The world has a big problem with Christian exclusivism—the belief that there is one God uniquely revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the one way, truth, and life for all people at all times. Theologians and apologists have defended exclusivism’s truth since time out of mind, but never so much as in these pluralistic and relativistic times. Recently I’ve come to wonder, though, whether we’re addressing the wrong question; for I am hearing less and less that exclusivism is false, and much more often that it is immoral. The difference is crucial.
I would never dispute the importance of the truth side of the question. I am convinced that Christ is indeed the one way to God. I am equally sure that the truth of this exclusive claim can be defended, and that when someone questions its truth, that’s exactly what we ought to focus on.
It’s just that this is not always the question; in fact in my (limited) experience, it’s no longer frontmost on many people’s minds. It used to be they said, “You believe that Jesus is the one way, but that’s not true.” Now more often they say, “You believe that Jesus is the one way, and there’s something wrong about you—evil, even—for thinking that.”
Or to put it another way: nowadays when people ask themselves, “Should I believe in Christianity?” it’s no longer primarily, “should I believe it on account of evidence or reasons that may support it?” (an epistemic should). Instead it is an ethical “should,” as in, “wouldn’t it be morally irresponsible for me to accept this belief?”
Kirby Godsey, a theologian philosopher [correction—see comment #6] out of the formerly Baptist-associated Mercer University, recently published a strong attack on exclusivism. Albert Mohler calls it an “unmitigated theological disaster.” The book asks in its title, Is God a Christian? — to which Godsey emphatically answers no, God is not a Christian. I saw in Mohler’s review of the book yet another illustration of what I have described here; for as Mohler related the book’s argument, there was precious little appeal to evidence, and considerably more to morality and emotion. (We see something similar in at least one prominent atheist). Mohler writes,
For the most part, Godsey studiously avoids engaging the biblical text. That is at least consistent with his marginalization of biblical authority. “The notions of inerrancy and infallibility are treacherous human fallacies,” he argues….
Instead, he argues that Christians should “weigh scripture against the word that we have heard and seen from God in Jesus.” At this point, Godsey is left in an untenable position. What does he know of Christ apart from the Scriptures? This is a familiar predicament for liberals who deny biblical authority but claim a knowledge of Jesus. Whatever knowledge of Jesus we have apart from the Bible is just a figment of our imagination. If the Bible is not the authoritative source of divine knowledge, we are left with nothing more than our own imagination and arbitrary judgment. We can make Christianity anything we might want it to be.
And what does Godsey want Christianity to be? Something that’s less ethically odious than believing it’s actually true. In the book’s first chapter (click the link in the right-hand column) Godsey encourages us to consider other faiths “more openly and less judgmentally.” These are morally freighted words. He goes on,
The world has grown too small and the stakes for mankind have grown too high for any of us to engage our faith as if our understanding of God represents the only way God’s presence may be known in the world…. For those who say “yes” [that God really is a Christian], it is unthinkable and perhaps even frightening or disorienting to entertain the notion that God does not solely belong to the Christian tradition. God is a Christian because we have come to know God as a Christian.
Shortly after this he takes a momentary glance at what he regards as evidence against Christian exclusivism—the billions who disbelieve in Christ—but he lands there only briefly, moving on rapidly to this:
The conflicts among us and within us are not abstractions. These conflicts are “in your face” clashes, visceral and compelling.
He tells of a meeting where the morality of homosexuality was under debate:
The rhetoric was loud, ugly, and condescending. I walked from that “Christian” gathering wanting to bathe away the residue of the poisoned air that hung in the room like urban smog.
“Earnest believers’” response to 9/11, he says,
may be simply to turn a blind eye, that is, to pretend other religions do not exist. Or we may become louder and firmer, even abrasive and hostile, in our own religious affirmations. We have all witnessed the ugliness of religion run amok. Still, most of us have learned to be reasonably tolerant of people of other faiths, yet we usually have little interest in understanding their beliefs or exploring how another life of faith may differ or strengthen our own.
