As a spin-off from the "Word of God?" thread I would like to canvass opinions about religious pluralism. Here is an excerpt from that thread which I find very attractive but which I cannot square with the New Testament.
While I would agree that religions (and further subdivisions within those religions) vary in terms of how well they point to God, I would deny that Christianity is the only way. Christ, not Christianity, is the way the truth and the life… And though there is one way to the Father: Christ, I might say that there are several ways to Christ (or to rephrase this so that it is less controversial, different people on different life journeys encounter Christ in different ways).
In Ephesians chapter 2 Paul describes the spiritual state of the Ephesians before they had put their faith in Christ explicitly. He says they were:
dead in trespasses children of wrath (= objects of wrath, NIV) separated from Christ having no hope without God in the worldIn chapter 1 Paul says that the turning point for them occurred when they heard the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, and believed in Christ. There seems to be no room in Paul’s mind that some of the Ephesians may have already encountered Christ before hearing the gospel explicitly. Some of those Ephesian converts were probably virtuous people and sincere God-seekers in their pre-Christian days, but Paul lumps them all together as being without God and separated from Christ.
Paul makes the same point in his letters to the Romans, Colossians, and Thessalonians, and it is also comes out in the writings of Luke, Peter, and John. For example, Cornelius was "a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God" (Acts 10:2) but he was not saved until after hearing the message declared to him by Peter (Acts 11:14). Another significant passage is Romans 10:13-14.
This is a vital issue if other people’s eternal welfare hinges on our efforts to "spread the word". I do not wish to allow political correctness on the one hand, or spiritual arrogance on the other, to skew my attempt to answer this question correctly.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Ending the "us v. them" mentality of religion is something the emerging conversation should strive to acheive. This competitive force in organized religion has forged polarized perceptions and distorted the view of human abuses, catalyzing endless violence.
I think religious pluralism goes well with the NT if you read the NT through a metaphorical view. For example, I think Christ is the way to salvation, but I see Christ as something bigger than Jesus. I see Christ as an ideal or philosophy that is revealed in the NT about loosing your own selfish way of life and becoming transformed into a life focused on the service of others. I see "believing in Jesus" as described in John 3:16 to be more correctly defined as accepting his truth to be your truth. Having faith is more about accepting that Jesus’ description of the kingdom of God will happen and finding your part in making it true rather than believing theological ideas about who or what he was.
As far as other religions go I would say that the equation 2 + 2 = 4 is true and it doesn’t matter who is saying it, it will still be true. Jesus’ message is true and it reflects the "word of God" becasue it works not because HE said it.
A survey of images used to portray God over the last 3500 years reveals an uncanny resemblance between them and the people who created them. Religions are constantly creating God in their own image, but I think we can find valuable insights about the reality of God within all of those images.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Hi Danutz
Sadly I agree that an "us versus them" mentality often results in polarized perceptions and violence. But the New Testament does draw a sharp line of distinction between two sets of people. Jesus himself differentiated between children of God and children of the devil (John 8:44, see also Mark 4:11-12, Matthew 15:12-14). I do not think it is a sin to acknowledge the difference but rather it is a sin to be proud & smug about the difference and to treat others with contempt. As Paul wrote in Titus 3:2-3 we should treat all people with perfect courtesy because we used to be in exactly the same boat as they are now. And there but for the grace of God go I.
I think pluralism embodies a false modesty and a false charity. It seems attractive because it eschews the repugnant holier-than-thou imperialism visible in some Christian groups. But it neglects to address non-Christians’ most urgent problem and it withholds from them the only cure, whilst cushioning them in a false assurance.
My problem with reading the NT in this way is that it forces us to conclude that Jesus was mistaken in his claims about himself - in fact, it makes him out to be a megalomaniac. In addition to teaching lofty principles of behaviour, he also made some awesome statements about who he was and about the eternal consequences of our responses to him (John 8:24, Matthew 11:20-22, John 3:36). He did not just teach and exemplify a life of selflessness and service to others. He also called people to devote themselves personally to himself by attaching themselves to him with self-abandon and exclusive allegiance. A Christian is not just someone who follows his teaching but someone who follows him.
I cannot square religious pluralism with Jesus’s prayer in John 17 where he restricts his prayer to his professing disciples and for those who would believe in him through their word. He does not anticipate a devout buddhist/atheist/muslim being a Christian unknowingly by practising the lofty principles of behaviour endorsed by Jesus.
I think Jesus’s words in Acts 26:17-18 are also significant. Jesus said to Paul that he was sending him to the Gentiles "… to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in [Jesus]." He did not anticipate people amongst the Gentiles who were already enlightened and forgiven as a result of their Christ-like behaviour. Paul proceeded to exhort gentiles to exercise faith in Jesus Christ - even in the religiously pluralistic city of Athens.
Respectfully … Phil
Re: Christianity - the only way?
But neither Buddhists nor Hindus are seeking to be “saved” from their “sins.” They aren’t Christians—seeking to be saved from your sins is a Christian form of life. Buddhists are seeking to empty the self, not to fill the self with the presence of God. Hindus seek nirvana, not salvation.
The question of pluralism is misleading. The everyday fact of the matter that is quite difficult to escape is that there are a plurality of stories being told. Today, we are immersed in waves of different stories everyday. Jesus made claims about those that followed in his way, in the way of David’s God.
