Mormonism . . . . . . . . . .
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT THE ONLY RELIGION IN THE WORLD. THERE ARE SEVERAL major religions, thousands of offshoots of those faiths and literally tens of thousands of branches of those offshoots as well as small new religions that are found everywhere from large western cities to the jungles of Africa and South America. Like many of these faiths, Christianity claims that its central doctrines including the deeper philosophical implications of those doctrines are true descriptions of the nature and order of things. However, many people, especially well-educated American liberals, believe that theological claims, Christian or not, are subjective matters of private opinion and not much different from other matters of taste such as one's preferences for certain music, foods or sexual practices. Hence some people are deeply troubled by Christians who attempt to convert believers from other religions. In the minds of these people, such attempts are no different than trying to convince another that his preference for butter pecan ice cream or brunettes is wrong. Consider the example of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the largest Protestant denomination in the United States.
In late 1999 there arose a controversy concerning the effort of the SBC to evangelize Jews, Muslims and Hindus in the summer of 2000 in conjunction with its meeting in Chicago. The SBC planned to bring 100,000 missionaries for the task. But this did not sit well with some local religious leaders. According to a story in the Chicago Tribune, "The Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago, representing the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago and 39 other major Christian and Jewish institutions, sent a letter Saturday [Nov. 27, 19991 warning that the high-profile evangelical blitz proposed by the Southern Baptists in June would poison interfaith relations and indirectly contribute to violence."'
The letter states that "while we are confident that your volunteers would come with entirely peaceful intentions, a campaign of the nature and scope you envision could contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes."' Although the letter acknowledges the Baptists' constitutional right to religious expression, "it cites last July's [19991 shooting of six Jews in West Rogers Park and vandalism of a mosque in Villa Park in May as evidence of the vulnerability of people targeted because of their faith." 3 It is interesting to note that the council did not tease out its own logic and conclude that perhaps its call for Southern Baptist self-censorship while connecting a time-honored Christian practice (i.e., evangelism) to vandalism and battery could itself "contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes" and result in the Baptists being victims.
The council is not claiming that Christian doctrine is false, but rather it is claiming that religious beliefs are not legitimate claims to knowledge at all. So, it is not that the Southern Baptists are mistaken about the truth of Christianity; rather they are mistaken about the nature of religion. For if the council truly believed that religious doctrines, and Christian truth claims in particular, are claims to real knowledge, they would have not relied on demagoguery and scare tactics to make their point. In other words, the Southern Baptists are dangerous not because Christianity is false and they believe it is true but because they really believe that Christianity is true and they believe that other people from contrary religious traditions should become Christians as well. This is why Bishop C. Joseph Sprague of United Methodist Church's Northern Illinois Conference said of the Southern Baptists' plans for evangelism in Chicago: "I'm al ways fearful when we in the Christian community move beyond the rightful claim that Jesus is decisive for us, to the presupposition that nonChristians ... are outside God's plan of salvation. That smacks of a kind of non-Jesus-like arrogance."4 Of course, if Jesus' disciples had followed the bishop's advice rather than their Lord's Great Commission, there would have been no church and hence no Methodist bishops calling for the revocation of the Great Commission.
But the council's letter is itself a form of evangelism for its own view of the nature of theological knowledge. For the council is suggesting that the Southern Baptists, the letter's target, abandon their religious tradition and embrace the council's subjectivist view of religious truth. Just as the Southern Baptists hope that non-Christians are converted to what Christians believe is true about God and religion, the Chicago clergy hope that the Southern Baptists are converted to what they believe is true about theological knowledge, namely, subjectivism. Thus even those who claim, like the Chicago clergy, that it is wrong to believe that one's religion is true and others false, believe that their own view of religionthat it is wrong to believe that one's religion is true and others false-is in fact true.
Consequently, there is no way to soft pedal the fact that religious claims-whether about the content and truth of one's own faith or about the nature of religious truth claims in general-are serious claims about a cluster of deep human concerns including the nature of reality, what we can know and the essence of human beings and their relationship to the transcendent. In this part of the book our contributors cover four important religious challenges to the Christian worldview: religious pluralism, eastern religious thought, Mormonism and Islam. The first concerns the question of Christian truth-and the belief on the part of most Christians that Jesus is the only way to salvation-in light of the wide diversity of religions in the world. The other three chapters deal with actual religious alternatives to Christianity, two of which-Mormonism and Islam-claim to be the true consummation of Christianity. Mormonism has experienced unprecedented growth, "from 6 members at its founding in 1830 to over 11 million [as of 20021."° Islam, due to the horrific events of September 11, 2001, has shown the Western world, and the Christian church in particular, that it must be addressed as a serious contender to the biblical faith on which Western liberal democracies first grounded their political principles.6
TODAY'S SUPERMARKET OF RELIGIOUS IDEAS OVERFLOWS WITH ENTICING PRODucts. It offers intellectual shoppers countless religious options-everything from agnosticism to Zen. But which product is a Consumers Digest "Best Buy"? Is it crucial for a wise spiritual consumer to buy into the one right religion? Or should he feel free to select any religion at all?
Many today say that every religion is right. But my claim is that wisdom does not lie with the easy assumption that all the world faiths lead to God. That idea is fashionable, and it's initially attractive. But it runs into a buzzsaw of rational difficulties. Wisdom encourages a more difficult challenge: finding the one true pathway to God. This seems daunting at first, but it's more fulfilling in the end.
GETTING THE CONCEPTS CLEAR
Consumers enjoy complete freedom of choice. A television buyer can select either Sony or Magnavox; both produce solid televisions. All choices are good ones. Similarly, in religion, people assume that many religious roads lead to spiritual life. All faiths produce solid spiritual benefits; all are good choices. Someone who adopts this consumerist stance, whether or not she actually practices any religion, is a religious pluralist.
It's easy to confuse the concept of religious pluralism with ideas from two different categories. Some use the word pluralism for these categories. In the first category, "pluralism" denotes a factual claim. Factual claims are assertions about the way things are. For instance, a statement about the current population of Minnesota is a factual assertion. Some factual claims tell us that people believe different ideas. For example, political pluralism can mean that people embrace different political views. Some people are Republicans; others are Democrats. Cultural pluralism can mean that various individuals identify with different cultures. These are both obviously true.
Similarly, some use the phrase "religious pluralism" to designate the factual claim that various people follow different religions. This isn't how I'm using this phrase. I call this religious variety. The assertion that people do follow different religions is undeniable. It's uncontroversial. But the fact of religious variety differs from the theory of religious pluralism.
In the second category, "pluralism" names certain legal realities. These are statements about the rights people possess. People have the legal right (in the West) to adopt whatever views they choose. In this sense, political pluralism means it's legal to adopt either libertarianism or socialism. It's illegal to promote revolution. Beyond that, no law dictates any particular political view.
Likewise, "religious pluralism" could mean (in this legal sense) people have the right to adopt any religion-or none at all. This is religious freedom. Religious freedom is a constitutional guarantee of the right for citizens to practice the religion of their choice without interference. Religious freedom is not a factual claim describing what people actually do. It's a legal reality denoting what people may do. Unlike religious pluralism, religious freedom is uncontroversial in the West.
The concept "religious pluralism" doesn't fit in either of these categories. It's neither a factual claim nor a legal claim. It's a philosophical theory about religion.
