Most of you are probably familiar with CS Lewis and his famous dichotomy.
“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
Of course, we all understand the implications of such a statement. If Christianity is false, then the way that it describes the universe is essentially invalid and needs to be thrown out.
However, if Christianity is true, then it must be infinitely important.
Why must it be infinitely important though? What claims does Christianity make that, if true, fundamentally alter the way that the universe must be perceived?
It all essentially comes back to one main Bible verse.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The religious exclusivism is incredibly obvious in this verse. Jesus did not say that He was one way or a way to the Father. He said that He was the way. Although it might seem kind of petty to be basing an incredibly important claim on a grammatical article, it really makes all the difference.
As one who believes that the Bible is inerrant, I do believe that this is an actual statement of Jesus Christ. I also affirm the position that Jesus Christ did indeed live a perfect life. Therefore, this statement must be true. If it was not true, it would therefore be a falsehood and Jesus would have told a lie, which is a sin. That would contradict my initial assertion that He did live a perfect life.
This statement, because I believe it is true, is central to my understanding of Christianity. It is truth based on the informal proof I presented above.
If I believe in these rather basic tenets of Christianity, I also need to believe that Jesus spoke the truth when He said that He is the only way.
Now, what are the implications of this belief?
The main implication is I cannot accept the fact that all paths lead to God. For example, I cannot believe that reaching nirvana is the same thing as reaching heaven. I can’t assume that the God that we worship as Christians is the same as Allah of the Muslim faith. I cannot believe that there are an infinite number of possible paths that have different names but really end up in the same place.
Although this may seem somewhat confining, it is the logical conclusion of the premises that I have outlined. Christianity needs to be on its own; it cannot be some kind of branch of one worldwide religion that manifests itself in different ways to different people at different times. Christianity cannot logically coexist with the statement that all religions are equally true.
We live in a society that wants to believe that all views are equally valid. If I believe one thing and you believe another, that is perfectly fine as long as we each affirm that each other’s view is equally true to our own. We like to call that tolerance even though that is a gross misuse of the word.
Christianity cannot operate in that environment. Certainly, we need to respect people who have other views. We need to listen to them and not automatically go into attack mode. However, by the nature of Christianity, we cannot honestly affirm other religions as being just as true as our own.
The Christian faith creates an ultimatum. Either all of it is true and therefore everything else must be false, or Christianity is false and no longer is valid to make any claims about any other religion by becoming worthless.
We could go on to have a lively discussion as to why Christianity is true, but my main purpose in writing this is simply to demonstrate that we cannot hold on to the Christian faith while simultaneously affirming that all paths lead to God. It is inconsistent with the basic tenets of Christianity, and, even though it might be politically correct, it creates many more theological problems than it might seem to reconcile.
“It all essentially comes back to one main Bible verse.”
For a number of years I believed that, quoted that, preached that. Then I had to ask, Why? Why must truth and wisdom and love and goodness all be reduced to one verse in one holy book, one religion, one religious teacher? Over the years the answer was as clear as the light of day: They don’t. The best of life and living cannot be reduced to any one thing. The diversity of viewpoints and experiences is good and wonderful. When I believed and preached that there was only one way (always interpreted in My Way, btw), I was “lost”–lost to hearing other points of view, lost to learning from all sources of wisdom and truth in this wide world. If there is “one way” then perhaps it’s the way of questioning and learning from others and. . .big breath. . .the Way of Love. This seems more in context with the whole teaching and life of the Rabbi of Nazareth, rather than basing an entire faith on one verse, doesn’t it?
I’m sorry that I didn’t see your comment sooner. For some reason, it doesn’t seem to be counting my comments for me, so I didn’t realize I had another one.
The point I was making from that one Bible verse is that Christianity cannot logically coexist with all of the other worldviews. If Christianity claims to be the one and only way, then it cannot simultaneously affirm that there are many ways. That would be incoherent. That is why I said that this teaching of exclusivism comes back to that one verse. Either it is true or false. That is why I said it all comes back to that verse.