The Buddha made no such claims. He made different claims that made possible a different form of life.
Religion is not a zero-sum game, where a faith-gain for one is a faith-loss for another.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
I attended a meeting yesterday held by CCJ - The Council of Christians and Jews - in which Professor Shai Feldman - Director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University; Member, Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies; UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters - addressed the subject ‘Peace in the Holy Land: what would it take?’. One of Feldman’s contentions is that each participant in the conflict, and especially each participant with a religious ideology of one kind or another, has a narrative driving their point of view. Listening to and understanding each other’s narrative is basic to co-operation. There are many ‘feeders’ to our narratives, and unravelling each one is an objective of good communication.
I agree with this position, and the stance of CCJ. However, Judaeo-Christianity is not simply one narrative amongst many others - but a universal narrative. It can certainly take its place alongside other narratives, and must listen respectfully to other narratives besides itself. But it cannot pretend to be just one more narrative, with no greater or less validity than any others. If it were simply one more narrative which must learn to happily co-exist with others, it would never have come into conflict with contemporary Judaism, and the thought of a peaceful dialogue of mutual understanding with the Roman narrative would require a re-interpretation of history bordering on absurdity.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Judaeo-Christianity is not simply one narrative amongst many others - but a universal narrative.
But isn’t it? I mean, if we look around, is it not the case that the Judaeo-Christian narrative is one among many? Even its claim to universality is one claim of universality among a number of others—humanism, for instance, makes a claim to universality.
If it were simply one more narrative which must learn to happily co-exist with others, it would never have come into conflict with contemporary Judaism, and the thought of a peaceful dialogue of mutual understanding with the Roman narrative would require a re-interpretation of history bordering on absurdity. »
I would say that a narrative doesn’t do anything by itself. People do things with narratives—like spin narratives and fight about their veracity in relation to other people telling other narratives. To say that there are multiple narratives circulating in relation to the Judaeo-Christian storyline, does not necessarily lead us to say that everyone "must learn to happily co-exist." Obviously they haven’t in the past and at the current pace, I don’t expect them to anytime in the near future. (But who knows, the kingdom of heaven can slip in like a thief in the night, right?).
My claim is that there are multiple narratives circulating, which is an empirical claim. And immanent to each narrative is a form of life that is unique in relation to the others. Christ didn’t make nirvana possible. Christ made salvation possible. To follow in the way of Christ, does not necessarily put you or anyone else into conflict with a Buddhist or a Hindu. I mean, seeking salvation through Christ and spreading the word of God doesn’t make you want to fight Buddhists seeking zen or Hindus seeking nirvana, does it?
Narratives do not determine how a story unfolds. People are not atomotons. Narratives are open-ended storylines that people (agents) do things with. People fight, narratives don’t.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Don’t kid yourself. The Middle East conflict is about dirt—who gets to live on it, who gets to farm it, who gets to drill it for oil, who gets to build skyscrapers on it, who gets to build military installations on it. And why, because the spirit gave the land to its chosen people or because, we possessed the land from the beginning of history, it was taken from us and we want it back.
Your insights about narratives are thought provoking suggesting a heirarchy wherein some narratives are “better” than others. OK. what do we do with Catholicism as the “true church” and Islam as the worshipping of the “one true God?”—as examples.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Is the conflict just about dirt? Or is the conflict over the meaning of that dirt? Those are two different assertions. Dirt. Or the meaning of the dirt. I doubt people are just fighting over dirt—there is plenty of that to go around. What I think they are doing (in part) is fighting over the meaning of the dirt—is it “ours” or is it “yours” or is it “theirs.”
Where do I suggest “a hierarchy wherein some narratives are ‘better’ than others”? I thought that I was just saying that there are multiple narratives in circulation and they mean something different depending in which narrative you locate yourself.
Yes, what are we to do when one of us says that we are the “true church” and some others say that they have the “one true God”? Should we kill them? Should we try to make them like us? Should we talk about the differences? Negotiate? Should we make space for our “true God” and make space for their “one true God”? Should we declare them “wrong” and us clearly “right”? Should we dance and celebrate the great diversity of the world? What should we do?
My point: a narrative does not determine how people respond to each other. A narrative does not determine what we should do? People are not robots. They think and act. Just because you make a claim to be the “true church” and I make a claim to worship the “one true God” does not necessarily lead us to fight. It often has in the past. But nothing determines that outcome.
You could turn the other cheek, you know. That is one answer that the Judeo-Christian narrative makes possible, right?
Re: Christianity - the only way?
I think you underestimate the power of narratives - perhaps because they exercise power in ways that are a mixture of the hidden and the known. People are driven by narratives. Faith narratives interact with (and may positively or negatively reinforce) the narrative of our personal life story, which works both on an individual level (my personal life story) and a corporate level (the story of my group, my society, my culture).
Whether we have the power to develop or change our narrative also depends, in the first place, on our willingness to do so.
Factors such as: willingness to talk to the enemy, willingness to forgive, willingness to negotiate, make concessions, regard the other person/people as of value would all be factors in determining whether a narrative controls us, or we are able to write our own part in the story in a creative way.