It’s almost purely moralistic, with just a touch of psychologizing thrown in for good measure. (And he was complaining of “condescending”!)
Now, I confess to having read only the first chapter, but in it the author previews the three major sections of the book that follow. There’s no sign there that anything will change as he proceeds. Rather he tells us he will try (in the first section) to
address candidly some of the encumbrances that are making it difficult to reach across our religious boundaries. Our fears and our authoritarian religious systems are shrinking us.
If that’s what he does in that section, it’s a continuation of the moralizing and psychologizing he began with. Looking ahead to the second section he tells us,
I am aiming to open to open the windows of our own faith to the faith of others. Listening and learning of the faith of others may hurt our eyes, but it will not harm our spirits.
More of the same parental moralism. And finally in the third section,
I offer a beginning, only a beginning, for building bridges that can connect peoples of faith. Our differences matter. But the people who embrace those differences matter even more.
All of us agree that people matter, and that our differences do, too. What’s glaringly missing here, however, is, “The truth matters.” Godsey doesn’t tell us we should reject exclusivism because it is false. Instead he says we should reject it because it’s bad, and those who believe it are bad. Exclusivism, he tells us, is arrogant, born out of psychological weakness, “abrasive and hostile,” authoritarian and so on.
Now, obviously he also believes exclusivism is false. Maybe he considers that whole debate over and done with, and no need to recapitulate it. Yet he still has an argument to press, which is that exclusivism is morally reprehensible.
So how do we answer a Godsey? What we typically do is bring forth arguments to defend the truth of Christian exclusivism. We forget that the question we’re dealing with is of a different order than that, something “visceral and compelling;” an issue not about evidence or reason, but about letting our guts guide our beliefs.
Which in fact, to a greater or lesser extent, they do for all of us. The problem is that for many in our reason-challenged culture, our guts are about all that guide our beliefs. Therefore we who would speak to this as theologians or apologists must see these issues for what they are. They’re not just about the head; they’re also about the gut. No longer is it sufficient just to defend the truth that Jesus is the only way to God. We must also demonstrate that believing that doesn’t make one a bad person.
Now, how do we address the moral question of Christian exclusivism? I have thoughts on that which I’m saving for another blog post to follow in a few days. I’m hoping in the meantime you’ll beat me to all the best ideas in the discussion right here.
Part of a series:
Part Two posted on June 13.
Part Three posted on June 20.
Part Four posted on June 27.
June 10th, 2011 | 3:14 pm | #1
I have a hunch I’m being simplistic, but if we confess that the Christian religion is true, then the fact that we regard it as exclusive is not necessarily any more morally problematic than the fact that we believe that anyone who does not live consistently within the bounds of the laws of physics will wind up very dead very shortly. Physics is exclusive, why can’t matters of spiritual truth be as well? Why does it raise a different kind of moral problem? It all rests on the simple matter of whether the thing is true or not. And though we can’t prove it’s true to everyone to whom we address the claim that it’s exclusive, if we who confess it honestly believe it is true, that is sufficient to put us in safe moral territory.
Or so it seems to me. The problem here might be that people think that something you “believe” is somehow less firmly established than physics. But though I undoubtedly access the reasons for my belief in physics and my belief in the gospel in different ways, I believe them in the same way.
June 10th, 2011 | 3:34 pm | #2
I don’t think you’re being simplistic, pentamom. The problem is that people do regard physics differently than they do matters of “belief.” It has been observed that relativism, or pluralism in beliefs, extends only so far. When the nurse approaches us with the syringe and we ask, “Is that really flu vaccine in there?” no one’s going to consider it morally repugnant for him to know the answer. If he answered by saying, “who am I to say I know what it is?” I would run screaming from the room. I’m very exclusivist on such matters, which no one considers morally repugnant. In physics, medicine, engineering, technology, and a host of other things we are all quite content to be exclusive in our beliefs.