I never said that I based my entire Christian faith on one verse. In the final paragraph, I even said that we can go on to have a discussion as to why Christianity is true (and that would take many other verses), but the purpose of my article was to handle why Christianity must stand alone as the truth or be false.
Thanks. Zak. Well, why does it have to be all or nothing, either/or, black/white, true/false? Basing one’s worldview on one religion or faith might just as well be one verse from one holy book (maybe a parallel is “exceptional Americanism”?).
Have you ever read other scriptures? I read them, and teach them (alongside biblical scriptures). Each holy book has its claim to “stand alone” and some true-or-false ideas. It doesn’t mean there is no “truth” or “good” or wisdom to be found therein. It’s understandable that people get excited about their book, their faith, their God. Yet, in the end, it’s “theirs” and not necessarily someone else’s. Could there be common ground? Jeez, I hope so!
Yes, there are exclusivist claims in many religions, but could a person who chooses to live by wisdom, compassion and justice draw some insight from all these sources? Seems to me that if you take the whole Jesus story (without prooftexting), he was encouraging fear-free engagement with wisdom and truth (and “the other,” the stranger, the outsider) wherever found.
So many people of faith are driven by fear and perhaps the greatest fear is that you may not have all the truth or all the answers, that life is a bit more grey and muddy than that, and that one verse or book or belief could never be sufficient to build a life on.
In my experience with faith and post-faith, I have been impressed by the number of people who, conscious of it or not, honor and follow the basic teachings of Jesus without being Christians at all. I’ve also been quite disappointed by those who claim to follow him, but are more interested in being “right” and “righteous,” dividing up the world into Insiders and Outsiders, than living for others as he did. I don’t need to worship him, or accept the exclusivism of a verse, to sense he would never be a Christian himself.
Be well.
Chris
Jesus entirely was willing to discuss wisdom and truth. I think that Christians should be willing to have these discussions as well. It doesn’t mean that Christians don’t believe in truth, but we should be willing to talk about it. If we didn’t, this website would not exist at all.
However, Jesus also claimed that He was the Truth. If He was not the truth, then He was indeed a liar. If He was a liar, then He certainly was not perfect. If He was not perfect, then we have a major problem with one of the major doctrines of Christianity. That is why this exclusivity is so important.
I am curious. You mentioned that Jesus would not be a Christian. What do you think He would be? He would deny claims that He made about himself or contradict what He said already?
I agree, Zak. A willingness to talk and consider other viewpoints is good. Christians have no need to fear other views.
Unfortunately, Lewis’ liar-lunatic-lord test fails to address the claims of other faith traditions that, as I said earlier, are equally as valid to consider for truth and wisdom. My point is that one can choose to believe all truth is embodied in one person, or book or religion, or choose to seek truth and wisdom wherever it may be found. I don’t for a second think that, given the gospel stories (filtered of course through faith), Jesus was lying. Or that his followers were “lying.” Any more than I can say Muhammad was lying when he recited the perfect words straight from Allah. Or that the writer of the Bhagavad Gita was lying when they wrote that Lord Krishna was the divine chariot driver.
You see, Zak, there is indeed a “world of religion and faith” out there. Anyone who says they are an apologist for one chosen perspective ought to be able to say why their choice is the best, chosen from viable and fairly weighed alternatives. That’s just honest, and truly honors “truth.”
btw, I’ve never met a person of faith, who has not only read the scriptures of other faiths but actually has a relationship with others who believe differently, who still felt it was necessary to defend and convince they have the best and only faith and book and god. What’s the point of that, when you have real relationships with other people, friends, family? I guess they would all just go to God’s specially designed torture chamber: hell?
As for Jesus not being a Christian. That seems beyond question. He was a Palestinian Jew who severely questioned and challenged the exclusive self-righteousness in his own tradition. I don’t personally see how he would “fit in” to pretty much anything presented as “His Religion” these days.
Cheers.