And yet, despite all this, the Judaeo-Christian narrative is still, basically, a universal narrative; but perhaps what is important is the way in which it is universal - offering a story about our world and ourselves which is fundamentally different from all other narratives - at least in its emphasis and prognosis of its outcome. So you can have the competing narratives - but only if you reject the presuppositions of the Christian narrative.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
I may well underestimate the power of narratives. But if I do it is because that I fundamentally believe that people are agents that make concrete choices in concrete times and places. I fear that you what to make narratives out to be overarching structures that are (ultimately) beyond human agency—e.g. there is this Judaeo-Christian Narrative that exists apart from the people actually telling it and living it. In my view, a narrative doesn’t just sit there like a rock imposing itself on people. Narratives are dynamically alive as people call on them everyday in different situations.
I agree that the Judaeo-Christian narrative is unique. I would add that the storyline of the Buddha is probably unique too. As I mentioned earlier, Jesus doesn’t offer us the possibility of zen, but the Buddha does. And conversely, the Buddha does not offer salvation, but Jesus does. These are both unique story lines that emerged from very different times and places and that make very different forms of life possible.
I agree also that the Judaeo-Christian narrative is universal in its movement, but so too are other narratives—such as humanism and “free market” capitalism, for that matter. I fear that you want to make a universal storyline into The Universal Narrative that invalidates All Other Narratives.
Importantly, for me to see that there are multiple, unique, and universal narratives does not necessarily entail that I “reject the presuppositions of the Christian narrative.”
It's only one story but it's our story and we're stuck with it
It seems to me that we should be able to do a lot more with this argument about the relativization of the biblical narrative. Certainly one of the defining moments in it is the bringing into existence of a distinct family or people or nation to be the singular and unique possession of YHWH amongst the many other nations of the earth. Doesn’t a covenant theology, therefore, necessarily presuppose the continuing legitimacy of other narratives because other nations and cultural strata must tell their own stories? In a sense, we have to accept the precariousness of our position as a people that cannot escape from the one, narrow, historically contingent story that it has to tell about the world.
Salvation in biblical terms is not the salvation of mankind in a universal sense but the salvation of this particular people - at least, that would be my argument. The soteriological uniqueness of Jesus should be understood within the particular historical narrative: he was the only way by which the historical community could be saved from destruction, from the wrath of God. When he tells the disciples, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me’ (John 14:6), he is speaking to Israel: he offers the only way by which reckless, sinful, prodigal Israel will be reconciled to the Father.
What makes this universal in the biblical narrative is that this salvation, forgiveness, of a sinful people, this deliverance of the family of Abraham from destruction, is announced to the whole world as a decisive act of the creator God, who is sovereign over the whole earth, beside whom there is no other. And what fundamentally validates this is the resurrection - the anticipation of a new creation. The resurrection is not merely an arbitrary tenet of faith, alongside others, in distinction from the tenets of other religions - not as far as we are concerned. It can only make sense as the action of the one God who made all things and who will make all things new.
I think that the ‘church’ has to hold on to the universal significance of the belief that it is the servant of the God who created and who will recreate - because ultimately it is a statement of hope for humanity. We have to understand this as an absolute calling: this is simply the story that we are called upon to tell, whether or not it is demonstrably superior to other stories.
We have to accept the limitation. We are called down from the intellectual and moral vantage point that you describe, from where all narratives may appear equally plausible and worthy, in order to live in a single story about the one God who chooses a people for his own possession, for his own sake and for the sake of his creation. We have abandoned the comfortable and very reasonable ground of pluralism or relativism in order to become a servant to an outrageous hope - because that is the only way that we can speak with any prophetic authority. It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s that we have forfeited that right to be reasonable for the sake of new life.
Re: It's only one story but it's our story and we're stuck with
I think the concern is, Andrew, at least for me, that the view that only the church will enter New Jerusalem in the end seems kind of off. In Revelation, the resurrected dead are “judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done” (Rev 20:12) and those not written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. But what does this mean? Are those not written in the book of life strictly non-(faithful)-Christians? Or are they those who have done wickedly? Can we say all non-Christians are wicked? What do we do with Jesus’ statement that “he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (Luk 12:48)? Are all given much and required much? These are the questions I struggle to answer.
I’m not ready to adopt a “many roads one destination” theology, but at the same time, I’m not yet willing to admit all those who reject Christianity as the true religion (some for good reason), including those who earnestly seek God in their own way, are definitely headed for the lake of fire.
What do you think Andrew? Do you understand my concerns? I agree there is definitely the sense that we are called out to be the people of God, but what about those people on the outside?
Re: It's only one story but it's our story and we're stuck with
A beautiful statement. I agree with much of what you say. It is your story, or "our story" as you phrase it—meaning Christianity .
As I noted in my bio, I don’t identify with the "our" part of the "story": I’m not a Christian. But our stories (a bigger "our" that includes both of "us") do overlap considerably in the figure of Jesus. For, as the Bible shows, Jesus was not a Christian. That name was baptized at Antioch, as the book of Acts recounts. In that gap, I find hope in the way, truth and life of Jesus. No one has a monopoly on Jesus, do they?