Yet pluralism/relativism runs rampant in matters of theology, religion, and ethics; and moral disapproval of exclusivism even more so.
So even though I agree with you—there’s no good reason it should be that way—still, that’s the way it is. When we ask people to consider joining us in following Christ alone, many will process that request as, “come join us in being arrogant exclusivist jerks.” It’s wrong, it’s not true; but the perception exists regardless, it’s powerfully influential, and so we need to learn to address that aspect of pluralism more directly than we have.
June 10th, 2011 | 4:23 pm | #3
I agree with both Pentamom and Tom Gilson. I would like to add an old fashioned idea: “heresy.” To cite Hilaire Belloc, “Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. We mean by ‘a complete and self-supporting scheme’ any system of affirmation in physics or mathematics or philosophy or what-not, the various parts of which are coherent and sustain each other…Heresy means, then, the warping of a system by ‘Exception’: by ‘Picking out’ one part of the structure and implies that the scheme is marred by taking away one part of it, denying one part of it, and either leaving the void unfilled or filling it with some new affirmation.”
Is this not what Kirby Godsey presents to us?
June 10th, 2011 | 4:33 pm | #4
Yup.
June 10th, 2011 | 5:28 pm | #5
Thanks, Tom.
Well-timed post, considering the recent Tutu trumpeting coinciding with the release of his book.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/god-is-not-a-christian_b_869947.html
June 10th, 2011 | 7:40 pm | #6
I have to laugh a little whenever I hear my old friend Kirby Godsey referred to as a “theologian.” He is a particularly gifted public speaker and a master of public relations. As President of Mercer University, he grew it from a small Baptist college to a major university (at the expense, some would argue, of its distinctive Baptist identity), all the while fighting off both an unsupportive faculty on the inside and an obnoxious bunch of fundamentalists on the outside. But he is, manifestly, not a “theologian.” His studied field is philosophy, not theology, and he is hopelessly out of his league against the likes of Albert Mohler and Tom Gilson.
June 10th, 2011 | 7:48 pm | #7
“Physics is exclusive, why can’t matters of spiritual truth be as well? ”
You are still missing the point. Even if truth is accepted you still have not answered the question,”Is it honorable for me to accept Christianity on these terms?” You are not just trying to convince people of the truth of a doctrine, you are trying to convince people to accept allegiance to God on the terms described. What if someone becomes convinced and still refuses? He has gone from being a doubter to being a rebel. Such a stance does seem to have a mistaken nobility(even though mixed with self-righteousness) that might lead one to suspect that he will LATER come to the knowledge of Christ. Such stories are not unknown. But for the moment he has been driven off.
June 10th, 2011 | 9:20 pm | #8
Perhaps it is a distinction with considering. But when I’ve heard people talk about exclusivism about God, it isn’t the *belief* that they are concerned about. Rather, what I’ve heard people voice concerns about are the *actions* that often flow toward those outside the circle. How do the saved treat the sinners, for instance? How does the conservative evangelical treat the same sex couple, for instance? Is it with compassion, grace, and love? Sometimes. Is it with contempt, disgust, short temperedness, quick to find fault, and so on? Sometimes. So, the actions that are justified in the name of the exclusive “truth that holds us” is often the problem, not so much the belief itself.
And, as a side note, I would argue that Tom is conflating relativism and pluralism. There was a plurality of faiths and political systems alive and well when Jesus walked and Paul was writing.
June 10th, 2011 | 10:12 pm | #9
Pluralism can take multiple meanings, some of which are associated with relativism. I was trying to convey the sense of a pluralistic sort of relativism (or a relativistic sort of pluralism), which is why I conjoined relativism with pluralism every time I used “pluralism” (except for one when I got careless for a moment).
I sort of agree with your first paragraph, and sort of not. When I post part two, I will certainly address the actions that go with the beliefs; that part is indeed at the heart of the issue.
