ARE CHRISTIANS ARROGANT TO INSIST THAT JESUS … · are christians arrogant to insist that jesus is the only way to god? | uncover.org.au/arrogant !!!!!

ARE CHRISTIANS ARROGANT TO INSIST THAT JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO GOD? | UNCOVER.ORG.AU/ARROGANT

Page 1 of 8 | © 2015 AFES Uncover

ARE CHRISTIANS ARROGANT TO INSIST THAT JESUS IS THE ONLY

WAY TO GOD? UNCOVER.ORG.AU/ARROGANT

“The Life of Pi” (2012 movie based on the 2001 book) is a beautiful, astonishing story of one man giving two accounts of his life from boyhood in his family-owned zoo, to shipwreck, to survival by drifting on a lifeboat with a tiger named Richard Parker. We soon discover that the young protagonist is spiritually restless. At an early age Pi gradually converts to three religions: Hinduism, Christianity and Islam - though adding, not replacing, each one to the other. His parents and many others he interacts with throughout the fantastical re-telling of his life story are astounded that he can see this as possible. It does provide for some very amusing conversations:

Writer: I didn't know Hindus said 'Amen.' Adult Pi Patel: Catholic Hindus do. Writer: Catholic Hindus? Adult Pi Patel: We get to feel guilty before hundreds of gods instead of just one.

Jokes aside, this idea of what is called ‘religious pluralism’ is one of the key themes of Pi’s story. As he concludes the two versions of his crazy adventures, he asks the visiting writer and the audience to choose which ‘truth’ they prefer.



Adult Pi Patel: So which story do you prefer?

[the writer pauses for a moment] Writer: The one with the tiger. That's the better story. Adult Pi Patel: Thank you. And so it goes with God.

You might walk out of the movie slightly confused (as I did!), but you are also likely to walk out pondering that Pi just might be right. All the religions must have something true, and surely I can choose which ones as I like. “If it’s true for you” is the only belief that in the end matters, isn’t it? So when your Christian friend or classmate comes along and tells you “Jesus is the only way to God”, it is no wonder your hackles rise. Who are they to tell me what to believe? How can they be so arrogant? If this raise memories of bad experiences, I am sure there is little that I can say that might dissuade you from thinking Christians are arrogant. By some definitions of arrogance there’s no way Christians can wriggle out of the accusation! But I hope you will suspend your disbelief for a few moments to hear three reasons why I think Christians can be acquitted of this charge.

1. Arrogance… or love? The first reason is that of love: Christians are, at their best, motivated to make this claim out of concern and care for others. You may scoff at this, but please bear with me as I explain. We Australians love tolerance. Most of us want to be thought of as a tolerant person – accepting of others no matter their race, gender, sporting preference or taste in fashion. To be called intolerant is maybe one of the worst labels someone could be given – up there with bigot, fundamentalist or extremist. We see tolerance as important because we rightly value harmony and peace. We want a stable and secure environment so that our neighbourhoods and cities, our lives and aspirations and those of friends and family, might flourish. And so the fear is that an intolerant person is one who will create division and discrimination, who will destroy this harmony and the chances of a healthy thriving community. You might fear that a Christian, or any person holding such an exclusive religious conviction, must inevitably and eventually enforce their view through oppression and violence. I am sure you have met Christians who have argued that “Jesus is the only way to God” in a superiorly smug and divisive manner. I sincerely apologise for them. And there is no denying that history is full of religious-inspired violence. From Catholic-Protestant conflicts in Northern Ireland, to September 11, to the ongoing horror of Palestine, religion certainly has blood on its hands. Speaking as a Christian, there is no excuse for what has been done in the name of Christ. There are two things about these fears and dangers, however, to consider. Firstly, I question the assumption that oppression and violence are the necessary progression of strong religious conviction. Many who have firmly held to the truth of their beliefs have been at the forefront of cultivating harmony and reconciliation, such as Martin Luther King Jr. His religious convictions in fact drove his nonviolent struggle for civil rights. Moreover,