But to be clear, I don’t think that I asserted anything about "all narratives may appear equally plausible and worthy." And I surely didn’t say anything about the specter of "relativism." I think I said something along the lines of Walter Bruggemann: Christians "voice a claim that rings true in our context, that applies authoritatively to our lived life. But it is a claim that is made in a pluralism where it has no formal privlege…. In fact, we are in a situation in which all the rival claims are present to us at the same time, without any transcendent arbiter. Even if we wish it were different , it is not."
It is not a matter of any special vantage point or "intellectual" status that I have over you, but a matter of walking down the street in any major urban city in the United States or Europe or basically any where around the world. The stories are many.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Let us look at this a bit differently.
Some are saying “the Christian narrative is not universal, it is one among many”. Some are saying “the Christian narrative is universal, and therefore must rise above other narratives”.
What if Christianity is a universal narrative and so are other narratives ?
We claim Christianity is universal because the writings which form the core of our identity tell us it is.
But the writings of Mohamed say that Islam is universal.
The teachings of the Buddha do not imply that one can choose between an emptying of the self and some other option which is from some other narrative.
Maybe the question isn’t whether or not pluralism is or is not an acceptable theological notion. Maybe the question is more subtle and complicated.
1) As ‘phil’ said above
Christians all too often assume “children of G-d” means “Christians” and “children of the devil” means “non-Christians”. What if it is possible to not be a child of the devil but due to circumstance not have the narrative we have? They have never heard of YHWH/G-d and have never heard of Jesus. So instead, they pursue the narrative that they have, which is also a narrative about avoiding the works of the flesh and attempting to cultivate the fruits of the spirit. They don’t call them those things, and they don’t think of this as “salvation” or in terms of a “Kingdom of G-d”. But their goal is the same: love, peace, joy, gentleness, kindness, self control, humility &c. Is this really “pluralism” (which is practically a useless word as it has been pejoratized as much as “relativism” at this point)?
2) Do two conflicting claims to a universal narrative make at least one of them wrong, or does it open the possibility that through reconciliation, they could both be right? Is this pluralism? If I read chapter 8 of the Tao Te Ching
And I immediately think of Mathew 23
Is this not evidence of overlap between these two narratives? What if it is possible that having a universal narrative does not give us a monopoly on truth?
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
jhimm,
I wrote a bit up the threat: “Importantly, for me to see that there are multiple, unique, and universal narratives does not necessarily entail that I “reject the presuppositions of the Christian narrative.”
I agree with the your sentiment. I think that there can be and in fact are multiple unique universals at play in the world today.
I’m not sure that anything gives anybody a monopoly on truth—except force enough to destroy or silence all the dissenters, but even that is a strop gap measure.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
This comment has been moved here.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Actually, Jacob, in the Middle East there is not plenty of dirt to go around. I tried to give a sense of the meaning of dirt by adding a list of things that can be done with dirt. I failed to include "worship it." Hmmm. What about worshipping dirt?
As for narratives, I was actually reacting to something peterwilkinson posted a little earlier about the Judeo-Christian narrative not being just another narrative. All your questions are good regarding what to do with competing narratives. The easy one is no we should not kill them [those who have different narratives than our own]. I am foolishly clinging to the notion that there is a metanarrative out there as yet undiscovered, unrevealed that rationalizes all subsisting narratives.
In this regard, most of my writing on topic has been with repect to the relationship between science and religion. In that mode, of all the possibilities set out by Ian Barbour, I tend to be one who thinks that "conversation" in a highly specialized sense, such as written about by David Tracy at Chicago and others, is the most fruitful area of inquiry. This conversation, conducted in accordance with certain rules of engagement, and heavily reliant on notions of game theory, might produce something —statements— that can be accepted as "true" in most ranges of the use of such statements.
As you know, turning the other cheek is a simple phrase packed with alternative meanings. In the Middle East, turning the other cheek may well be a great insult. Interestingly, that may be precisely what Jesus intended. But how in the world could we know what Jesus intended?
Re: Christianity - the only way?
The rafts that I cling to are much smaller than meta-stories.
As far as I know, though, there is no way in this world to get at what Jesus intended. All we have is the Holy Bible (and possibly a few other sources) and what it says Jesus said. We are stuck with interpreting what Jesus said, not what he intended.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Andrew says, " What makes this universal in the biblical narrative is that this salvation, forgiveness, of a sinful people, this deliverance of the family of Abraham from destruction, is announced to the whole world as a decisive act of the creator God, who is sovereign over the whole earth, beside whom there is no other."
If there is one God, it’s certainly conceivable that he revealed himself differently to other peoples. Or there could be multiple manifestations of God, or even multiple gods, with different ones allying themselves with particular peoples and offering them their own distinct narratives. Or maybe the idea of God as creator is wrong: it might be mythic, a story about Yahweh separating one particular people apart from the rest. Or maybe God or the gods have always existed in parallel with the material universe that evolved out of the Big Bang. One could imagine a number of (heterodox) variants in which Christianity is one narrative among many but is also all-inclusive for those who live inside that narrative.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
John, I’m not sure that the statement you quoted formally precludes the possibility that the one God is revealed outside of the covenant narrative in different form. But the message of Deutero-Isaiah (which I take to be determinative for the gospel in the New Testament) is that YHWH is the only true God, the creator of all things, and that the ‘gods’ of the nations are at best ineffectual and at worst non-existent. I don’t think this needs to be understood in a narrow nationalistic sense: Israel was under theological obligation to worship the God of the whole earth, not a localized tribal deity or pantheon of such; and this God could just as well turn against Israel and condemn it for falling short of its own ideal conception of a holy and righteous God.