I think that we have both made our positions clear. Personally, I am arguing the position that Christianity cannot affirm all religions as simultaneously true, and you are arguing that Christianity does not have a monopoly on truth. It can contain some amount of truth while other religious beliefs can also contain truth (a point which I agree to in the extent that they agree with the teachings of Christianity).
I feel like we are kind of talking past each other though. My question to you is how do you reconcile this phrase of Jesus with anything other than exclusivism? Do you simply dismiss this as something He never actually said? We are kind of straying away from the passage in question that I proposed at the beginning of our discussion.
Before I answer your final question, I have to ask. You mentioned that you were a minister in the past, and I went to your website off of your profile and noticed that you were a Presbyterian minister. You never met anyone who tried to convert anybody to Christianity who was in their own family? You never met anyone who was saved and afterward lead their spouse to Jesus?
Yes, if traditional Christianity is true, then hell is a reality. This is also kind of a peripheral to our debate, but it does come back to the fact that if Christianity is true, then it is a reality we have to deal with.
Kind of in the middle of your response, you mentioned that any good apologist should be able to show why his or her preferred faith is better than another. I think that question applies to your worldview as well. That is something that we both need to deal with. What evidences do we have for our beliefs being true? If you want, we can proceed to that part of our discussion. I’m sure that we have both heard vague forms of each other’s argument before, but I am happy to go there.
I don’t want to leave this first part if there is still more to say though.
I agree again, Zak. These conversations can be a nice way of talking passed another person. It could be helpful though, so let’s try a bit more, ok?
I went back and read your post again and I still wonder why it is necessary to claim the exclusivism that centers on one verse of one holy book of one religion. I just finished reading the Qur’an again (for a class I’m teaching). Very exclusive claims. Lots of “truth” there. Can you say that a billion people who believe that have no connection to God or truth? (that a loving God built a special torture chamber for those billion is another troubling question). How would you test whether Islam is less true than Christianity?
I assume you know some Greek so you know that “way” as in “I am the way” is the common word for “road or path.” So, for you, one person in history is the “road.” And you would say “the road to God.” I get that (remember, I used to believe and preach that). So, how does one show that they are “on the road”? (what it I said, “I am the road, path, way?” Could you disprove that? Why would you deny that? After all, it might be true).
Maybe “the path” is living a loving life, showing compassion, working for justice, something like that? (Jesus might be a good model of that). Ok, but you’ll say that what you “believe” is the most important thing. Then I would have to ask, Why? Are you saying that the Creator of the Universe is more interested in hearing “I believe” than seeing you living the life “He” wants people to live? Hmm.
All I can say, Zak, is that I’ve spent my entire adult life living by faith and now no faith. The difference? Now I love and enjoy life and help people and work with others because it’s the right thing to do, not because I have to prove my faith. I directed an emergency shelter for several years and worked beside some wonderful people of faith. Did I care what they believed? Did they care what I didn’t believe? No. Because the people who needed shelter just needed shelter. Where would Jesus be in all this? Demanding religiously correct faith, or binding wounds?
You missed my point when I said, “I’ve never met a person of faith, who has not only read the scriptures of other faiths but actually has a relationship with others who believe differently” who was interested in converting. IF a person has actually read all the holy books and met people of other faith perspectives, honestly listening to their stories of faith, in other words, being in relationship with them, THEN chooses to be an Exclusivist, well, I’d have to wonder if they were really listening or had exhausted the search for Truth. You see, if I’m searching for the perfect human being (song, beer, burger) and I’ve only been introduced to one and handed one book about them, it might not be wise to stop the search.
As for “evidence” of what I “believe,” I know that’s a popular critique of non-theistic people like me: Oh, you just “believe” in No God and that’s a faith position. A weak argument. I guess we could “go there” with this if we want, but I have no doubt it will come back to your Bible and my Nature. I do not believe in Nature, the natural world; it’s simply all I experience. I just don’t see any evidence of a Super-Nature. If one claims there’s a tooth fairy or sasquatch or UFOs carrying aliens, the burden of evidence is on them, not me.
