Skeptics Answered: Why so Narrow?

(Author’s note: This continues a series answering objections to the Christian worldview.  A week or two ago I made a call for folks to send me their “best shot.” For the other posts in the series, simply follow the links and the pingbacks in the comments section.)

In my Calling all Skeptics post, one woman asked:

My question is –Why is Christianity so exclusivist? Meaning – why is the Christian Church the only way of reaching ‘God’ , or redemption, or peace? By saying ours is the only true Lord, doesn’t one deny the beliefs of others?

This is a good question, and it comes up often.  In fact, a man in my Alpha group at church brought it up this past week.

Christianity is definitely narrow, no doubt about it.  At first glance, this seems unnecessary.  Why not live and let live?

That depends on what, exactly, religion is.  If it is essentially a way to help yourself get through life and/or a way to gain personal happiness (“happiness” meaning a pleasurable subjective feeling.  This is different from the classical view of happiness as a virtuous and well-lived life.), then yes, Christianity’s narrowness is quite unneeded.

Religion, though, is not like that.  It is not a personal taste type of thing.  As Greg Koukl says, it is not like ice cream; it’s like insulin.  When you choose an ice cream, you choose what you like, but when you choose a medicine, truth counts.

Each religion (at least the major religions of the world) attempts to diagnose a real problem with humanity and give a real solution.  In the Bible, the problem is humanity’s rebellion from a loving, holy, and just Creator God.  The cure is a relationship with Christ.  In Islam, the problem is something different.  In Hinduism, still something different.  The same goes for each religion’s solution

Each of these religions is not saying what its followers prefers.  Rather, like I said above, they are attempting to diagnose a real problem.

This means that when it comes to religion, truth is paramount, and truth, by nature, is exclusive.  That’s just the nature of the beast, as they say.

It also helps to realize that while some are more inclusive than others, every religion is exclusive at some point.  Even one of the world’s most inclusive religions, Baha’i, is exclusive; they exclude those who hold to narrow theologies.  I actually remember seeing a TV program on Baha’i where the Baha’i advocate announced his religion “has no room for those who say others are wrong.”

He had just sawn off the branch he was sitting on, and the irony was lost on him.

To answer sykik’s last question, yes, by saying ours is the “only true Lord,” we are denying the beliefs of others.  Really, though, we should get over our squeamishness about exclusivity.  You can’t avoid it.  Christians do it; Muslims do it; Hindus do it; heck, even Oprah does it!  Any time you make a claim of some sort, you imply that its opposite is wrong.  The question we should ask is, “which claim/worldview/belief/religion etc is true?”

Think of it this way: is “God” an actual person in reality?  If not, then He’s just a fiction in the minds of the faithful.  In that case, everyone but the atheist is wrong.  You still run into the issue of exclusivity.  On the other hand, it He is someone in reality, then He is someone or something in particular.

If you sincerely think Rich Bordner is a 6 ft 6 football quarterback, has a barrell chest, tan skin, and a full head of hair, you’ve got the wrong guy.   It is the same way with God.

Furthermore, realize that the exclusive nature of Christianity didn’t originate with the church centuries later.  It’s not like the Church invented that way of thinking as a power grab; it goes straight back to the mouth of Jesus.  John 14:6 wasn’t the only place He proclaimed such exclusivity.  It’s all over.  In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus says, “Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

Just a few verses later He says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.  Away from me, you evildoers!’”

In John 8:24, He says, “if you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”

There are many other very, very exclusive statements from the mouth of Jesus: Luke 12:8-9, John 5:23b, 5:37-38, 12:48-50, 15:20b-21.  This pattern is repeated in the other books of the New Testament: Romans 10:2-1, Galatians 1:8-9, Acts 10, Jude 4, etc.

It is clear that Jesus presented himself as the only solution to the human problem and the only through Him can one have relationship with the true God.  The question we should ask now is, “was Jesus right?”

I’m inclined to believe Him.  Jesus has a tremendous amount of authority.  Not authority in the “authoritarian” sense (i.e., a cop tells you to move, you move.), but in the knowledge sense.  Time and again he demonstrated a circumspect perspective on reality.

His teaching cut to the bone.  He claimed to be God, then demonstrated His authority with signs and wonders.  In the end, He rose from the dead and conquered the grave.  He is the only religious leader to accomplish that.

Say you are lost in the woods.  You can’t get out.  Off in the distance, you see someone sitting up against a tree.  You run up to him, only to find out he’s dead.  Even if he has a map on him, I wouldn’t trust it.  It obviously didn’t help him.  But a day later, you see someone else.  You run up to him and this time its a fit-as-can-be park ranger.  He’s definitely alive.  Would you follow his advice?

In the same vein, every religious leader but Jesus is in the ground, rotting.  He defeated death.  I’d say that vindicates His exclusive claims.

The resurrection is the linchpin.  It is an event that I think we have great reasons to think actually happened.

Next, think about what the problem with humanity is.  According to Jesus and the Bible, our problem is our rebellion.  “We are many times over criminals in God’s court,” as Koukl says.  We have broken His law thousands upon thousdands of times, and we have quite a rap sheet.  We are in the dock, guilty.  Doing good works cannot be our escape hatch, for we already owe God goodness.  You can’t pay for a debt with something you already owe.

Only Jesus has the goods to get us out of that mess.  We are moral traitors, but God graciously offers us amnesty.  The thing is that its on His terms, not ours, and His terms are clemency through Jesus Christ.  Take it or leave it.

Of course, if you don’t buy the Christian diagnosis of humanity’s problem, you won’t buy the solution.  At least you can see, though, the logic of it all.  Much like a doctor has reason to be exclusive in the cure he gives his patient, so the Christian has reason to be exclusive in his claims about reality.

The bottom line is that good people are just fine; sinners, however, are in trouble.  That’d be you and me, by the way.

Some think this makes Christians and Christianity arrogant.  I don’t see how.  Koukl puts it right:

The odd thing is that Christians are labeled conceited and even self-righteous for their views about salvation. Yet they are the only ones admitting complete moral inadequacy. Christians aren’t high-minded. Quite the opposite, they know they’re bad enough to need forgiveness, and simply rejoice when it’s offered. Once a criminal receives a pardon, it’s hardly arrogant for him to celebrate his new-found freedom.

I add: it’s hardly arrogant for that same criminal to point the way so that others can receive the same pardon.

One last thing.  Some object by using the blind men and the elephant illustration.  The illustration goes like this: some blind men encounter an elephant.  One man, grasping the trunk, exclaims, “the elephant is like a big anaconda!”  Another, feeling the elephant’s side, says, “no, the elephant is like a huge wall.”  Still another, clinging onto the tusk, declares, “you are both wrong.  The elephant is like a sharp spear!”  Finally, tired of all the racket, the king of the village arrives and puts the men in their place and says, “you are all wrong!  You are each grasping a part of the elephant.  You must put it all together to get what the elephant is like.”

The suggestion is that is what religion is like; each differing religion has a part of reality.  Also, some use the illustration to suggest we can’t really know reality, because we are blind due to our cultural surroundings.

However, you’d have to modify the illustration to describe the situation with religion correctly, for religions make contradictory claims.  Christianity claims God is personal, but certain strands of Hinduism claim God is impersonal.  God cannot be both!  Claiming He could is like claiming a shape can be a square and a circle at the same time.  No can do.  This is not an issue of Christians not being exposed to the beliefs of other religions.  Rather, it is a problem of coherence.

Secondly,the illustration doesn’t allow for the elephant to speak.  But what if he does?  If God does speak, he can inform the blind men as to his true nature, and this changes things.

I’ve got news: the elephant does speak.  His name is Jesus. 

Thirdly, the parable purports to teach that we are blind, but it actually teaches the opposite.  The men would  not know their error were it not for the king who is not blind.  He comes in and tells them what the elephant is really like.  It’s like someone saying “we’re all blind, but here’s the way it is.”

For those who push this illustration, I ask: who are you in the parable: the king, or one of the blind men?  If the former, my next question is, “how have you escaped the blindness that supposedly everyone else has?” If the latter, my question is, “then why should I listen to you?”

Just drop the elephant already….

Greg Koukl has a great treatment of Christian exclusivism.  See it here.