Does this take a great deal of imagining? Israel always had to define its faith in a sea of conflicting stories; so did the early church; so do we today. In many ways I would much rather swim in that multi-coloured sea - I have a literary background. I think it is a real challenge for the emerging church to work out how it can reflect and affirm the narrative diversity without abandoning the prophetic calling to witness not only to one God but to a God who proffers that fundamental hope of new creation.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
"John, I’m not sure that the statement you quoted formally precludes the possibility that the one God is revealed outside of the covenant narrative in different form."
Right. You cite Deutero-Isaiah as determinative, though certainly other Old Testament writers acknowledged the possibility of other gods. The Law is explicit about Yahweh being Israel’s God, that they should have no others before him. In the Law itself Yahweh is clear: don’t follow the rules laid down by other gods for their people; follow my rules instead. You get a sense that Yahweh doesn’t much care for these other neighboring gods, but it’s conceivable that God had arrived at some sort of internal agreement with himself to divide up the peoples and the territories and the religions by which they would live. Who knows what sort of multiplex being God might be? If he can be trinitarian, perhaps he can also manifest himself differently to different people.
Regarding the hope for a new creation, it could be said without exaggeration that over the millennia human culture has already built a second creation intermingled within the natural world. Some of us might even say that this human creation hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps this is the creation that can be renewed by the sons/daughters and heirs of the Kingdom.
Re: Christianity - the only way? to what?
Hi Phil. As far as this issue is concerned, I am much indebted to Douglas Campbell’s argument in his latest book on "Paul’s Gospel." Perhaps he wouldn’t agree with my overall argument, but one of the points he makes is that Paul’s soteriological view of pre-Christian existence is formulated ‘a posteriori’. What he means by that is that contrary to a soteriological model like the Justification by Faith (JF) model which says that salvation is passage from state A to state B, where state A is objectively bad and state B is objectively good (all this, a priori), Paul’s view of ‘state A’ is formulated in contrast to ‘state B’ (the state of being ‘in Christ’). And so the many negative things he says should be seen as Paul’s vision of the contrast with the state of being in Christ, particularly in response to the Judaizers, who would have made the Gentiles go back to ‘state A’.
If this is a little unclear I apologize. Needless to say, Paul’s contingent concerns when writing his letters shape his rhetoric, and given a background of opposing the Judaizers, his strong language isn’t that problematic in my view.
Question: how do you square Jesus’ teaching that "whoever is not against you is for you" with the claims you’re trying to make?
Also, as a side note, many here might not share your concern for "people’s eternal welfare" (although I cannot speak for everyone) for the simple fact that people’s welfare comes before their ‘eternal welfare’. As has been said on almost every thread on OST, salvation for us in a post-eschatological age is primarily about the Kingdom of God in the here and now. Putting Paul aside for a moment, I have no trouble reconciling Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom with the quote you started this thread with. Your thoughts?
Peace,
-Daniel-
Re: Christianity - the only way? to what?
Addressing pluralism in the context of salvation…
I usally answer the question "How do you get saved?", by returning the question "What do you want to get saved from?"
I think that this is the approach Jesus took. For example if you think about Jesus most clear response to the "what must I do to be saved" question, he responded with "sell all you have and give it to the poor". I think that is becasue he first asked (or derived through spiritual awareness) that the particular person he was addressing needed to be saved from his own greed or addiction to wealth. That is not the same response he gave to the woman at the well who instead needed to be reminded about her issues regarding sexual relationships and views about marriage. Sometimes he said "go and sin no more" after he healed someone and another time he spoke about
Jesus seemed to look at each person’s needs when he determined the "path" they needed to take to salvation. That doesn’t mean that "anything goes", but it does shed some light on how we should view the paths that others have chosen.
If you are a poor person in a 3rd world country, then your salvation is .likely going to revolve more around social and political justice. For us, we tend to downgrade social issues because our own social needs are usually met. We tend to focus on the afterlife or on eliminating sinful habits that harm us. If you live in a place that is religiously divided you will build a case for salvation around adopting a particular doctrine.
We shape God and our view of salvation based on our own needs. It is only natural and I’m not sure it is wrong unless we start forcing everyone else to accept our own plan of salvation without regards for their needs. As usual, we could learn much from Jesus if we would focus on what he said rather than what was said later about him.
Re: Christianity - the only way? to what?
Hi Daniel
Thank you for your comments. However, I admit I do not understand your point in your first paragraph. If the advantages of being in state B are literal and absolute rather than metaphorical and hyperbolic, then I would interpret the disadvantages of being in state A as equally literal and absolute. For example, someone in state A is far away from God, but someone in state B has been brought near to God (Ephesians 2:13). If ‘being far away’ from God is just rhetoric to discourage backsliding, then ‘being near’ to God must be interpreted in the same way - not as a spiritual reality to thank God for but merely as a fantasy and a psychological device to cheer yourself up. If I have misunderstood your point, I apologise and ask that you would explain it again please!