Religious pluralism states:
a. Any (or perhaps all) religions lead to God or salvation. Following any religious path enables believers to reach the religious goal.
Religious pluralism, precisely speaking, is not a religious idea. There's a difference between a thing and theories about that thing. For example, suppose one Friday night, you decide to take in a movie. You search the Internet. A movie reviewer recommends a certain flick. So you head to the theater, pay eight dollars and enjoy the film. Now there's a difference between reading the review and watching the movie. The review is about the movie. The movie (obviously) is the movie. And it's the same way with philosophical theories. Holding a theory about religion differs from practicing a religion. Considering an idea about religion isn't the same as being religious.
A contrary view to pluralism is this: only one of the items offered for sale in the marketplace of religious ideas will actually deliver as promised. Not all choices are good choices. One religious path leads to God, but others don't. So let the spiritual buyer beware. A person who holds this view, whether or not he follows any religion, is a religious exclusivist.
Religious exclusivism says:
b. Only one true religion leads to God. Attaining the spiritual goal requires a believer to find and follow the one true faith, for other religious paths will not lead to the spiritual goal.
Now here's a critical point: exclusivism doesn't negate any factual claims or legal rights mentioned above. Why is that important? If religious exclusivism required that religious variety is false (obviously it's true), that would show exclusivism false. But exclusivism doesn't deny religious variety. And if religious exclusivism implied that religious freedom is a wrong value (obviously it's a good value), that would also count against exclusivism. But again, exclusivism doesn't reject religious freedom. Religious exclusivists feel no logical pressure to reject either religious variety or religious freedom. In fact, most exclusivists in the West happily accept them. Exclusivism requires the denial only of pluralism.
Interestingly, someone could hold to religious exclusivism and still not practice any religion. For instance, Vladimir believes that of all the world faiths, only Christianity really leads to spiritual benefit. (He's an exclusivist.) But he thinks to himself, "I know that Christianity is the true faith. But it's too costly. I know Christianity is the pathway to God, but it demands giving up betting on horses. I love horseracing! I choose not to practice any faith-at least not for now." (Vlad's irreligious.)
More generally, adopting pluralism or exclusivism is just different from practicing a religion. If Suzanne is convinced by arguments that she should abandon pluralism and believe exclusivism, then she'd change her philosophical idea. But that wouldn't necessarily mean changing religions. If she was a convinced Muslim before her philosophical conversion, she might remain one after. Conversely, if Juan's life is in a shambles, he might start Zen meditation, even though he's unsure about the arguments between pluralism and exclusivism. He might think it best to go ahead and do his meditation. He could come back at a later time to the questions of this chapter.
Those who discuss pluralism and exclusivism often mention a third position called religious inclusivism. Because inclusivism shares some ideas with pluralism and others with exclusivism, it stands halfway between pluralism and exclusivism. At the core, inclusivism says (with exclusivism) that only one religion is really genuine. It asserts (with pluralism) that people who follow many different religions can still be saved. While this sounds to some like the best of both worlds, I believe it's an unstable compound. It's worthy of discussion, but it reduces either to a modified exclusivism or an amended pluralism. So I focus this chapter on the exclusivism/pluralism debate.
SEPARATING THE TRUTH QUESTION FROM THE SALVATION QUESTION
Although we're getting the concept of religious pluralism into focus, we must straighten out one more issue. Different scholars use the categories of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism to answer two very distinct questions. I call these the truth question and the salvation question.
The truth question asks
c. Which religion's teachings are true?
When answering the truth question, pluralism asserts that all religions teach truth, and exclusivism claims that only one religion teaches truth.
But this is too vague. Obviously, all religions teach lots of things. Very probably, all religions teach some true things and some false things. So the truth question zeroes in on the most logically central questions, like What is the most basic metaphysical reality? What is the fundamental human religious problem? And what is the solution to that problem?
Let's call a religion deeply true if it gets the right answers to these very central questions. For instance, Christianity says that the most basic reality is the Creator God (the Trinity). The deepest human problem is human moral failure (sin). Sin drives people far from God. The solution (salvation) is moral forgiveness through the death of Jesus. By the Spirit's power, a believer receives this forgiveness as a gift. The gift of salvation places people in relationship with God. Now if these ideas really are true, then Christianity is deeply true. Even though every religion agrees with Christianity on some issues, they all contradict Christianity on these core questions. Since the various religions have rather different teachings on these central questions, only one religion could be deeply true.
Notice a couple of things about the truth question. First, those who follow a religion that's deeply true aren't necessarily right about everything. If Christianity is deeply true, that doesn't mean Christians have only true beliefs. Christians believe a thousand other things. Some of those thousand other beliefs are probably false. But if exclusivism is about the truth question and Christianity is deeply true, then exclusivism just means that the most central Christian teachings are true.
Second, even if exclusivism is about the truth question and only one religion is deeply true, other religions teach many true things. Examples are easy to find. If Christianity is deeply true, Buddhists are right that suffering is universal. Muslims are right to believe in one God. Hindus are right that Ultimate is infinite. Jews are right that God spoke through the Hebrew prophets. So exclusivism regarding the truth question means that only one religion is right on the most central of religious questions. It doesn't mean either that this one religion is right about everything, or that all other religions are wrong about everything.
In contrast to the truth question, the salvation question inquires
d. Which religions lead to God?
When answering the salvation question, pluralism asserts that following any religion leads to the religious goal, and exclusivism says that only practicing the true religion leads to the religious goal.
Many people today argue the central issue of religion is the salvation question. They often say that religion doesn't work with the usual kind of truth that describes the real world. That kind of truth is where statements describe a real world outside language. The statement "Kevin Gar nett is a very tall basketball player" is true because and only because K. G. is nearly seven feet tall and plays in the NBA. If this kind of truth is relevant to religion, then assertions like "People matter to God" are true because and only because an actually existing God actually loves actually existing people.
But many people want religious teachings to perform some joh other than describing reality. They say that religion doesn't literally speak about ultimate reality, the human condition and the spiritual path to life. Religious truth isn't about what's really true; it's about what's useful. For instance, some might claim that "God loves me" is true, but also that it's not true in the same way that "Mom loves me" is true. "God loves me" is true perhaps, in the sense that believing it gives me more courage to face life. The key is not that a real God really loves me. The key is that I believe God loves me. Believing this produces benefits.
This might seem odd, but some contemporary people think this approach provides a significant benefit. If religious beliefs like "God loves me" aren't supposed to be true but only beneficial, then there's no reason to argue about the truth values of religious beliefs. There's no reason to feel pressure to find the truth about religion. It's possible to respect the fact that others don't gain courage from believing "God loves me." Some find Zen meditation brings tranquility; others notice Jewish rituals pulling their families together. Everyone could respect everyone else's choice. All arrogance would disappear. Conflict would facie. Stressing the salvation question and evading the truth question seem to produce real social benefits.
The desire to tolerate others and avoid arrogance makes the truth question nettlesome and the salvation question appealing. If we could just agree that religions are just different paths to God, the pressure would dissipate. We could be religious consumers. I like Chryslers; he likes Buicks. I like Christianity; he likes Buddhism. Is religious exclusivism a good position to hold in light of pluralism's apparent advantage?
