do in fact face various sorts of valid religious exclusivism (and therefore thousands of answers must be wrong). Many people are loath to admit this, hoping to keep the multicultural peace perhaps.
Good good. I should clarify my point more. Certainly in my blog I try to provide a reasonable case to discredit false world views. We should be skilled in showing a false world view as false, individually, but this should be done if it is a barrier to the person coming to faith. We will have their biases to contend with. If a person has a neutral starting point, a presentation of the truth would be the simplest, quickest, yet effective route to the gospel
If one starts from the premise that Jesus’ statement is exclusive then there is a whole lot of trouble and discontent ahead. Jesus is talking about knowledge – how to know him and thus how to know the Father – and the Spirit. Why complicate thingsby adding a twist that isn’t there?
The post really doesn’t depend on Jesus’ exclusive statement as a premise. So, which version of exclusivism are you concerned about?
The premise you begin with.