Secondly, you don’t seem to have offered any reasons to explain why you think your interpretation is correct. Even if your interpretation is plausible, is it really probable, bearing in mind that it does not interpret Paul’s words in the most obvious and straightforward way?
Thirdly, I chose to illustrate my point using Paul’s letter to the Ephesians but I could just as well have used non-Pauline writings such as 1 Peter, 1 John, or Hebrews to make the same point. Consistently the NT refers to a radical change from darkness to light, or slavery to freedom, or death to life, and the turning point is always effected by the explicit proclamation and reception of the good news about Jesus Christ. Even the Lord Jesus himself said: "Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24)
There are some statements in the New Testament that don’t square with the exclusivist view, but the overall thrust of the NT seems to me to point that way. I think the inclusivist view has far more texts to worry about, one of which is "Whoever is not with me is against me." (Matthew 12:30)
Regarding people’s welfare, wasn’t Jesus concerned about both their present state and their eternal state? But when push comes to shove, didn’t he emphasize the priority of the latter?
Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28) And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. (Matthew 18:8) What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:36) Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven … (Matthew 5:11-12)Respectfully … Phil
Re: Christianity - the only way? to what?
Hi Phil, thanks for taking the time to answer. I fear this conversation is reaching beyond the endpoint of my competence. I will however, give you my best shot at a response.
As for my first paragraph, I simply meant to rephrase Campbell’s argument which I take to be that much of Paul’s rhetoric about the pre-Christian state of existence (state A) is shaped by his desire to counter the claims of the Judaizers. Or, in a horribly grotesque simplification, his view of Judaism is compatible with a state A that is good and a state B that is even better (and hence going back to state A is silly).
I feel however that in the context of this conversation, this is getting drawn out in ways, not only that go beyond the text (and you have rightly pointed this out), but that deviate from the scope of my previous thought. It seems as though this has turned into a debate over exclusivism, which I take you to be defending.
Although I do not wish to get too involved in such a debate, I would argue with McLaren that the assumptions made by the exclusivist/inclusivist/universalist debate aren’t the best. As Danutz has pointed out, asking the question ‘how can I be saved?’ only begs the question ‘from what?’. And here with Andrew I would argue that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is a partial answer to that question, but also (and Danutz might agree with me here) salvation from the broken ways of being human that we have inherited ‘in Adam’. Christ is the model, or pattern, of what a true human is supposed to look like, and so by allowing the Spirit to graft us into Christ’s trajectory (of selfless living, to the death, and then to glory at the right hand of the Father), we are [i]saved[/i] from the sins that bind us (selfishness, lust, pride, etc.). While this has implications for the ‘afterlife’, I would not make those central.
You might say, that’s all well and good, but quote me some Scripture I beg you. The problem of course, is that I am more a student of philosophy than I am of theology, and though I fancy I know a little something of the Bible, I will not be able to (without extensive research) produce myriads of passages from Scripture to support my point. I think of myself as a ‘big picture’ person. The ‘big picture’ I think is relevant to my point comes from reading the gospels and hearing Jesus’ parable about the sheep and the goats (which doesn’t mention anything about ‘belief’), and noting that when John the Baptizer sets the stage for Christ (say, in Luke 3:7-14) his emphasis in on right living.
As a parting note, I should say I am uncomfortable with the way you frame this question: "wasn’t Jesus concerned about both their present state and their eternal state? But when push comes to shove, didn’t he emphasize the priority of the latter?" As I have said before, I’m not sure what you mean, biblically, by ‘eternal state’ (unless you mean something like ‘relationship with God’ which I would cash out in terms of how you live your life—in which case it isn’t really opposed to people’s ‘present state’). But perhaps I’ve missed the point. I hope I’m making sense.
All the best,
-Daniel-
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Dunno. Was Abraham a Christian? Yet Christ said Abraham was in paradise. This means that faith in saving grace can develop outside of the knowledge of the mechanism of it. Also suggested by Paul’s claim in Romans 1 that men were without excuse before Christianity and I would say also by Job’s advanced understanding of justification and resurrection.
The passages you present display people that had not developed faith in saving grace, so they earned Paul’s assessment as needing the Good News. To show your claim of support of exclusivity by the apostles, you would have to show where they found someone having faith in saving grace was somehow deficient (but even then, there would have been no reason for them to have withheld the particulars of the revelation of Christ, which they would have imagined would be received with great gladness).
I don’t think there’s suct an example of that in the NT, so it would appear that scripture supports a non-Christian (but certainly NOT non-Christ) inclusivity more strongly than exclusivity.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
I think of this in terms of "essentials vs non-essentials".
What is essential to salvation? The Bible points to several things, but I would argue that the list could and should be very short.
For example, is our salvation dependent on how complete and accurate our knowledge of Christ is? I hope not!!
Is our salvation dependent on what we do? Is it dependent on what we think? Is it dependent on what we believe?
Do I have to believe in the Trinity to be saved? Do I have to understand soteriology in the correct manner in order to go to heaven? What if I am wrong about eschatology? Do I go to hell then?
I believe that our salvation is dependent on God’s grace, which we receive through our faith.
Therefore, if a person is a jehovah’s witness, and their knowledge and understanding of Christ differs from an evangelical’s, or a catholic’s, or mine, yet that person has put their faith in Jesus as their savior, then I believe they have just as much right to claim salvation as anyone.