some of the worst atrocities of the last century have been committed by atheistic regimes – Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Clearly secular ideologies have been as much a cause for division and violence as religious ones. Secondly, is what we mean by “tolerance” truly the best way to avoid this danger of discrimination and oppression? When we speak of tolerance today, it has generally come to mean acceptance of other points of view as equally valid, i.e. you must not merely acknowledge my view; you must agree that it is just as true and right as yours. While this might sound correct and appears attractive, it is in fact inherently contradictory, unsustainable and ultimately not the best path to true tolerance. Ironically, the insistence of this tolerance that “I must agree with everyone’s view” is in itself intolerant, an exclusive claim to having the right view. Forcing someone to believe anything – whether this idea of tolerance or in Jesus as the only way to God – is completely contradictory to the definition of belief in any case. It is hardly a sincere belief if you must make me give lip-service to owning it as mine. Besides, we are always by this definition being ‘intolerant’; that is, denying the validity of other views. For instance, we wouldn’t agree with someone who argued that the world is flat, nor that cheating on exams is acceptable, nor would we ever want to accept as valid Hitler’s view of Jews. This view of tolerance also denies that there are real and closely held differences in beliefs between religions. You cannot force a Muslim to accept the Hindu belief in millions of gods, or the Hindu the Muslim belief that after one life a person faces the judgement of God. Even the Dalai Lama has said, “Among spiritual faiths, there are many different philosophies, some just opposite to each other on certain points. Buddhists do not accept a creator; Christians base their philosophy on that theory.”1 It is arrogant to assume that these differences do not matter. True, genuine tolerance, however, is not the acceptance of all beliefs as equal, but of all people as equal. It is accepting and respecting the other person in spite of disagreement about what each other believes. This kind of tolerance is much more admirable, and much more able to foster intellectually-satisfying dialogue and culturally-sensitive debate. Why? Because it acknowledges the real differences among the faiths and so can provide the environment where each feels they are legitimately heard, and where suspicion and hostility are dispelled as what we truly believe is discussed. It is maturity to be able to honour and care for others whilst still disagreeing with one another. I want to suggest something else that you might view as controversial. My suggestion is that Christianity contains the greatest impetus for this genuine kind of tolerance. The Bible proclaims that all people are created in the image of God and as such are to be treated with the greatest dignity and respect.2 But even more than that, God has so loved all people that He gave His one and only Son in death for them, and all are included in the invitation to come to God through this Jesus.3 No one is excluded on the basis of race, gender, class or financial status.4 It is the most inclusive of exclusive beliefs. But Christianity raises the stakes higher than just tolerance. For even true tolerance is negative in action: “I’ll agree to disagree.” Rather, Jesus calls on his followers to love those who disagree with them (their “enemies”), as he himself did. Now love is a much greater

1 Quoted in Paul Copan. 2009. True for you but not for me (Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers), p114. 2 Genesis 1:26-28 3 John 3:16; Luke14:15-24 4 Romans 3:22-24; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11



ethic than tolerance, for it requires a greater commitment to the good of the other person. Let me illustrate: Hanna Massad, a Christian Palestinian, has been coordinating some aid and relief efforts in Gaza during the latest round of conflict between Israel and Hamas. Thousands of Muslims have been sheltering in churches; nearly 100 are living in Massad’s own home.5 Tolerance might call him to simply not join the fight and stay at home, but love required him to open his home to all who were in need – even those who hold strongly opposed beliefs to his. And what is the good for others that Christians are committed to? The greatest good that the Christian wants for all people is to be reconciled to God and know Him as their Father. And since the Christian believes that this only comes about through a freely-given trust in Jesus and his death on their behalf, a Christian must insist – though not enforce - that Jesus is the only way to God. To deny this claim and hide it from the world would be to be indifferent about the fate of others, to in essence ‘hate’ them. It would, in fact, be arrogant for the Christian not to share with others this good news. When a Christian insists Jesus is the only way to God, their motivation should be that of love. Love not only because that person is a fellow image-bearer, but also because they are a fellow image-bearer whom God loves and without Jesus will be cut-off forever from all goodness and life and lasting peace. Out of love, the Christian wants others to hear this message, but also out of love they will not enforce its acceptance. So, at the heart of the genuine Christian’s insistence about the exclusivity of Christ is not arrogance but love.

2. Arrogance… or truth? “Ok”, you might concede, “Christians are acting in love when they make this claim. But in view of the fact that there are so many religions, aren’t they still arrogant? Just one religion can’t possibly be the only way to God. Aren’t they all simply many ways to the same ultimate reality? There must be truth in all of them.” Religious diversity is a given. I can go down a street here in Australia where there is a mosque, a church and a temple. We are very aware today in our globalized world of the variety of beliefs and religious practices. Yet we also can see that these various faiths seem to share many ethical standards, and we can find very good and moral people belonging to all of them. But does this multitude of beliefs and common occurrence of morality amongst them necessitate that they must therefore all be true? We must firstly rule out the manner of a religious adherent having any bearing on the truth of their beliefs. A Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or an Atheist might be arrogant in the proclamation of their belief or sincere in their trust of it, but neither arrogance nor sincerity determines the truth of that belief. I might sincerely believe that the Brisbane Broncos are the best team in the NRL, and arrogantly proclaim it to all and sundry, but neither of these are bases for determining whether the Broncos are truly the best team. Arrogance or sincerity might make that belief more or less attractive, but they won’t make it more or less true. (Though I do wish they would make my belief about the Broncos true!) Secondly, we must rule out the idea that all religions are essentially the same. Though this sounds like a wonderfully ideal solution, it is intellectually not possible. It is not possible 5 Timothy C. Morgan & Deann Alford “How Gaza’s Christians view the Hamas-Israeli Conflict” Christianity Today http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/august-web-only/hamas-israel-conflict-gaza-christians.html [Accessed 25 August, 2014]