EVALUATING CRITIQUES OF RELIGIOUS EXCLUSIVISM
For people accustomed to thinking like consumers, religious exclusivism quickly draws many criticisms. We should examine them carefully. First, as I said above, some argue that religious exclusivism leads to arrogance and intolerance (and these are bad). If someone asserts that his religion is ultimately true, people say he's arrogant. If he argues other religions are wrong, he's intolerant. By definition, religious exclusivists think their religion is right and others are wrong. So clearly, exclusivists are guilty as charged. With so many different views to choose from, who can say who's right?
But this objection is as faulty as it is popular. For one thing, it overlooks a critical point. Sooner or later, everyone claims that some ideas are true. Let's say that Jane believes all religions lead to God. John believes that only Islam leads to God. Jane raises this objection: `John, you say all those other religions are wrong. You're arrogant to think you're right, and intolerant of others. How do you know you've got it right?" What Jane overlooks here is that she's making truth claims too. John maintains Islam is the one true religion. Jane insists pluralism is the one true philosophy. Playing Jane's game, John could respond, `Jane, you're saying that everyone who thinks she has the one true religion is wrong, for there is no one true religion. But you arrogantly think you're right as regards pluralism, and by your definition, you're intolerant of exclusivists. How do you know you're right about this?"
If the simple fact that someone believes she has the truth automatically means she's arrogant and intolerant, then everyone is arrogant and intolerant. All of us hold the views we do because we think we're right! (Why else would we adopt them?) But it's absurd to say everyone is arrogant. Conviction-holding our views because we think we're right is not equivalent to arrogance and intolerance.
For another thing, this stance misunderstands arrogance and intolerance. These concepts don't describe whether a person disagrees with others. Everyone does that! These words describe how he disagrees. Some exclusivists certainly are arrogant and intolerant. But exclusivism doesn't necessarily lead to these evils. In fact, many Christian exclusivists show great respect. In religious discussions they say, "I believe that God created all things and loves all people. He wants everyone to love him. And he's made restored love relationship possible through Jesus Christ. That's what I think. But I'm interested in what you believe. Please share your view with me." How could you say such a person is arrogant or intolerant?
Second, some say religious exclusivism is fundamentally violent. Those who use violence to force compliance begin by thinking they're absolutely right. History shows that when people think they're right, they stop at nothing to force agreement. The Inquisition, for example, used terror tactics to require submission. Exclusivism spawns arrogance, and arrogance leads to violence. Essentially, this critique ratchets up the previous objection.
Before I respond, I need to make an admission. Historically, some supposed Christians did use force to promote their agenda. I confess this fact candidly. (I refuse to overstate it.) I believe using power to force religious compliance is not only completely fruitless (people believe as they will in their hearts) but fundamentally contrary to the Spirit of Jesus.
Now to respond. Although violent people are arrogant, the point fails as a criticism against exclusivism. For one thing, it commits a common fallacy. Those who violently force others to conform to their views do typically believe exclusivism. But this doesn't even hint that those who believe in exclusivism will use terror against others. This is a logical fallacy. If John is a father, he's a male. This doesn't prove that if John's a male, he's a father. If all A is B, it doesn't follow that all B is A.
For another, notice this: the rejection of violence actually requires commitment to truth. (Remember, today's common intuition is that anyone who believes he has the truth is arrogant and violent.) The ideaarrogance and violence are evil-is claimed as truth. The moral rulescombat arrogance and prevent violence-are moral truths. The critics' assumption that they possess the truth about these moral values usually lies hidden (to themselves). Now I completely accept these values. The difficulty arises for the critic, however, who argues against someone else's conviction on that grounds that holding convictions breeds violence. The critic's argument depends on his own deep moral conviction, and so his stance succumbs to his own complaint.
It's not commitment to truth that causes violence. Those who genuinely respect truth, as opposed to those who use so-called truth to further political agendas, know that power is subject to truth. This is pre cisely why a free and unbiased press promotes political liberty and propaganda doesn't. Rather the denial of truth triggers violence. What history actually teaches is this: when powerful people falsely believe they're entitled to ignore real, publicly tested truth and to snub the moral truth others live by, violence escalates. By contrast, Christianity is about the Prince of Peace who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek and love their enemies. Anyone who spreads this message by violent means distorts the gospel of Jesus beyond all recognition.
Third, some complain that religious exclusivism is profoundly unfair to any who happen to miss the one true message. If people fail to hear about the one true faith, obviously they can't practice it. And if they can't practice the true faith, they can't receive salvation. This leaves people with no chance at salvation through no fault of their own. This is simply unjust. With Christianity, what about people who lived before Jesus? Or cultures where Jesus is unknown? Or people who can't understand the Christian message-like very young children?
Exclusivists offer many responses. For one thing, many qualifications fit with exclusivism. Some say God gives special grace to children or others who can't understand a religious message. Others say that God knows every person who would respond and ensures that all people who would believe have a chance to believe.
For a Christian, this objection is difficult because we just don't know all that God will do for people who don't know about Jesus. But we do know about the character and the intentions of God. Regarding God's character, among God's essential attributes are justice (intense opposition to evil) and grace (passionate love for people). Regarding his intentions, a deep divine passion is to rescue all people. If we start with what we know, we can gain confidence. Somehow-it's speculation to say exactly how-God is at work to draw all people to himself.
One reasonable scenario is that God will give all people the opportunity to receive salvation. How God will do this is partly clear and partly hidden. The clear part is that God has instructed Christians to offer to others the opportunity to receive the gift of salvation. The less clear part is what God is doing behind the scenes. If God's character and intentions are as the Bihle says, I surmise God is doing far more than we know. So, on the one hand, it would be arrogant for Christians to presuppose and mistaken for critics to assume that God's entire effort is limited to what human beings do. On the other hand, it would be irresponsible for Christians to conclude they may shirk their duty to share the message of Jesus just because God works in unexpected ways behind the scenes to bring his love to the world.
As I said, we don't know all God's ways. As a Christian, I say some things (like my responsibility to humbly share Jesus with others) are clear and nonnegotiable. But others are less clear. To answer the third charge against Christian exclusivism, however, it's enough to know that God will both conquer evil and draw all repentant people to himself. Remember, the point here is to answer an objection, not to give a full account of the unknown. The objection is that exclusivism is unfair to those who have no chance for salvation because, humanly speaking, they haven't heard that message. But I believe God will give the chance to all. We don't know how this works. If God is committed to drawing all people to himself, then the objection doesn't hold against Christian exclusivism. We can reasonably infer, given God's commitment to overcome evil, his longing that all people love him, and his infinite resourcefulness, that his plan is fair. Abraham once asked rhetorically, "Will not the God of all the earth do what is right?" We don't know exactly how, but we have confidence he will.
EVALUATING RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
Objections to exclusivism don't carry the freight. Even so, someone could say that religious pluralism is superior because it's more openminded. But I have a surprising claim: pluralism is more subtly narrowminded than exclusivism. Why? Let me describe several forms of pluralism I've run across.
First, one form of pluralism interprets all religions as true in that they produce valuable results. This view, as I said above, actually means that religions are useful, not true. Religious claims (like "Yahweh is the Creator") are not literally true (like "St. Paul is the capital of Minnesota"). But believing them generates benefits. So religions are useful fictions.