If a muslim puts their faith in Jesus as Lord, even if they still read the Qu’ran and follow the teachings of the prophet, they have as much right to salvation as I do. The accuracy of their knowledge of God, or lack thereof, cannot be the foundation of their salvation.
So the 1950s-western-civilization-american-christianity-myopic-religion-idea-thing that we may or may not choose to follow certainly is not the "only way".
Jesus is the only way, not what I or anyone else tells you about Him.
Ken Bussell Minister of Music & Administration Our Place Christian Church
Christian but in name
Right! If the way exists, may not someone take it whether they know it is Christ or not? Much like going down a certain highway in the fog takes one toward New York even though one may never see the sign that says US 95?
It only remains to describe the essentials, which one can do by forming a collection of all the non-Christians in the Bible who received God’s approbation, from Abel to Zechariah, and determining the minimum rationale for God’s grace. We’d need to be a little careful here, because the evidence for any case is not always complete or even present. All we know about Abel’s faith, for example, must come from his choice of sacrifice in contrast to his brother’s!
But the Biblical non-Christians who were "saved" were all (I think) pre-Christians. To answer the question for those who HAVE heard of Christ is more complex. We’d have to take the principles we derive from Biblical pre-Christians and apply them to the others.
Of course, the whole question of whether a person has rejected the salvation of Christ if he or she has rejected a false teaching of Christ is a complex one. The Christ Muslims are taught to reject, for example, was not divine and did not resurrect. Even the secularists in post-Christian societies can’t definitively be said to have rejected Christ. They imagine they know Christ and have rejected him, but a short discussion usually reveals they know nothing about Christ at all—just that Christians insist that He is needed for them to be acceptable.
This is not really a post-Christian problem. Our forbears in the pagan Roman world faced the same challenge. There was a horrible amount of misinformation spread by false teachers and "Christians" in non-essentials but not essentials, so persuasive that Christians were made legally non-grata. Protestations were next to useless, save the ones the early believers made of their lives and, even more strongly, their deaths.
But here’s my question. To accept God’s grace, a Muslim must reject some of what their "Prophet" taught. Can he or she still be fairly called a Muslim? Islam in its inisistence on subjection/control over everything else rather insists that Muslims kill such a person.
To accept God’s grace, a Jehovah’s Witness would have to accept Jesus’ divinity and reject THEIR version of salvation through works. Can such a person still be fairly called a JW?
My suspicion, not having thought through every single belief system on the planet, is that there is no other religion compatible with the gospel message, save arguably those ancient Middle-eastern ones that gave rise first to Judaism (in my mind a religion meant to be of grace!) and then Christianity (Abram WAS a pagan, after all, as Joshua inisists). From this perspective, those who stumble along the Way in the fog would be Christian except in name. But that’s considerably better than being a Christian in name only!
—M
Re: Christian but in name only
All of this assumes, of course, that ‘salvation’=’salvation from hell when one dies’. Biblically, one may be hard pressed to make such an argument (please refer to any one of the threads on eschatology). I, with McLaren, would argue that the Bible teaches salvation by grace, and judgment by works. If you redefine ‘salvation’ to mean ‘what happens when you die’, then I’m going to go ahead and say salvation is by works (Jesus’ parables of the Kingdom draw this picture—this isn’t something I’m making up!).
Thoughts?
Approbation to Salvation to Works
I didn’t assume. I was trying to speak a common lingo between pre- and post-, so I defined salvation as "receiving God’s approbation." I suppose you can also define it as "being with God," wherever one happens to physically be when one is "with God." In that sense, Jesus could easily be saved and yet in hell (before resurrection).
Approbation is the necessary step before any sort of salvation you can imagine: freedom from illness, poverty, Self, hell, worry, death, etc. etc. Also my examples: the Bible doesn’t say Rahab went to heaven, but Hebrews in the midst of a discussion on how faith is accounted as righteousness mentions her as a woman of faith. Hence she must have been accounted as righteous (a prostitute who had served before an idol!). Hence she must have been saved, whatever you think that entails. Certainly she not only survived the apocalypse of all her countrymen but g-g-g-mothered the Christ (gee, there’s that connection again!). It’s graciously fitting that, as a spiritual ancestor of salvation by faith, she should be made a physical one of the object of her faith.
Also in my view that salvation is not purely an end in itself, I’ve ended up in post-eschatological company. "Saved for what?" I believe the catchphrase is here. My view is in accordance with Eph. 2:10, where we are saved to do good works, however much we receive salvation by grace to start with. Also Jesus’ parable of the salt, James’ "faith without works is dead," Paul’s assurance to Christians that "the immoral shall not enter heaven," the apostles’ constant exhortations for holy living, the illustration from Exodus of the failure of profession and ritual (Paul again), the unforgiveable sin, etc.
In other words, good works is God’s intention for everyone regardless, because they can only be with him if they are holy as he is. So either you can try on your own and inevitably end up short, or you can START with God’s approval and change in good faith under his power and grace. Note that under grace our keyword here of "change" does not suggest a magnitude. A lot or a little gets the same reward (doubled), according to the parable of the talents, so long as there is SOMETHING.
And since this behavioral imperative can feed both to the communal and eschatological understandings of the Kingdom, it can be said to be universal between them.
My view is that salvation, whatever it may be, has interlinked past, on-going, and future components. As one would expect with any relationship. I think what the apostles are trying to say is just that the future is always the product of the present (duh!). Our view of security of salvation, negative or positive, needs to encompass that fact.
—M
Re: Christianity - the only way?
I think I agree with Danutz and motomataru, and possibly Daniel, although I was unclear of that line of reasoning.
Abraham was certain a person of faith (what an understatement) although what he believed was not primarily an understanding of Christ but rather was belief and obedience of God’s direction for him to leave home and strike out on a journey. I would not even doubt it if Buddha got a little boost from Christ in his grasp of the noble eight-fold path. I agree with whoever said 2 plus 2 = 4 in any religion. Truth is truth and Christ is the Truth in any religion, by any name. Kind of like Lucy falling in love with Aslan as a Lion in Narnia before meeting him as Jesus on earth.
I strongly agree with what ken-bussel: “Therefore, if a person is a jehovah’s witness, and their knowledge and understanding of Christ differs from an evangelical’s, or a catholic’s, or mine, yet that person has put their faith in Jesus as their savior, then I believe they have just as much right to claim salvation as anyone.
If a muslim puts their faith in Jesus as Lord, even if they still read the Qu’ran and follow the teachings of the prophet, they have as much right to salvation as I do. The accuracy of their knowledge of God, or lack thereof, cannot be the foundation of their salvation.”
Motomataru said: “Right! If the way exists, may not someone take it whether they know it is Christ or not? Much like going down a certain highway in the fog takes one toward New York even though one may never see the sign that says US 95?”
Absolutely! If a person is seeking divine LOVE without knowing that God is Love or that Christ is the incarnation of love, if they are truly being drawn forward by the spirit of LOVE, would that not be the spirit of Christ? If they are living their life in accordance with Divine LOVE won’t they run into Jesus waiting along the path somewhere?
And is not possible that many people who name the name of Christ do NOT have his spirit or nature? What about Matthew 7:22? Many who say “Lord, Lord” in that day will be surprised when he does not recognize them. Is the inverse not also possible? That many who do not say Lord, Lord, but acted in the name of LOVE, or TRUTH, or JUSTICE will be recognized by him and invited into his presence?
I guess I am no longer an exclusivist. When did that happen? It just sort of snuck up on me.
Joseph Holbrook
Re: Christianity - the only way?
If "It doesn't matte what you believe as long as you are sincere", then what was the point of Christ coming, and more so what was the point of Christ telling the disciples to take the Gospel to all of the world? If those people were quite all right with beliefs they already had, then Jesus' mission and our great commission are useless.
It isn't spiritual arrogance to say "Jesus is the way" when Jesus Himself said that. It is some type of arrogance to say "there are other ways" when the Bible does not say that there are other ways.
Re: Re: Christianity - the only way?
False teachings about God
These scriptures Christians point out are being interpreted incorrectly and I will make proof Jesus isn’t God and Yes! You will still deny what a simple 4 year old child can see as actual fact and truth.
1. Does God pray to himself I have asked many Christians and they all say NO!
2. If God doesn’t pray to himself then explain this.
When Jesus hung on the cross what are the two most known biblical documented things he said?
1. Jesus was Praying. 2. To Whom was Jesus praying to?
1. Answer: Jesus was praying to God. a. Jesus Prayer: Father why have thou forsaken me?
Definition of Forsaken
1. To desert; to abandon.
Thesaurus: abandon, reject, forswear, cast off, renounce, turn one’s back on.
2. Completely abandoned; forlorn.
Thesaurus: outcast, rejected, abandoned, desolate, forlorn, disowned, jilted, shunned, deserted, discarded, isolated.
2. Answer: Jesus was praying to God. b. I thought you Christians said God doesn’t pray to himself? c. Even Jesus doubted God. (Read Definition of Forsaken) that came out of Jesus mouth to God on the cross.
3. Answer: Jesus once again prayed to God and said: Forgive them for they know not what they do. a. Once again Jesus was praying to God at that moment.
Common Sense: If Jesus is God that means when he was on the cross that God prayed to himself and Christians admit that God doesn’t pray to himself, so all the real facts are on the cross with Jesus praying to God and also losing faith in him as you read what Forsaken means that he said to God.
Now why would God ask himself on the cross why he was forsaken his own self? You Christians say Jesus is God and that’s 100% False.
Definition of False 1. Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of Jesus. 2. Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony about God. 3. Not genuine or real: false teachings about Jesus being God.
Can you see the simple insanity here yet?
It’s insanity to deny the actual fact that God isn’t Jesus by saying Jesus is God because when you say Jesus is God then you have contradicted your own words about God not Praying to himself and Jesus did pray and to whom? God the creator of all living things.
See Definition of False
I doubt you will open your eyes to the truth here because your too brain washed by that religion to see the truth due to twisting other scriptures to suit your egotism about Jesus being God.
You can lie to yourself and man; but you can’t to God and when you say Jesus is God, you just lied even if you think you haven’t because all the proof is here in this post.
Jesus Is Not God.
Jesus and God are one in the sense that they work together in harmony; but they are two different deities in one Godly created universe.