because truth means that there must be error. For something to be true, something else must be untrue, i.e. false. Therefore all beliefs cannot be true. This is what is known as a logical fallacy. It also shows why relativism (i.e. “that’s true for you, but not for me”) cannot stand up to scrutiny: it falls on its own sword as an absolute truth claim. Weighing up truth-claims is an unavoidable but not a hopeless task; the truth is out there, and it can be known. Furthermore, this idea of religious pluralism is not possible because when we examine the various religious beliefs we find that they are vastly different and incompatible. Take for instance even the lowest of common denominators, the nature of “ultimate reality”. The Muslim believes in a personal though distant God, the Christian in a personal God who has come to us, the Hindu in an impersonal force (Brahman) that has produced millions of gods, and the Buddhist and Atheist in no god at all! This hardly seems reconcilable to me, even if you gave it a good go (which some still try). And even when there is similarity, particularly in ethics, it does not necessarily follow that all religions teach the same truth about the way to God (whoever might be meant by that!). Christianity, in fact, expects there to be overlap - some truth in other religions - since God created the world with a moral order that all people have a level of consciousness of and can discover.6 Christianity also expects there to be morally good people in other faiths, maybe even more so than Christians! For the central teaching of Christianity is not, as some might think, the Golden Rule (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) or a behaviour improvement program, but rather the opposite: Christianity teaches that our problem isn’t not knowing what we should do, but having the power or ability to consistently do it.7 The Christian is not accepted by God on the basis of moral performance, wisdom or virtue, but on the basis of Jesus’ work on their behalf. As Tim Keller helpfully explains: “Most religions and philosophies of life assume that one’s spiritual status depends on your religious attainments. This naturally leads adherents to feel superior to those who don’t believe and behave as they do. The Christian gospel, in any case, should not have that effect.”8 Christians have no reason to be arrogant, only thankful to God. Finally, we must rule out the argument that each religion contains only part of the truth, and none the whole. You might be familiar with a story that has long done the rounds: a group of blind men are each touching part of an elephant while a king looks on. One blind man touches the elephant’s trunk, another its leg, another its tail. None are able to grasp the full reality of the elephant but can only realise part of it. All, that is, except the king. Who are the blind men in this story? The religious faiths, of course. And the king? Here is the true elephant in this room. For the person who usually tells this story is the pluralist who argues that they are the only one who “sees the whole elephant” as the king did. But isn’t this an arrogant claim to exclusive truth? How does the pluralist (religious or atheist) know they have the complete truth when all others do not? Please, let’s at least be honest: we’re all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, even the pluralist!9 I do wonder why we so want this idea that “all religions lead to the same end” to be true. Is it because we don’t want to upset anyone - and so in the end please no one? Or is it because we ourselves don’t want to become upset? For if one of these faiths is true (and I include atheism in this mix), might it not mean I have to give some thought and some effort as to which one it is? Perhaps I want to maintain this illusion of religious pluralism

6 Romans 1:20; 2:14-15 7 Paul E. Little. 2003. Know Why You Believe (Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries), p127. 8 Timothy Keller. 2008. The Reason for God (London: Hodder & Stoughton), p19. 9 Timothy Keller, p13.



because the alternative not only requires too much energy, but also might mean some drastic change. Questions of life and death are weighty matters. So perhaps rather than many paths leading to the same mountaintop, a more plausible image for religious and spiritual beliefs is that of a maze: many potential paths with many dead ends, and only one way through. The quest then is one of truth, and that is what a Christian is asking you to consider when they insist Jesus is the only way to God. They are not being arrogant - or else everyone must be accused of that, since we all hold our own exclusive beliefs - but stating honestly that they believe this to be the truth and are asking you to consider the validity of this claim.