Here's an illustration. A pluralist I once debated said that most major religions are good because they produce emotionally mature, socially adapted citizens (which any society needs). So the various faiths-Islam, Christianity and Buddhism-are valuable because they develop good people. I said in return that traditional Christianity doesn't merely produce good citizens in this world, although empirical evidence shows it does do this. The real point of Christian faith is to activate a spiritual relationship with God, beginning in this world and continuing in the next. In response, my friend said there is no afterlife. His comment entails that the Christianity I embrace is not true.
Notice what happened: my friend began by offering the attractive thesis that all religions are true. But truth, it turned out, doesn't mean literally true but merely useful. When I asked him whether my faith-a faith that billions of Christians have followed for centuries-is deeply true, he said it isn't. Now he could be right. Maybe billions of Christians are wrong. I can accept that. What I can't accept, because it seems deeply confused, is this combination of claims: my faith is literally false, my faith is useful to society, and he's open-minded because he thinks all the world's religions are true. I'd rather he admit he thinks my faith, as I hold it, is just plain false. But here's the rub: that honest admission would involve abandoning pluralism.
Second, another form of pluralism accepts the truth of all religions, but only after they are properly interpreted. A man I heard used a husk and kernel analogy. The husk on the outside (each religion's doctrinal teachings) differs among faiths. But the kernel inside (the deeper meaning) is identical. At the level of deeper meaning, all religions agree and are true.
But again, this subtly disrespects real religions. This man claimed to agree with all faiths. But when he spoke of any particular faith, he labeled the ideas he accepts as kernel and those he rejects as husk. So he edited my faith. He classified the teachings he accepts under the deepermeaning-of-all-religion. He grouped the leftovers as husk. It turned out the deeper-meaning-of-all-religion is what he believed all along.
Now this just doesn't take my faith seriously. He said he agrees with my religion, but in fact he accepts an edited version of my faith-which ends up looking just like his faith. Then, on the grounds that his faith and his edited version of my faith look the same, he said all religions are identical. And he took credit for being open-minded. I, apparently, am narrow-minded. I felt as though I've been colonized by an imperialist power. He rejected my faith as I hold it. Then he reinterpreted it so it says what he believes and claimed we're on the same page. We're not on the same page. We hold different religions. And we should honestly acknowledge that. Again this would involve denying pluralism.
Third, another form of pluralism says that God is completely infinite and therefore unknowable. (This form of pluralism uses the phrase "Ultimate Reality," which is supposedly more neutral, but IT use the word God.) Whenever we use concepts to describe some object, we say both what the object is and what it's not. So applying concepts to an object always limits the object. But God is not limited. He (or It) is infinite. So no concept really applies. This stance honestly acknowledges that all religious concepts are equally far from God (or equally close-it's the same thing). So the concepts good and lampshade are equal in their appropriateness or inappropriateness to God. Yet this view interprets all the religious experiences in the various religions as real encounters with God. We can't know anything of Reality, but we can experience it.
A full response to this deftly defended stance could fill a book. Let me briefly mention four points. For one thing, many real religions do assert that certain concepts do properly apply to God. (Many say "love" properly applies to God but "terrorist" doesn't.) So in denying this, pluralism implies yet again not that all religions are true but many are literally false. Once more, pluralism fails to take real religions seriously. In addition, if no concepts apply to God, how can we know that the object of religious experience is good and not evil? Good and evil are concepts. If they're equally appropriate/inappropriate to God, how do we know we're encountering God and not a demon? If no concepts apply, then no concepts apply, and we're ignorant of whatever it is we're supposedly experiencing. Further, for this reason, pluralists of this stripe often whisper what God is really like. That is, the temptation to break the rule against applying concepts to God is nearly irresistible. Indeed, just speaking about Ultimate Reality (as these pluralists say) applies the concepts ultimate and real to God. This seems inconsistent. Finally, why worship a God when we can't apply concepts like goodness, interest in us or ability to overcome evil to that God? Isn't it morally repulsive to worship something as ultimate and good when we have no way to know whether that thing really is ultimate and good?
I've focused on our topic by emphasizing the truth question. But pluralists want to focus on the salvation question. By ignoring the truth question, they can push aside pesky differences in truth claims. They can focus on the spiritual quest. But what's that? It's getting in touch with God. But what is God like? Is it personal (Islam) or impersonal (Buddhism)? It's overcome the human predicament. But what is that? Is it ignorance (Hinduism) or moral failure (Judaism)? It's pursuing spiritual life. And what is that? Is it a love relationship (Christianity) or a metaphysical absorption (Hinduism)? Is it finding our truest selves (Christianity) or extinguishing our truest selves (Buddhism)? These truth questions are unavoidable.
Saying that all religions help us achieve the spiritual quest is too vague. What is the truth about that spiritual quest? What is the true Summum Bonum-the Greatest Good? Religious analyses contradict. But getting the analysis right is important, for every practice depends on the truth of analysis. Should I take antacid or chemotherapy for my stomach pain? That depends on a truth question: Do I have heartburn or stomach cancer? Should I become a good citizen for today's society, as my pluralist friend encourages, or should I also prepare for the afterlife? That depends on a truth question. The truth question is unavoidable.
Those who try to focus only on the salvation question in fact assume background answers to truth questions. (And often, these unstated assumptions deny traditional Christianity.) Its unreasonable to say that all the religions are true paths to the spiritual quest, meaning that every religion is a true path to whatever that religion defines as the spiritual quest. There's just too much variation on the truth question. Saying that all religions have it right, even though they're all literally false, creates rational tension. I submit that people who claim every religion is true paint themselves into a corner. In the end they will tend to believe their own religion is deeply true, and that other faiths are true to the degree they agree with theirs. And that, of course, is not pluralism.
EXPLAINING CHRISTIAN EXCLUSIVISM
So far I've tried to answer criticisms against religious exclusivism, showing how several forms of pluralism fail to take real religions-religions as they are actually believed and practiced-with any seriousness. I now offer a positive explanation of religious exclusivism. But I'm not really interested in religious exclusivism. I will discuss specifically Christian exclusivism.
Christian exclusivism includes at least two ideas. First, you find spiritual life by trusting in God and following Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Second, you do not find spiritual life on the strength of other religions. Actually, I can go farther. Christian exclusivism (as I hold it) says that you won't find spiritual life by practicing any religion. No religion leads to God, in my view. And that's why I'm not as interested in generic religious exclusivism. Only following Jesus, by the Holy Spirit's power, leads to God. And that's not religion.
Let me explain. Much religion is a variation on the following theme: we have done bad things, and we suffer the results; we must do good things to counteract those bad things. This treats religion as contract. In a contract, a person enters a fee-for-service arrangement. He expects to pay a fee and to gain some benefit. I sign a contract to have Drawbridge Painting paint my house. I want a good paint job out of the deal. Drawbridge Painting wants my money. Neither is looking for a long-term love relationship. Both would like to negotiate the price. I want a lower fee but everything painted. Drawbridge Painting wants either a higher price or to leave the window trim unpainted. Both sides have expectations. If Drawbridge Painting doesn't paint, then I don't pay. The two parties care only that the joh is done well and the bill paid on time.
