I've been studying world religions in a general way. (This is about the only way they can be studied, unless you have 15 years to devote to each one.)
Many Christians seem to me not to have any grasp of just how many religions there really are, or of how ancient, deep and sophisticated many of them are.
Hinduism, to take the most ancient major religion, is fantastically profound. Many of its teachings parallel those of Christianity.
In fact, it's a rare religion that doesn't have some parallels with Christianity. The vast majority aren't some obviously pagan religion whose ghastly beliefs and practices make you cringe.
To most Christians, however, all these religions seem to be lumped together as simply non-Christian and nothing more than roads to hell. Because they aren't Christian, the hell with them (literally).
When one takes off one's Christian blinders, however, the doctrine of Christian exclusivity becomes highly problematical. I wonder how many Christian exclusivists could live with a devout Hindu or Buddhist family in a devout Hindu or Buddhist community for five years and still say, "These people are going to hell, and deservedly so."
Here is William Lane Craig's philosophical defense of Christian exclusivity: “No Other Name”: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ | Reasonable Faith
Craig is one of the two or three premier Christian philosophers and apologists alive today. See if his sophisticated defense of exclusivity doesn't strike you as little more than mental masturbation. Does it have anything to do with the real world? (Philosophy seldom does, of course, and Craig admits his discussion may seem rather dry.)
At some intuitive level, I think many people who claim to be exclusivists know the conventional doctrine can't possibly be correct. Like some of the other most divisive doctrines (e.g., the deity of Jesus, the Trinity), the biblical support is thin indeed for doctrines with such vast consequences.
Jesus and the NT writers lived in a world with borders that would fit pretty easily into my home state of Arizona, or certainly no larger than a couple of Western states. Their focus, geographically and theologically, was quite parochial. Did they have any awareness whatsoever of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and other religions that were already well-developed (and still exist today)? Very unlikely.
Must the Bible verses that support exclusivity ("There is no other name," "No one comes unto the Father," etc.) really be understood in terms of worldwide exclusivity?
Most of the time, the doctrine of exclusivity ends up being "watered-down exclusivity." Even William Lane Craig does this. Nevertheless, by Craig's watered-down reasoning the non-Christians who will be saved via general revelation will still be "rare," and vast swaths of humanity will be condemned. This was the best "balance" God could achieve. Really?
Once you water-down exclusivity at all, once you allow the tiniest crack in the dike, exclusivity is no longer exclusivity. So what purpose does the doctrine really serve except to divide and alienate?
In the interests of my own sanity, and consistent with my own deepest intuition, I've adopted the position that (1) I really don't know what those verses the exclusivists love really mean, but I doubt they mean what the exclusivists think they mean; (2) in terms of salvation, I will work out my own with fear and trembling and let others, Christian or Hindu or Jain, worry about theirs; (3) any discussion of Christianity by me with the believers of other religions will be in terms of "persuasion" as to why Christianity might be a clearer and deeper understanding of God, not in terms of who's "right" and who's "wrong."
As I recently said on a thread about Calvinism, I would say here to strict exclusivists: Sorry, I simply could not believe in a God like yours. I simply could not worship a God like that.
Of course, this view is anathema to strict Bible literalists and inerrantists. As I've said more than once, this biblical prison seems to me to be driven more by fear and insecurity than devotion. I'm simply incapable of believing doctrines that my deepest intuition tells me can't possibly be true and that cause me to live my life in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. Philosophical tap-dancing like William Lane Craig's simply collapses when it bumps into the reality in which I live.
Just my $0.02 worth on exclusivity.
Please, no strings of Bible verses. I know them all.
Many Christians seem to me not to have any grasp of just how many religions there really are, or of how ancient, deep and sophisticated many of them are.
Hinduism, to take the most ancient major religion, is fantastically profound. Many of its teachings parallel those of Christianity.
In fact, it's a rare religion that doesn't have some parallels with Christianity. The vast majority aren't some obviously pagan religion whose ghastly beliefs and practices make you cringe.
To most Christians, however, all these religions seem to be lumped together as simply non-Christian and nothing more than roads to hell. Because they aren't Christian, the hell with them (literally).
When one takes off one's Christian blinders, however, the doctrine of Christian exclusivity becomes highly problematical. I wonder how many Christian exclusivists could live with a devout Hindu or Buddhist family in a devout Hindu or Buddhist community for five years and still say, "These people are going to hell, and deservedly so."
Here is William Lane Craig's philosophical defense of Christian exclusivity: “No Other Name”: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ | Reasonable Faith
Craig is one of the two or three premier Christian philosophers and apologists alive today. See if his sophisticated defense of exclusivity doesn't strike you as little more than mental masturbation. Does it have anything to do with the real world? (Philosophy seldom does, of course, and Craig admits his discussion may seem rather dry.)
At some intuitive level, I think many people who claim to be exclusivists know the conventional doctrine can't possibly be correct. Like some of the other most divisive doctrines (e.g., the deity of Jesus, the Trinity), the biblical support is thin indeed for doctrines with such vast consequences.
Jesus and the NT writers lived in a world with borders that would fit pretty easily into my home state of Arizona, or certainly no larger than a couple of Western states. Their focus, geographically and theologically, was quite parochial. Did they have any awareness whatsoever of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and other religions that were already well-developed (and still exist today)? Very unlikely.
Must the Bible verses that support exclusivity ("There is no other name," "No one comes unto the Father," etc.) really be understood in terms of worldwide exclusivity?
Most of the time, the doctrine of exclusivity ends up being "watered-down exclusivity." Even William Lane Craig does this. Nevertheless, by Craig's watered-down reasoning the non-Christians who will be saved via general revelation will still be "rare," and vast swaths of humanity will be condemned. This was the best "balance" God could achieve. Really?
Once you water-down exclusivity at all, once you allow the tiniest crack in the dike, exclusivity is no longer exclusivity. So what purpose does the doctrine really serve except to divide and alienate?
In the interests of my own sanity, and consistent with my own deepest intuition, I've adopted the position that (1) I really don't know what those verses the exclusivists love really mean, but I doubt they mean what the exclusivists think they mean; (2) in terms of salvation, I will work out my own with fear and trembling and let others, Christian or Hindu or Jain, worry about theirs; (3) any discussion of Christianity by me with the believers of other religions will be in terms of "persuasion" as to why Christianity might be a clearer and deeper understanding of God, not in terms of who's "right" and who's "wrong."
As I recently said on a thread about Calvinism, I would say here to strict exclusivists: Sorry, I simply could not believe in a God like yours. I simply could not worship a God like that.
Of course, this view is anathema to strict Bible literalists and inerrantists. As I've said more than once, this biblical prison seems to me to be driven more by fear and insecurity than devotion. I'm simply incapable of believing doctrines that my deepest intuition tells me can't possibly be true and that cause me to live my life in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. Philosophical tap-dancing like William Lane Craig's simply collapses when it bumps into the reality in which I live.
Just my $0.02 worth on exclusivity.
Please, no strings of Bible verses. I know them all.