June 10th, 2011 | 10:14 pm | #10
But James, how can I deny exclusivity if exclusivity is true? And how am I immoral for believing and operating on the basis of what is true? And why is spiritual exclusivity measured on a different moral scale from physical? It can’t just be because it creates different problems — that’s not how we judge whether it’s moral to believe something or not, and to say it if we believe it.
If you’re saying we don’t have to lead with it, that’s true. But the moment we venture into denying it, then the problem of whether or not it’s true comes up.
June 10th, 2011 | 10:53 pm | #11
Tom,
I really look forward to hearing what you’ll write next. I understand the appeal of inclusivism, at least in the sense that it contains a desire that more people be saved. But I think that, at the root, the unspoken assumption is that sin is not really all that bad. If we truly saw the depth of our depravity, the question would not be “why can’t God save more?” but “why does God save any?” I’ve found that the best way to address inclusivism is through an appeal to the nature of sin. If sin isn’t all that bad, then many paths might lead to God. But if our sin is evil beyond imagining, then the atonement is our only hope. I think the best way to open someone’s ears to hear the exclusive message of the gospel is to openly confess our own filthiness before God. It is very hard to label someone as “arrogant and self-righteous” when they are telling you about their own helplessness, wickedness and need for a Savior.
-Neil
June 11th, 2011 | 1:25 am | #12
Neil, inclusivism does not require that there be “many paths to God.” It only requires that we not assume that someone who does not affirm the Nicene Creed during his observed lifetime is necessarily thereby damned. Presumably such a salvation would be through Christ.
June 11th, 2011 | 5:57 am | #13
There could be many ways to define inclusivism, so in one sense I believe you’re right, Jason. That’s how inclusivism is best understood in certain contexts.
But I think the relevant definition for these purposes would be any denial of the Christian exclusivism I spoke of, i.e., any belief that denies historic orthodox Christianity’s teaching that there is one God revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the one way, truth, and life for all people everywhere in all times.
That’s stating it from the negative perspective. From the other side of the coin, this version of inclusivism would believe (a) that there is possibly more than one legitimate way to view ultimate reality, and/or (b) there is possibly more than one way (specifically more than the one way of Jesus Christ) to reach our best outcome with respect to that reality. That “best outcome” (according to inclusivism of this sort) is not necessarily to be “saved;” it could mean Heaven, Nirvana, personal fulfillment, Paradise, a lasting legacy on earth, or whatever; or it could mean some or all of those all at once.
June 11th, 2011 | 12:00 pm | #14
Well, yeah Tom, hope for others salvation does not overthrow the Law of Non-contradiction.
In any case, while it sounds eccentric, I always thought it was relativism that was insulting. I always assumed that people from other religions were at least theoretically trying to find Truth. Then too, relativists seem me to be secular minded folk that wonder what the fuss is about when it comes to religion but are shockingly fanatical when it comes to politics. And that therefore their tolerance is a dismissal not a courtesy. To me, “There are many paths”, sounds like “religion isn’t even important enough to be wrong.”
June 11th, 2011 | 2:07 pm | #15
Right, Jason. Again, I agree, though I’m not entirely sure I’ve communicated clearly yet. Maybe I have, and what follows here is redundant, but I want to make sure.
I’m not saying that this kind of inclusivism as I just defined it is a true picture of reality, or makes sense, or has any kind of logic to it. I’m certainly not saying it is consistent with the law of non-contradiction. Inclusivism of this sort is obviously wrong when viewed from the standpoint of basic logic.
Nevertheless people believe it (in some confused sense or other), regardless of that. Not only do they believe it, they think it’s morally wrong to disagree with it. So we need to make two cases with respect to this kind of inclusivism. One is that Jesus Christ truly is the one way to the one God (the question of truth); the other is that believing that is so does not make one a bad person (the question of morality).