Contractual religiosity follows this pattern. People enter a fee-for-service arrangement with God. The human gives money, does religious rituals and believes religious ideas. In return, she expects protection, help, good fortune, a sense of meaning in life and rescue from punishment in the next life. The believer isn't thinking in terms of a long-term love relationship. He wants to negotiate the price down. If he can get a heavenly reward for himself and his family, but he only has to attend religious rituals twice a year rather than once a week, that's good-like getting a great paint job at one tenth the price. If the believer has certain expectations of God and God doesn't meet expectations, then the contract is broken. Then the believer is freed of his obligation. A believer like this doesn't really care what happens to God. His question is, what can God do for me?
Most religions, I submit, are variations on this theme. The differences lie in the specifics. The Christian faith, however, is fundamentally not contractual. I don't follow Christ as a way of earning spiritual reimbursement. I enter into what the Bible calls covenant. A covenant is a mutual, faithful, long-term, love relationship. The key is not the benefits I receive but simply being in relationship. I just love, and I'm loved in return. The love is an unearned gift. I don't love to get something-least of all love as an earned stipend. I just give my life, trusting in the other. And the other does the same. In this trustful and faithful relationship I find the deepest intimacy of love. I don't control the relationship (as in contract). I must give myself in trust to the other. As Jesus said, if I lose my life, I find it. The result is a relationship with God through Christ that the Bible calls eternal life. It's what God created me for.
This differs radically from religion. In contractual religion, I live a good life in order to fulfill my half of the bargain and to gain benefits (either health and happiness in this life or heavenly reward in the next). In covenantal relationship, I live a good life because I'm responding faithfully to the gift of love. Like a groom who remains faithful to his bride, I follow God's will not to gain his love but because he first loved me. This is relevant to our topic-Christian exclusivism and religious pluralism-precisely because pluralism routinely garbles this Christian invitation to love relationship with God. Pluralism transmutes it into something unrecognizable. Christianity is not a series of practices I perform either to become a good citizen in America or to win rewards in heaven.
In the end, it's unreasonable to say that both contractual religiosity (which produces good people for this world) and covenantal faith (which invites us into a love relationship with the Creator for eternity) are the ultimate truth about life. These two visions of life are so different that only one can be true. (My pluralist friend reluctantly agreed.) That claim, plus the belief that following Jesus is the path to life, is, as I said, the essence of Christian exclusivism.
What about the major motive for moving to pluralism-combating arrogance and intolerance? Holding a view as true doesn't automatically make someone intolerant. (Remember, if believing a view-and denying its opposite-automatically makes a person arrogant, then pluralists who accept pluralism and reject exclusivism are automatically arrogant.) Arrogance and intolerance, as I said, are about how we hold our convictions. Everyone holds some convictions, and that requires denying opposite convictions. A person can hold her views confidently and yet humbly Christian exclusivism demands that. We can believe we've found the truth. But we completely agree arrogance and intolerance are evil. So we practice humility. We say, "This is how I see it. I've thought about this, and I have some reasons for thinking as I do. But I'd like to know how you see it. What are your reasons? Let's examine all the reasons together."
This commitment to honest dialogue with others is both confident and humble. Because I'm firm in what I believe, I'm confident enough not to attack others out of insecurity. Confidence allows listening with respect. Fundamentally, arrogance and intolerance don't arise out of conviction but out of insecurity and fear. The solution to intolerance, then, is not a denial of conviction. Where there is no commitment to truth, power gains the upper hand. This is the essence of political correctness. Power reigns over truth. Those in power deem certain views acceptable not because of their rational merits but because of political advantage. If I hold the "right" view, I'm rewarded; if I hold the "wrong" view, I'm punished. But this has nothing to do with honest inquiry and genuine evidence. It's about those in power enforcing respectable views. Christian exclusivists committed to the reasonableness of truth and satisfied by the love of Christ can show true humility. If we're content in Christ's grace, we're secure in him. We don't feel threatened by difference. We can engage alternative views, neither cowering in fear nor exploding in aggression. We can bring a non-anxious presence into relational conversation with others because we are beloved by God. This is the Way of Jesus.
CONCLUSION
I began with a consumer metaphor. Consumerism pervades Western culture of the twenty-first century, and it shapes how many think about everything, including religion. A consumer wants lots of options. Not so a bride. A bride feels that having one special person who gives himself in deep, dedicated love relationship is far better than multiple options. A Christian exclusivist isn't a religious consumer. A Christian is like the bride, satisfied to know and love her groom-and to be known by and loved by her groom. This intimate love relationship with the Creator is what Christian exclusivists believe God offers through Jesus.
FOR FURTHER READING
Adler, Mortimer. Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth: An Essay in the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1990.
Copan, Paul. Thats, just Yourlnterpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001.
. True for You, but Not True for Me. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998.
Nash, Ronald H. IsJesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondeivan, 1994.
Netland, Harold A. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Okholm, Dennis L., and Timothy R. Phillips. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonclervan, 1996.
ONE DOES NOT GET FAR IN A CONVERSATION WITH A HINDU SAGE OR AN unsophisticated follower of Hinduism before one of them offers the familiar illustration of four blind people feeling an elephant in the dark and each one coming out with a different description of what it is he or she is feeling-a rope, a tree or some other object, depending on the tail or leg or whatever is being clasped. This story seems to be the best escape hatch to do away with any interpretive burden that keeps with the facts. Yet the obvious seems to escape the one giving the illustration: that smuggled into the analogy is the idea that it is an elephant that is under discussion and not any of those errant pronouncements made by the ones devoid of light and sight.
This illustration, however, is part and parcel of the enormous challenge of communicating across the huge divide of language, truth, logic and culture. I would like to focus on the last of these because much has been written about the other three. The biggest wall standing between the various ethnic groups and beliefs of our time is the catch-all term we call culture-especially if the reigning worldview behind the culture is Eastern pantheistic in its framework.
The famed theologian Paul Tillich once said, "Religion is the essence of culture and culture the dress of religion." At the core of every peoplegroup is a belief of life's essence and meaning. These form the meta physical givens in their worldview. The outworking of these beliefs is the attire of their culture.
Professor T. M. P. Mahadevan, who was professor of philosophy at Madras (now called Chennai) in the 1950s and also guest lectured at Cornell, Berkley and other such fine institutions, often described Indian philosophy as a "philosophy of values." His statement is echoed in one way or another, in the halls of Eastern learning. This is how he said it:
One can see in this statement made over half a century ago, the long and ubiquitous shadow of the pantheistic worldview that stretched its reach through the second half of the twentieth century-transcendental meditation, the science of being and art of living, the New Age movement with its multiple offerings, Deepak Chopra's hybrid entity of science, philosophy and mysticism, and so on. This was the chimera waiting to be born that would give the religiously denuded West a semblance of religion with a sophistication of a supralogic. Today, any doctrine that smacks of biblical teaching is castigated as being divisive and a cultural imposition, while the fundamental beliefs that have spawned the nebulous world of value without doctrine are the grand elephant that the doctrinaire misconstrues as a rope or a tree trunk.
It does not take much to notice what this means in practical terms. Simply stated, one can make value statements with which someone of a different worldview agrees, but we had dare not go beyond the statement to the reason for its being true. That would be logic chopping and some kind of metaphysical voyeurism that is obscene to the one who intuitively deduces the value while denying the reason. In short, the foundations of argument have been replaced by the bullying force of culture, and the law of noncontradiction is used only when the opponent of the Christian faith wishes to demean the gospel in some way. Spirituality with an underpinning of pantheistic beliefs is portrayed as being serene, innocuous, all-embracing, mystical and wonderful. The Christian faith is portrayed as some kind of "been there, done that," hatefilled, judgmental, exclusionary and ideationally unfit dinosaur for our pluralistic times. The challenge has become immense and must be viewed with great caution and wisdom so that the bridge that has broken down may be reconstructed and crossed with effect and legitimacy.
The world is now being constructed on reclaimed land from the sea of faith in which we seek common values without finding common reasons from which those values stem. Yet the deeper one probes into the reasoning, the more one has to wonder whether this disjunction between values and reasons will sooner or later take away from us the water of life. "Stay with the platitudes," "Don't rock the boat," "Agree on the niceties." So what if it gradually erodes the source of life and truth? Many of us are familiar with the injunction "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." If that statement were to be repeated by a follower of Jesus Christ to a devout Hindu, the recipient would smile with utter glee and say, "That is exactly what I believe." Many such statements, even if lifted from Jesus' own words, evoke such a response. I even heard one man share his testimony at the Washington prayer breakfast that he was a Hindu Christian-whatever that meant.
Unfortunately, the terms do not come in a vacuum but are value-laden with two different worldviews in collision. It is imperative, therefore, that we try to understand what values permeate these cultures of the pantheistic worldview and seek some common ground from which to underscore what the truth is and why the truth matters. I take India as the microcosm of study because in many ways it has been the progenitor of such thinking and, in our time, even the beacon to guide the world of intuition into reclaiming religion from the sea of spirituality and constructing it on the sand of culture.
I must state from the outset that one can be gracious in disagreeing and that everyone has a right to his or her belief. What we must all remember, though, is that not everything a person believes is right-and one had better take his or her belief system to the scrutiny of truth.
A VAST HISTORY
Indian religious history evolves over several thousand years. This is in itself considered a badge of honor. One can go back well beyond two to three millennia B.C. into the development of the Vedas. As these were being formed one could detect the two strands that were clearly underpinning the thought: the doing and the being or the pragmatic and the meditative-the active and the contemplative. The Vedas are such a mix of sophistication and embarrassment that some scholars wondered how they ever came to be a corpus of such extremes. Some of the Vedic ideas incorporated even bizarre incantations and in turn invoked strong castigations from critics. Gautama Buddha, for example, denied the authority of the total Vedic teaching, and Mahatma Gandhi said he would like to remove some of its pages. The vast breadth from polytheism to henotheism to maybe even laying the groundwork for individual spirituality is the extent of its teaching. This paved the way for the Upanishads, where mystical experience and intuition overrode reason and even cast doubt upon the possibility of knowing ultimate truth.
After the Vedic period came the most formative stage of Indian culture. If every culture has a story, the Epic period of Hindu development became the stage. From about 500 B.C. to about A.D. 200 the Hindu epics of the Mahahharata and the Ramayana literally took center stage. Trea tises on social philosophy and the laws and customs of life and culture were being imperceptibly etched into a people's consciousness. Whenever we read of the values of the four human ends intrinsic to reality, this is where they come from: wealth (artha), pleasure (kama), righteousness (dharma) and perfection or freedom (moksa).
This period also gave rise to various political treatises and ultimately the most beloved of all Hindu writings, the Bhagavad Gita. But interestingly enough, it was during this period that robust debate was stirred and significant movements emerged out of the bed of Hindu thought, yet into a world of different beliefs. Mahavira with his Jainism, Buddha with a different belief, and other systems sprang up. In the words of Radhakrishnan, "Doubt was no longer looked upon as dangerous." This springboard is what probably prompted Radhakrishnan's further statement that one could be a Christian, an atheist and a Buddhist but still be a Hindu.
But following this era there came an obvious thrust to find some systematization out of the disparate threads, and from this analysis there emerged six schools of thought.
The Mimamsa school (ritualistic realism)
The Vaisesika school (atomic pluralism)
The Nyaya school (logical realism)
The Vedanta school (idealistic, pantheistic monism)
The Samkhya school (evolutional dualism)
The Yoga school (dualistic meditative intuitionism)
In this vast spread of theory and practice lies the soul of Indian culture. One can see how difficult it is to make some cohesive sense of it.
FINDING SOMETHING SOLID TO BUILD ON
Junjiro Takakusu, in The Essentials of Buddhist Thought, first traces the development in Hinduism to show how Buddha departed from it. His delineation of the development is very succinctly put.
In the Upanishads a pantheistic idea was already ripe and the universal principle was conceived also to be immanent in an individual. The Self (Atman) gradually became the individual principle. The Supreme God which the Upanishadic philosophers objectively sought and found was now discovered subjectively in their own person. It was an Intellectual Reality, The Lord of Cognition, The Internal Guide, The Light of Mind, The True Light, The Highest Splendor. Where there is no sun, no moon, no star, no lamp, Atman alone shines in darkness, from whom all beings partake of the light. It was finally identified with the universal Self, which was also called Maha-purusa (Great Person) or Mahatman (Great Self). Finally, the mysticism of identity was realized: "Tat Tvam asi" (Thou art that), and "Aham Brahman asmi" (I am Brahman).
Takakusu actually has a brilliant section that follows in showing how Buddha departed from these steps, one by one. It makes for a fascinating study. But any student of this philosophy and culture can see how the variegated strands of thought were interwoven till the colors and distinctives of each showed forth depending on the way one wanted to look at it. To shift the metaphor, this was truly thinking put into the blender so as to not lose anything, but the end result was a different product to what went in. Pantheism in Hindu thought is anything but monolithic. Just as the elephant lent itself to manifold descriptions, so does this world of belief. It is no wonder that one can walk only a few paces to engage another in a conversation and find it in a totally different description from the preceding one. The dress and the essence have intermixed till one does not know which is which.
When you add to the sheer weight of writings the massive size of this subcontinent in its socioeconomic struggle, you can see that systematization was merely a dream. It was this combination of complexities that gave rise to the three ways to attain the ultimate release: the way of knowledge, the way of works and the way of bhakti or devotion. It became a system where the religion could become all things to all people so that by all means it would save all. Bringing the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ into this mix was to put oil into water. No one wanted a rock in the shifting sands of epistemological chaos. Any mix retaining exclusivity was to ask for the impossible.
I would like to borrow, both from study and experience, what foun dations of belief are disclosed when the weight of analysis is placed upon it. Over the years I have learned more and more to appreciate the culture in which I was cradled and the values that it imparted. I often think back with nostalgia to the days of growing up, and yes, even the late-night conversations we would have of a Hindu play or some event that featured its thought. Now, through the lens of Jesus Christ, I have learned to see how deep-seated all these things can be and that only the power of the Holy Spirit can take truth and gently reveal the error of an ingrained way of thinking. That gives the promise that we may see a few glimmers of hope for effective communication.
