Thinking Christian

Dallas Willard writes in The Divine Conspiracy (p. 335),

“God,” Paul said, “makes clear the greatness of his love for us through the fact that Christ died for us while we were still rebelling against him” (Rom. 5:8).

The exclusiveness of the Christian revelation of God lies here. No one can have an adequate view of the heart and purposes of the God of the universe who does not understand that he permitted his son to die on the cross to reach out to all people, even people who hated him. That is who God is. But that is not just a “right answer” to a theological question. It is God looking at me from the cross with compassion and providing for me, with never-failing readiness to take my hand to walk on through life from wherever I may find myself at the time.

God’s deep, gracious love is proved in the price he paid in love on our behalf. Christ died for us. He died in love, to bring us to God, to break down the sin barrier between us and God.

One could go into explaining how the cross of Christ accomplished that: how sin separated us from God, earning us death, and how Christ paid that price for us. Let’s not dwell there this time, though. For now, let’s consider this fact in its simplicity: the price that God imposed, God paid. The price was death (Romans 3:23). God made the payment through the death of God the Son, Jesus Christ. He was the one the Father called his beloved, who often proclaimed his own eternal unity with the Father (John 10:30, John 17). He died by crucifixion, among the most torturous methods of execution ever practiced by a government on earth.

As Willard recalls the love of God that led God to do this for us, he throws in that terrible cultural hand grenade, the word exclusiveness. He had, to, though. It’s really quite inescapable. If the Christian message is at all true, then it is exclusively true. It cannot be one of several options. It is either exclusively true or it is thoroughly wrong.

Though this may be difficult, in an age when pluralism and inclusivism are considered among the chief virtues, I think anyone might be able to see this necessity. It is impossible to include Christianity—the kind of Christianity that centers on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ—in a list of ways to know God. Even if one doubts Jesus ever said what he did about being the only way to God (as in John 14:6, for example), it should be clear that he cannot be one of many items on a spiritual menu.

Let us consider what it would mean if he were. Suppose Eckhart Tolle and Oprah and the Bahá’ís and all the other inclusivists are right. Suppose Christianity is one of many paths to God, to enlightenment, fulfillment, Nirvana, or whatever the real goal is.

Then the universe offers us many ways to reach our best destiny. Whatever reality is at its core, there’s something about it that gives humans a real place, a real direction, a real destiny. Somehow in some personal or impersonal (and therefore metaphoric) way, the universe has us in mind, and it offers us all kinds of ways to flourish for now and for beyond. We just have to pick one of those ways off the universe’s spiritual menu. Let’s see, will I have the t-bone or the tofu?

Reality isn’t too picky. It’s nice to us, in a way. It wants us to be free to choose. You can follow any number of paths, many of which really are rather nice ideas. Experiencing the Now (per Tolle) is a nice idea. New Age spirituality of all kinds fits well into the “nice” category. The Secret says everything will go well if you’ll just think more positively. Those are a couple of attractive options. Let’s just make sure we include Jesus. The cross of Christ is another nice thing on the spiritual menu. Wasn’t that sweet of God the Father to offer his own Son’s torture and death as one of our options?

No!

When Jesus faced the cross it was in agony, with sweat dripping as blood. This was even before he was arrested—he knew what was coming! Was that one of the universe’s nice ideas for us?

His friends and followers deserted him–as he knew they would do. Was that one of the universe’s nice ideas for us?

He was cruelly tortured and mocked. Was that one of the universe’s nice ideas for us?

He hung on that infamously cruel cross, dying in excruciating pain while they laughed at him. Was that one of the universe’s nice ideas for us?

He was stabbed in the side, so that water and blood flowed out. Was that one of the universe’s nice ideas for us?

His body was wrapped up, entombed in the dark. Was that one of the universe’s nice ideas for us?

There is nothing nice about the cross. It is unthinkable that this was an item on some spiritual menu, one choice among many, something we could feel free to pass over in favor of positive thinking (or any other supposed path to God). 

Christ’s resurrection makes manifest the glory of both his death and his life. It redeems the loss of his death. It makes its greatness even greater. But it does not make it nice. And it hardly supports anyone’s view that Christ is just one of many enlightened ones!

C.S. Lewis said in another context,

But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Neither did he leave open the possibility that he might be just one of many spiritual options. He did not intend to.

Cross, Exclusivity, Jesus Christ, New Age, Worshiping Christian 2 comments

This ER clip on a dying patient’s intense spiritual questions has gone viral, according to viralvideochart.com, which ranks it at number 11 on their list this afternoon. (The list is apparently generated by the number of blogs referencing each video.)

This patient was asking for–no, demanding–straight answers to straight questions. The chaplain couldn’t answer (SteveK showed us additional context in support of that conclusion). The patient didn’t want maybe, didn’t want doubts, didn’t want what-ifs; he wanted certainty. What do we make of that kind of demand? Is it legitimate? Most believers in Christ would say “yes, absolutely!” We think there are real answers to his questions.

It’s terribly counter-cultural, though, to talk in terms of spiritual certainty* and “yes, absolutely.” We’re a pluralistic culture, especially in regards to religion and values. If the chaplain had told him, “You can find forgiveness only by placing your faith in Jesus Christ and His death for you,” she would have been violating one of the Western world’s cardinal rules: Never claim one religion is better than any other.

That’s a rule we followers of Christ break all the time. It’s one reason Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins think we’re so dangerous. We’re exclusivistic.

This is a great time to introduce Timothy Keller, senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. It’s a seriously New York kind of church. They have two classical worship-style services every Sunday, and three jazz services. Did I mention they have five services every Sunday? Close observers point out that the church has grown primarily by Keller’s taking New Yorkers seriously, especially intellectual New Yorkers. He has just published a book handling their most serious questions, and from the book’s website you can connect to a message (mp3)he gave on the first of those objections: Christian exclusivity.

Keller displays a C.S. Lewis-like ability to explain complex topics clearly and cleanly. My summary here will not do his message justice, so I urge you to listen to it yourself. It boils down to these points:

1. Religious exclusivisity can indeed be extremely odious, if not dangerous: it typically leads to the belief in one’s moral and intellectual superiority, which leads to de-humanizing others who disagree.
2. Christianity is not the only exclusivist belief system; in fact, all spiritual belief systems are exclusivistic.
3. Christianity is the one belief system that (if practiced for what it truly is) leads to peace rather than to a de-humanizing belief in one’s moral superiority.

I’ll take these up in turn. Please continue to bear in mind this is just a brief version.

1. Religions generally teach that one attains one’s spiritual goal (however defined) by doing what’s right. If I believe I’m on the right spiritual path, then, I must also believe I have a better sense of what’s moral and ethical and right than you do, if you’ve chosen a different spiritual path. If I think I’m making any progress at all on that path, I’m bound to believe that I’m behaving more morally and ethically and rightly than you are. Now, if evangelical Christianity is the first thing to pop into your mind when you hear that, please consider 2:

2. Every spiritual belief is exclusivistic. Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the one answer. Muslims believe theirs is the one answer. Hindus do too, at least in the home of Hinduism–the apparently pluralistic version we know in the West is considered heretical back in India. But what if you take a more inclusivist view? Then you are bound to believe that we Christians and Muslims and Hindus are all wrong–and that you’re right! The chaplain on this ER episode considered it wrong to take a definite spiritual position–but in so saying, she was taking a definite spiritual position.

Furthermore, your belief system entails an ethical system to go with it, for example, “It’s rude and odious and wrong for Christians to say Jesus Christ is the one answer.”

I could go on, but I’m really just trying to whet your appetite to listen to Keller, whose next point is:

3. Given that all spiritual belief systems are exclusivistic, which one is most likely to produce peace in human relationships? The true uniqueness of Christianity shows its importance now. First, let’s take honest note of the moral exclusivisity of pluralism. It is genuinely a sin–and frequently punished–to deny pluralism. Try disagreeing with homosexual practice on a modern campus if you doubt this. The hammer will fall.

What about Christianity? We are committed to a belief in the goodness of Christ, a conviction from which we cannot budge. We are not, however, committed to believing in our own moral or intellectual superiority. Far from it. We believe that Jesus Christ had to die just because of our moral weakness, that we were enemies of God, that intellect has nothing to do with salvation, that one of our chief callings is to love those with whom we differ and disagree, and to treat them well. The apostle Paul summarizes it (emphasis added):

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit,serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. To the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

No one has lived up fully to this ideal since Jesus Christ himself. Keller is very forthright on this, both here and in other messages in this series of his. I could point out, with tears, many examples of our failure. The greatest Christian heresy down the ages has been legalism, the belief that one’s own actions actually can lead one to the goal, and that one actually can some kind of moral superiority over others.

This is where the beliefs of Christianity essentially aim, however. Jesus Christ took such a strong stand against legalism (or moralism) that the ones He was opposing had Him executed to get Him out of their way. (It didn’t work.) The more thoroughly one adopts the exclusive message of Jesus Christ, the more peace his or her life will display. The fully believing Christian will contend for the greatness of Jesus Christ and for the unworthiness of self. Humility, not superiority, is written deep into Christian exclusivity.

What about Christians’ calls for Biblical morality? I did not say we believe that no moral beliefs are better than any other. I said that we believe no one of us is more morally qualified before God than anyone else is. We stand for what we believe in. By God’s grace, we also strive to act accordingly. We fail. Often. We rely on God’s grace to pick us up from there.

So to summarize my summary, all belief systems are exclusivistic. One of them, though, at its very core, leads to humility rather than de-humanizing superiority. And for the man on ER, the same one could have showed him how to be forgiven.

Keller (need I say it again?) covers it all far more thoroughly. His talk will be well worth the time you spend listening to it.

*I must qualify what I mean by “certainty.” It’s not that I can prove my beliefs are true, or that they are as demonstrably certain as the fact that George Bush is the current President of the United States. For me, they are certain enough that I can feel confident and comfortable staking my whole life on them. I know I could be wrong; but I’m certain of it enough that if I had to, I would be willing to die for my beliefs.

Exclusivity, Pluralism 4 comments