Here’s the thing Zak: I wouldn’t want you (or any of the “apologists”) to stop believing. I’m not anti-religious. Believers and nonbelievers have to live in and share the same small planet. I’d just like to encourage more people to seek wisdom, and to find common ways of living well without walling out other people.
Whoa. I’m tired. That’s the truth. . .but not The Truth!
Chris
I am happy to keep going. I like talking to you.
I can relate to a lot of what you’re talking about. I am a Christian, but like you, I have plenty of experience working with people who do not share the same beliefs I do. That is why loving other people is such a central part of what Christianity was meant to be. It was one of the two great commandments that Jesus himself played out. As you said, we share a planet, so we need to work with each other.
That being said, that doesn’t mean we all need to affirm that each other is 100% right. Just because I don’t practice Islam does not mean that I don’t care about people that do. We can have disagreement and still coexist.
As to how I would test views in general (Islam as you particularly cited), I would go back to their documents and see how well they hold up. For example, as I understand it, the Qur’an does claim that it is also the perfect word of Allah. If it is perfect, we should find no contradictions in it. Basically, I would start the same way that most people start to question Christianity. Do the actual documents we have that outline the system hold water? A lot has been written about Islam, but there are kind of interesting things where Islam claims that man was created out of nothing but also out of dust. That would be the first place I would start though. I would see what it claims about itself and make sure that it provides a coherent picture.
I have to assume that you’re familiar with some Christians who have undertaken this kind of work on the Bible. Lee Strobel comes to mind, but there have been many others who go back into the Bible to evaluate the claims it makes about itself. That is where I think you need to start. I could re-create one of those types of arguments for you, but I am sure you have heard them. Another interesting one is Cold Case Christianity if you are interested.
If you said that you are the only way to heaven, I don’t think you have quite the backing that Jesus had. I don’t think that you have fulfilled multiple prophecies made hundreds of years before your birth for example. I don’t know that per se, but I would look at the evidence around the claim that you made to see if it is reasonable to believe that your claim is right.
Glad to go a bit farther with this, Zak (do others ever join in?).
I’m not an Atheist Apologist so, as I said, I’m not interested in “converting” anyone to disbelief. Yet, I have a story of moving away from faith by deliberate and rational choice (my book Life After Faith tells some of that story, though it’s way too long).
I’m happy to read what you write in the first few paragraphs here about working with others with love and care. Yes, that seems to be one strong message of Jesus (as well as Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Confucius, Mahavira, my Parents, MLK, Gandhi. . . and others).
Anyway, regarding Islam (as our for instance) and the Qur’an, there are no doubt many contradictions, as there are in many books that claim “divine authority.” Once again, this doesn’t eliminate “truth” or wisdom or ethical teaching from these sources. That’s the common ground I seek and think wise to draw back to, faith or no faith.
When Muhammad emerged from the Arabian caves and said Allah had spoken to him, I would have had many questions! How do we know that a person (Muhammad, Moses, Jesus, Joseph Smith, etc) have or have not heard “the voice of God”? To me it’s a matter of reason and ethics. I have to ask, Does this help the world, or not? Is this message making us better human beings, or not? Is this yet another way of dividing the world into Insiders and Outsiders?
This is one reason why I say that Jesus was not a Christian, nor could he ever be. Why? Because his life and message were about service, about helping, about compassion without the distractions of “believing right” (orthodoxy). This is precisely why he butted heads so much with faith leaders who prooftexted and excluded and had megachurches to support with bestselling books (oh, sorry, that’s an anachronism!).
Here’s my bottom bottom-line: If a person shows compassion and does justice, it doesn’t matter whether they have faith or not. To say, “God told me to love” is sad actually. “My parents taught me to be loving” makes more sense. Or, “I’m just a caring person” seems alright, doesn’t it? I mean, would a Loving God reject and slow torture such a person for eternity?
Heavy questions, yes?
Chris
I know. It is kind of odd that no one has jumped on this with us. I guess since I was late responding to you it kind of faded into the background.
I would agree that Jesus did live a life of service. However, I don’t know if I would say that he didn’t worry about “believing right.” After all, He did say that He came to fulfill the law. He performed exactly the way that no human has never been able to because He was able to follow the laws that God laid down.
I think we have finally come down to the root of our disagreement. Like you said, for you, faith doesn’t matter if the actions are right. For me, it comes from Romans 3:28. We are justified by our faith and not by our works. We can take this from Galatians 2:10, Ephesians 2:8-9 or several other places.
Hello again, Zak. I think we have indeed finally come down to some “roots” and can probably move on soon. But I think it is a worthy conversation, especially for believers and non-believers who can speak with kindness and respect.
I admit that I grew out of orthodoxy to orthopraxis (right action). Buddhism emphasizes this, but I don’t have to be a Buddhist to “do the right thing.”. My years as a Chaplain among “outsiders” (to the society and to the church) convinced me that most faith positions are unhelpful and rather irrelevant, at least to masses of us who fail to see the point. I always felt close to the message of Jesus and some said I was following his path of compassion and justice. I still think that is honorable. But “believing right” no longer works in our turbulent and fearful world divided by politics, race, wealth and perhaps especially religion.
Muhammad once said, “None of you truly believes until you love for another that which you love for yourself.” Sounds familiar, yes? If those of us without faith can appreciate the almost universal message of love no matter what the source, the scripture or the “divine messenger,” then maybe people of faith can go back to their sources and agree: it all comes back to what you do with your life, not what you say, not what you say you believe.
As for “justified” by faith, well, one can pick and choose whichever verses to “justify” one’s position, wouldn’t you agree? I studied the bible, led bible studies, learned Greek and Hebrew and all that. It was interesting. Yet, even at Seattle Pacific, I read other books and opened my mind to a world of thought and the hard questions that drive honest investigation. Later, as a teacher and chaplain, I “read” the books of other lives, other “children of God” who sometimes saw life very different than I. And now, I “read” the “Book/Bible of Nature” (as John Muir and others put it) and I find all the wisdom, truth and encouragement to love that I need. God or no God we’re on this tiny speck in space together and better figure out how to be human in the same “house.”
I know we have divergent viewpoints, Zak. You are free to fall back on faith and the book you have chosen to live by. And I will fall back on reason and the natural book I have chosen to live by. Perhaps people like us, with faith and without, will one day find we need clean water or air, or safe neighborhoods, adequate housing or justice for outcasts, etc. What are we left with? Working together, or perish.
I wish you well in your endeavors. And I hope we both take something positive from this conversation and the tone of it. Maybe, just maybe, some on both “sides” of the debate will stumble on this thread and discover it’s not about “being right,” it’s about treating another as we wish to be treated.
Peace out there, Zak.
Indeed. I have enjoyed this conversation very much, and I love it when we can talk about these kind of issues respectfully.
I agree that many people miss the point of Christianity, and I fully admit that I am not perfect whatsoever. I know I mess up, and I know I don’t always practice what I preach. I try to, but I recognize my imperfection. I don’t mean to be throwing stones at other people, but I do agree that many people miss the point of Christianity. We need to love God with all our heart and then love other people. Those are the two commandments that Jesus said everything else follows from. That is where I put my faith. As much as I believe it, I know like you said, we have divergent viewpoints. I respect your choice to make that decision even though I might not agree with it. I am glad that you respect mine as well.
I think you summed it up very well. I think we both believe that we are right and the other one is wrong. However, we can still sit down (I assume you are sitting), have a conversation and even find stumble upon some common ground (maybe even unintentionally :)).
I am scheduled to publish on the first of every month, so if you ever want to check out my work again, I would love to have you come back!
That’s a good reminder in a pluralistic society.
Thanks Jim. I appreciate it.