AN OCEAN OF CULTURE
Professor Charles Moore from the University of Hawaii, who passed away in 1967, was instrumental in convening the East-West Philosophers Conference, which since its inception in 1939 has met every ten years. He went on to edit a very fine volume entitled The Indian Mind, which gleaned from those gatherings that brought together some of the finest scholars India had at that time. Professor Moore on one of those occasions presented an excellent paper, The Comprehensive Indian Mind. It was obviously a very daring title with the very quick disclaimer that one could offer such a description. But that aside, he captured several critical aspects. I am indebted to his thought and added my own on the basis of being cradled and raised in that thinking. These are not always studied deductions; rather for the vast majority they come down the distilling mechanism of culture and get assimilated into the beliefs, hopes and acceptances of the way life is.
Here is that distillation.
The spiritual wellbeing as it is woven into life every day is a universal and primary concern. From the early morning chants to the visits at the temple, to the ash that lines the forehead, to the fears that dominate before any new venture, it is all in the realm of spirit. The very greeting in India with folded hands, to the sweets distributed on festive occasions: India's soul is wrapped up in the practice of spiritual beliefs. The very name-Hindusthan-is the "land of the Hindus." From its Indus Valley civilization to the present day teeming cities, life and spiritual sig nificance are attributed to everything, now encased in the multifaceted term called Hindu.
Karma, the moral law of cause and effect, is tacitly believed and assumed. Life carries its moral bills and they are paid in the cyclical pattern of rebirth till all dues are paid in full. The repercussions of fatalism and the indifference to the plight of others are inescapable but dismissed by philosophical platitudes that do not weigh out the consequences of such reasoning.
A prominent place is given to intuition. But this ought not to be overgeneralized. As a rule, such esteem is given to particular people whose influence or position has been recognized by some act or acts that seem to be in the realm of the extraordinary. This predisposition has made it the land of gurus and sages that manufactures a new one every so often. This alone sets India apart as the most religious nation on the face of the earth and may account for why there are 330 million gods in the Hindu pantheon and still counting. Intuition has bred both mystical reflection and bizarre discourses.
Religion is not a commitment to propositional truth or to the world as an object of reason. It is the response of the whole person to a way of life. In the words of Radhakrishnan, it is a nondiscursive, immediate cognition of the real (aproksanubhuti lokkottarajnana). This is not merely a glimpse into reality; it is a constant communion with it. That is why the sages and their sayings ought not to be cross-verified by any other empirical form of investigation. These noble experiences are within a world of different measuring sticks.
Moral purification is a necessary prerequisite to spiritual advancement.
There is a deep and passionate commitment to the ancient past, the immediate family and the pride of birth in the land of age-old teachings.
Life is a form of suffering. This is universal, and pain provides the context of our pursuit.
Yoga in one or many forms is considered essential to the pursuit of spiritual truth and the freedom of the spirit since it provides the mental concentration necessary for freedom from all distractions that roh us of spiritual purity.
A deep pride of the age of culture, and submission to the path itself rather than just the point of arrival, characterize the belief system.
A cultural commitment to the community, with a deep suspicion of any attempt to change its religious belief as an attack upon its cultural values, is common.
DISTORTIONS HINDERING THE HEARING OF THE GOSPEL
These ten underlying descriptions above well represent the basic ideas positively stated within the context of Indian thought. But I believe any scholar who leaves it at that has missed how one thinks within that culture in the reception of the gospel. Indeed, that is often the missing link in the evangelist who goes there and preaches the pure gospel or the scholar who responds with just this backdrop of understanding. There are also in the distilled mix beliefs that terribly distort the way one hears.
It is assumed that the Christian faith is something Western in its origin and that the West is bringing with it a cultural superiority that seeks to override the indigenous way of thinking. I well remember one of my Hindu friends remarking after my conversion to the Christian faith, "You have lost your originality." He made this comment, even though my commitment took place in India and on my own reflection of who Jesus was and is. To him, this was a defining statement as he thought that somehow something of my birthright was sold in the process. Hinduism is conveyed by birth. It is your lot in life assigned to you. The term used is Dharti ka admi, a "man of the soil." Notice the word in Hindi, admi. It means "man"-from the same root as Adam.
It took hours and hours of discussion to help my friend understand that the birthright sold was not of the one who came to know the Lord Jesus Christ but the first Adam who sold out to his own version of truth. Now in our setting we were selling our souls to a culture that is idealized even when it departed from God. The struggle is not East or West, north or south. The struggle is indeed internal-our way versus God's way. Hours and hours of talk lifted the veil a bit till he could see the difference. This is the element so often forgotten. Conveying the gospel in such settings demands protracted commitment of time and a willingness to even go round in circles till the Holy Spirit lifts the veil and the light shines in darkness. If one can show that it is not one culture against another but one will against God, the truth sinks in deeply.
The ingrained belief is that the colonial efforts of Western powers were motivated by and came accompanied by the missionary zeal to "convert the pagans." There seems an inability to separate the teachings of Jesus Christ from the sword of conquerors who came centuries ago. Mahatma Gandhi, Swami Vivekanada and India's most vitriolic critic of Christianity today, Arun Shourie, sound the same theme. Mr. Shourie, who is a member of India's parliament, spares no venom in his book Harvesting Our Souls to attack the proclaimer of the gospel as he heaps criticism upon criticism. As often happens in such efforts, his tendentious use of a counterapologetic would only convince the unstudied or the highly prejudiced. But without doubt he unblushingly attempts to take the gospel and its missionaries apart.
It is very important in understanding such presuppositions to patiently grant the mistakes and serious errors of those who did enter in with duplicitous motives or misguided zeal. But in granting such mistakes, the problem ought not to be further misrepresented in not seeing the difference between the Jesus of history and the politicized efforts of those who misused the gospel. But there is a very significant counterpoint not to be missed. I have often quoted to such a critic the statement that hangs emblazoned in Mahatma Gandhi's home in Ahmedabad. The statement is most fascinating and is that of Bertrand Russell. This is what he said: "It is doubtful that the method of Mahatma Gandhi would have succeeded except that he was appealing to the conscience of a Christianized people." This hangs on a banner in Gandhi's home. It is a stunning comment made by an atheist about a pantheist in his attempt to appeal to a theist. I remind the critic that the liberty he attained was because of the values appealed to, which could only have found legitimacy in a Christian theistic framework. There is a sobering silence when I make that comment.
With the increase in contact and travel, there is the belief that these factors make the gospel presentation easier. The fact is, they have actually made it harder. Those who come from these parts after getting closer to the culture that sent them the gospel begin to see the breakdown of life here. Just as they were unable to separate their religion from their culture, in the West they are unable to separate what the Christian faith is to what Western culture is. They think they are one and the same. Gandhi long before had said, "I like their Christ; I don't like their Christian." As disheartening as that is to hear, lands that have received the gospel accompanied by political exploitation have come to believe that religion was used for ulterior purposes.
All this being true, now that it is not so much the West on Eastern soil as it is the East on Western soil, the acquired wealth and prestige have served a different scenario. The Easterner has actually dug deeper into his or her own culture, for whatever motivation, in attempting to prove that the arrival here was purely for material motives and nothing more. This step deeper into cultural memory in a foreign setting is creating new tensions within their own families as the children of that transplantation become unsure of where they belong. In addition, the commercialized version of Christianity, the superficial presentation of simple truths in the popular media, appears to the listener from those parts as rather a simplistic look at a world of very complex issues.