June 11th, 2011 | 3:06 pm | #16
What I think should be mentioned about Christian exclusivism is that it’s not exclisive. All religious beliefs deny the validity of all other religious beliefs. If you believe one set of religiouus beliefs you don’t believe another set of religious beliefs. You can’t be Moslem and Jewish. You can’t be Christian and Hindu. You can’t be a theist and an athiest. It’s not only true for religion, it’s true for any comprehensive set of beliefs on a subject. If you believe 1+1=2 you don’t belive 1+1=3. If you are a strict Dawinist you deny the validity of ID. If you are a strict Freudian you deny the validity of Jung. It’s called thesis/antithesis and if it was more widely understood we wouldn’t have to talk about the “morality” of exclusive beliefs because we would understand that it’s not about morality it’s about reality.
June 11th, 2011 | 3:33 pm | #17
BillT, true, but Christianity is probably not unique, but at least in the minority, in that we believe that not only is everyone else wrong insofar as we’re right, but that being wrong aka on the outside leads to horrific, inescapable consequences. Islam, I guess, comes close, but Hinduism, for example, holds no such ultimate destruction as the consequence of exclusion.
So it’s exclusive both as regards to truth claims, which is just another way of saying the law of non-contradiction, but also as far as those who remain outside having any hope of anything other than total, painful destruction. (Exactly how precise one has to be to be counted as inside, or how easily that can be determined by another, is another question entirely. The claim that only Christians can be saved does not have to equate to “only people I recognize as Christians according to my own assessment of the quality of their conformity with a narrow interpretation of the faith can be saved.” I think part, though not all, of the problem people have with exclusivism is the assumption, not always false, that the statement of exclusivism equates to a certain very personally derived definition of who is excluded.)
June 11th, 2011 | 6:22 pm | #18
The types of exclusivism that really bug me are the kinds rooted in what Lewis calls “the inner ring” and those which stem from theological determinism.
June 11th, 2011 | 9:42 pm | #19
Tom Gilson: “Now more often they say, “You believe that Jesus is the one way, and there’s something wrong about you—evil, even—for thinking that.”
Instead it is an ethical “should,” as in, “wouldn’t it be morally irresponsible for me to accept this belief [of Biblical Christianity]?”
This is a remarkably astute perception. I never realized that this was happening until I read this superb post. It makes sense and I think it explains much.
The battleground has shifted and I applaud Mr. Gilson’s perceptiveness in alerting us to this shift.
It’s subtle and the tactics/weapons needed to engage this particular front on the field of spiritual warfare is going to be different.
With regards to Mr. Gilson’s request for approaches to this shift by the Enemy, I might try something along the lines of…
“Is it immoral to believe, uphold, and perpetuate a falsehood?”
[If the grounds of conversation have shifted to issues of morality then move to the grounds of subjective morality vs. objective morality and the source of morality.]
June 12th, 2011 | 3:19 pm | #20
The claim that Christianity is “exclusive”, and needs to allow for other paths to God, is really, as Tom Gilson points out, a moral claim about what would make Christianity “better.” But as Truth Unites . . . and Divides points out, morality has to be based on a source, and the only source to which Christians can refer for their morality is God.
Never forget that Jesus says, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” That is why “No one comes to the Father except through me.” To know the Father, therefore, one has to know and accept the Son — there is no morality about it.
Those who claim to have a path to God which does not take them to Jesus at one and the same time are the ones whose morality is thereby placed into question. It is a classic case of projection — because they are uncertain of the truth of their path, they have to assert that no other path is any better.
June 12th, 2011 | 3:57 pm | #21
pentamom,
Christianity certainly is not in the minority. It’s not about what religions claim about themselves it’s about the reality that following one set of beliefs mens you’re not following another. All religious beliefs are exclusive in that regard and no religion says you can achieve the salvation it offers without adhering to it’s own particular beliefs.
June 13th, 2011 | 1:27 pm | #22
This reminds me of when the preacher who was to give the invocation at the 1980 Republican convention (I can’t remember his name) said, “God does not hear the prayers of a Jew,” Ronald Reagan immediately moved to distance himself from him, publicly disagreeing politely and privately saying, “He’s nuts!”