3. Arrogance… or humility? The looming questions this leads us to are then: is the claim that Jesus is the only way to God true? How can we verify whether it is true or not? As we consider this, I hope to show you the humility of the Christian answer. First let me introduce you to Thomas, he of the “doubting Thomas” fame. Or rather, as I prefer, Thomas “the genuine truth-seeker”. He was a close friend and follower of Jesus throughout Jesus’ three years of ministry. He had been watching all that Jesus said and did. He had asked the question in response to which Jesus made the seemingly arrogant claim: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”10 But Thomas wasn’t certain that Jesus could live up to this claim, because he had witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion and knew that Jesus had certainly died. How could a dead man be the way to God? The next time we meet Thomas he is incredulous.11 The other disciples have told him they have seen Jesus alive again, walking and talking and even breathing on them! And Thomas’ reaction is what any person today would have had: “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” Thomas is a modern kind of man (if you’ll allow me to be anachronistic): he wants hard sensory evidence. Isn’t that what we want today? “I’ll believe a dead man can rise if I can see it with my own two eyes and touch him with my own two hands.” I’m glad Thomas wanted evidence, because I want evidence too. And amazingly, Jesus gives it to him. A week later, Jesus arrives again and directly shows himself to Thomas. He invites Thomas to do exactly what Thomas had demanded: here’s the nail holes, Thomas, put your finger in to check out they’re real. Now shove your hand in the hole in my side where they speared me after they took me dead off the cross. It’s me, Thomas, the same Jesus. I’m the one who died, but now I am alive again. See the evidence for yourself. I love the humility of Jesus in this. He doesn’t dismiss Thomas’ demand out of hand, but meets Thomas’ request for evidence. And this is the same humility of Christianity. It comes to meet the rightful demand for evidence to verify the claims of Jesus. How does it do so? The central beliefs of Christianity, the claim of Jesus to be the only way to God, are all contingent upon an event of history, and upon the witnesses who record what they saw and heard and touched. As one historian has said, “At its heart, Christianity concerns the public, verifiable life story of the man Jesus, the man who claimed personally to reveal

10 John 14:6 11 John 20:24-31



God...”12 Christianity humbly puts its head on the chopping block of scrutiny and asks anyone to take a swing. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? You can read the eyewitness accounts in the New Testament. You can investigate whether they are historically reliable records (and I encourage you to do so). Christians do not (and should not) arrogantly assert Jesus is the only way to God, demanding you suspend your disbelief on their mere say so. Instead they should humbly ask you to read and to test the historical evidence for yourself. And what was Thomas’ response when he tested the physical evidence before him? He called Jesus “My Lord and my God!” The resurrection of Jesus, which Thomas could now see to be true, verified to him Jesus’ claim to be the only way to God. He now recognized what the evidence demanded: Jesus was God come in the flesh. But what a humble God! The God who gave up his position of glory and majesty, humbling himself to become part of his own creation. Born as a weak baby in humble circumstances, growing up to work, eat with and welcome the religious outcast and the socially marginalized. Dying a humiliating death on a cross, forgiving his enemies even as he was dying for his enemies. The scars Thomas touched on Jesus’ hands bear testimony to this humble Saviour, the God who died to provide the way of return to Him. So the Christian must stand before you in great humility. Humility not only because of how humbly Jesus paid for the way to be open to God, but because Jesus paid for that way entirely himself. The Christian paid nothing – no religious achievements, no charitable donations, no great acts of self-sacrifice – because they could not. That is the astonishingly humble message of Christianity: no one can come to God with anything that they have done.13 The way to God is a gift from God, bought by God through His own death. Therefore the Christian can never be arrogant, looking down at you from a superior position of wisdom or merit when they tell you that Jesus is the only way to God. They can only be “one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread”.

Conclusion

Love, truth and humility – quite bold reasons to suggest as the basis of the Christian’s insistence that Jesus is the only way to God. Yet I hope you will consider them enough to acquit Christians of the charge of arrogance. More than that, I hope you will investigate this immense claim of Jesus: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” For this is where the heart of the matter lies: if it is plausibly true, it changes everything. Will you take up Jesus’ challenge to Thomas, to see for yourself?

12 John Dickson. 2002. If I were God, I’d make Myself Clearer (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media), p59. 13 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:4-5



Recommended Further Reading

Timothy Keller. 2008. The Reason for God (London: Hodder & Stoughton). Michael Green. 2002 “But Don’t All Religions Lead to God?” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books). Ravi Zacharias. 2000. Jesus Among Other Gods (Nashville: Thomas Nelson). Lee Strobel. 2000. The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). William Lane Craig. “How Can Christ be the Only Way to God?” Reasonable Faith http://www.reasonablefaith.org/how-can-christ-be-the-only-way-to-god[Accessed 21 August, 2014]

Advanced

Lesslie Newbigin. 1989. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing). Alvin Plantinga “A Defense of Religious Exclusivism” in The Analytic Theist: an Alvin Plantiga Reader James F. Sennett, ed. 1998 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing).

Documents

ARE CHRISTIANS ARROGANT TO INSIST THAT JESUS … · are christians arrogant to insist that jesus is the only way to god? | uncover.org.au/arrogant !!!!!