These changes present many points of discussion in the presentation of the gospel to such a person. As such, it is imperative to point out, first of all, how the big picture of the culture of the West could only have been framed from a Christian worldview, giving possibilities of work and success. Yet second, the same freedoms also lend themselves to abuse, and the downward slide in Western culture is not a result of the Christian faith but the abuse of it. The small picture is the distortion of the big one and not the basis of it. In the words of Augustine, "One must never judge a belief by its abuse."
THE TENDER LIFE AND WORK OF THE SPIRIT
Last but not the least is that the life one lives out in his or her commitment to Jesus Christ is going to have greater apologetic value than the one who is mainly able to argue. To the younger generation the argument has more importance, which in turn helps them see why it is true. But to the older generation, the life becomes more important to help them see why it is what it claims to be. You see, deep within the heart of one raised in the context of Hindu thought is the recognition that the corruption that is endemic to the system and the stratification brought about by the caste system have left millions with nothing more than a hope and allegiance to a fragile strand of language and belief in life's suffering. But to change and to find answers does not seem to come from their religion itself. The gospel's power to offer forgiveness and individual hope that works for the betterment of the whole family is a precious truth we must not forget. Then we discover ways in personal contact to demonstrate that.
As can be deduced, one of the great struggles a person has when the gospel is received and understood is the next step of telling the family and not appearing a traitor to the culture. I have often drawn courage from the story of Naaman, the Syrian general who was healed of leprosy. You may recall after his healing he came to Elisha and asked him what he should do when his master takes him to the temple and leans on his arm during his worship. The Scriptures make a remarkable statement. Elisha says, "Go in peace" (2 Kings 5:19). There is no great pressure put on him in some how-to or some legislating command of doing it with immediacy and bravado. There is a keen understanding that God would go with the individual and guide that one to the how and when. Just as conversion is so tenderly handled by the Holy Spirit in our individual dispositions, so also the witness must be done in recognition of the individuality of the one to whom that message is then transmitted. This is especially true in upwards witness, that is, children to parents or in any age communication of the younger to the older. Culturally, this stands to reason.
We must ever remember the emotional cost of conversion within this cultural ethos. "I surrender to Jesus Christ" raises a plethora of questions for the individual-some great sage comes to their mind and they want to know if that person then is in an eternal condemnation for not having trusted Jesus Christ. "What about my father or my mother?" is the obvious question. Here too, a careful apologia is in order. I often remind them of how salvation is seen in the eyes of God. God is not calling us to be better people; rather he came to make us who were dead alive to him. Salvation is always seen in a sequence: redemption, righteousness and worship. It is never altered. Once they grasp this, they see the world of difference between that and a culture that makes worship the means of salvation. A careful reminder to them that God is the ultimate judge and will do what is right sets their heart at peace.
I recall on one occasion a young Pakistani student at an English university who stayed back after a meeting to share the deep distress in his heart. He had made a commitment to Jesus Christ but felt terribly guilty because his entire education was paid for by his father and this commitment was seen as a thoroughgoing betrayal of the family's heritage. To make matters worse, the father suddenly passed away, and the son was wondering whether this was some kind of judgment meted out to him. He actually suggested that he take his degree and go to his father's grave and bury it there in some reverential expression. The emotional weight of conversion is great. A tender and caring heart must come alongside, listen and through a grounding in the Word bring sustenance to the soul. Many churches are just not equipped to handle this kind of need and many a new convert is lost in the absence of discipleship.
We must never lose sight of the fact that after all the philosophizing has been done there is nothing different in principle to the description the apostle Paul gives of all of humanity in Romans 1:21-23: "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." When one reads this, is it any different to Professor Takakusu's description of how the Vedic concepts led to the Upanishadic spiral into individual self-deification?
The final point I make is to realize why pantheism does seem so attractive. One must remember how even C. S. Lewis battled this possibility as the only other alternative. The attraction is manifold. It lends itself more pliable to any scientific theorizing, and many of these cultures have that bent. It also gives one a moral reasoning without the need to invoke God. But in the final analysis, it is existentially impoverished when one needs to talk about the deepest struggles of the soul. Hindu scholars even admit this creation of a path to satisfy the ines capable existential hunger. Professor P. T. Raju of the University of Rajasthan, in an essay entitled "Metaphysical Theories in Indian Philosophy," puts it this way:
It is not at all surprising that the Hare Krishna movement gained such currency during the heyday of cultural shift to the East. All the talk about meditation did not give the soul its relational hungers. Krishna consciousness stepped into that vacuum and offered a devotional and relational substitute, ratcheting up pantheism a notch to a contradiction of "ism.,,
It is here that a very keen understanding is needed. You see, Krishna is the avatar that, at best, brings God to man. But a huge chasm still remains. How does one bring man to God? For this there is only one way-the way of the cross. A profound and studied presentation of the cross, and what it means, is still the most distinctive aspect of the Christian faith. Even Gandhi said it was the most enigmatic thing to him and was unparalleled. For the Christian, the cross of Jesus Christ is the message "to the Jew first and also to the Greek"-to the moralist and the pantheist, to the religious and the irreligious. The cross of our Lord is the message we have.
In summary, one discovers that while the dress differs in religious culture, the heart remains the same everywhere. The foundational sands rescued are just that: fragile, weak and unable to hold the edifice of truth. They only manage to keep a temple erected to humankind. That is why we see the depravity and the horrors with which our world lives, for there is no culture that can steal from the sea of faith with impunity, while neglecting the ocean of truth. What is brought to land really is a hybrid monster that ultimately devours the one who brought it forth. The words of Pascal come to mind: "What a chimera, then, is man! What a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a subject of contradiction, what a prodigy! A judge of all things, feeble worm of the earth, depositary of the truth, cloaca of uncertainty and error, the glory and the shame of the universe."
Only in Jesus Christ can that glory be rescued and the shame be dealt with. The problem is not pantheism. The problem is the human will's tendency to play God. That is not the distinctive of any culture. We are all Marti ke admi, the Adam of the soil. For that ailment only Jesus Christ, the second Adam who as God became man, can lift us to terrain greater than that of our own making.
The hymn writer put it well:
5"We've a Story to Tell to the Nations," words and music by Henry E. Nichol (London: 1896).
A LIFE WELL LIVED
As I close, I wish to pay tribute to Norman Geisler for the share he has had in my life. He was my professor and, in my estimation, is one of the finest apologists ever. He brings that depth because his philosophical prowess never overrode his deep commitment to the Scriptures. His strength lay in his theology that withstood the tests of philosophy. His blend between both historic and systematic theology and profound philosophical inquiry made him the defender of the faith that he is. Every generation needs a voice like his. One that never forgets the past but speaks to the present in preparation for the future. May God give us more and bless Norman Geisler and his family. It is my privilege to have this small share and pay this brief tribute.
FOR FURTHER READING
Amano, Yutaka J., and Norman L. Geisler. The Infiltration of the New Age. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1989.
Beckwith, Francis J., and Stephen Parrish. Seethe Gods Fall. FourRivals to Christianity. Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1997. Chapter 6.
Clark, David K., and Norman L. Geisler. Apologetics in the New Age: A Christian Critique of Pantheism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1990.
Zacharias, Ravi K. Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message. Nashville: Word, 2000.
The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha. Sisters, Ore.: Mult- nomah, 2001.