In a universe so huge that it cannot be comprehended, so old that it may for all practical purposes be eternal, an exclusive religion simply does not work. One may make the argument of sin, but the rejoinder is to simply look up at the stars, wave an arm and say, “Do you mean to tell me that the intelligence that created and ordered that is going to worry about such things?”
From that it is but a short leap for those who worry about morality to come to the conclusion that those who believe in a such a deity are, well, not quite right in the head and as such folks are capable of all manner of dreadful things…
Well, you see where it is going.
June 13th, 2011 | 3:29 pm | #23
Chuck,
Do you mean to tell me that the intelligence that created and ordered that is unconcerned about what is good and just and true?
(The answer, by the way, is not to be found in the stars. I doubt you believe in astrology. Nor is it to be found in waving one’s arm. “Hand-waving” is, as you may know, a common description for a completely unsupported point in debate.)
June 13th, 2011 | 5:33 pm | #24
BillT, you reiterated what you said before and entirely missed the point of what I said.
June 14th, 2011 | 10:23 am | #25
pentamom,
I would disagree. Certainly Judaism, Islam, Hindu and the Asian faiths leave those who do not practce their particular disciplines on the outside of the salvation they offer. Even Buddhism denies nirvana to anyone who doesn’t practice the Buddhist faith. The idea that Christianity is different in it’s orientation in this area is a myth.
June 14th, 2011 | 12:53 pm | #26
Frequently, such judgments against exclusivism tend to be implicitly rooted in the authority of the Self and are therefore arrogant. It’s often productive to gently suggest this and see where that goes; generally, such folks do not want to be perceived as arrogant. If the discussion shifts to appeals to things/authorities outside the Self, then that’s progress and the arguments can be addressed.
I should also point out that, unfortunately, Christians are often insecure in their arguments, and that insecurity can lead to defensiveness and a lack of gentleness and charity. It’s understandable because our education culture is generally devoid of substantive Christian paideia, and from there it’s all downhill because mainstream culture’s nihilism brings out defensiveness. But it’s not excusable. And there are better ways of preparing ourselves…
June 14th, 2011 | 1:31 pm | #27
Maybe I don’t understand “Hinduism and the Asian faiths” well enough, but my understanding is that while they don’t promise the fulfillment that adherence offers the faithful, they don’t threaten anything comparable to eternal Hell to those that do not follow. In fact, any religion that teaches reincarnation always offers continuing chances to “make good,” and never leaves anyone beyond hope. So I don’t find those comparable to Christianity in the *consequences* of their exclusivism.
And I did mention Islam as being rather closer in that respect.
The old pagan religions, where you wind up in Erebus or something comparable when you fail to meet the test before the judgment seat are also more comparable, but I’m not aware of any major modern religions that follow that pattern. Modern paganism seems to have removed any permanent threatening qualities. And I did say “minority,” not “unique.”
June 14th, 2011 | 2:32 pm | #28
pentamom,
What you fairly point out is, I believe, a distinction without a difference. One faith says that failing to achieve its “heaven” is called “X” and another says its called “Y”. In any case, each religious belief hold as excusive its greatest reward for those who practice the particulars of the faith. Yes, there are differences in the overall worldview of each belief system as your reincarnation example shows. However, they are no less exclusive because of it. Only adhearance to certain particular beliefs garners for the faithful a place of ultimate reward. All others get something else.
June 15th, 2011 | 10:14 am | #29
I don’t think the distinction between “not achieving nirvana but still living a potentially decent life on some other plane” is without a significant difference from “Hell.” I still maintain that Christianity stands in the minority as one of the relatively few that offers only irrevocable, endless, intolerable suffering as the price of exclusion. And I do believe that is primarily what unbelievers object to when they object to “exclusivism,” at least thoughtful ones, though no doubt some rather mush-headed folks are so relativistic as to implicitly object to the law of non-contradiction as such.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact