The Offense of Exclusivity

On April 17th I did a post called Today's Sign of the Apocalypse, which basically was a report on a debate over Christian exclusivity between Al Mohler of Southern Seminary and Charles Kimball of Wake Forest University. Bill at Walloworld picked up on it and ran with it and added some of his typically insightful thoughts in this post. In this, Wallloworld gave the candy bar illustration, which basically is an illustration of how an exclusivist worldview would work out in a debate about which candy bar is the best among five different kinds of candy bars. Then, Steven, who has a blog called called Ice and Silence, found Walloworld's logic flawed and introduced a sixth candy bar into the argument. Are you with still with me? Walloworld responded with a post called More Candy Bars. Now, I have found that Steven has a post on his own blog dealing with Walloworld's comments and some of mine.

I won't try to explain the candy bar illustration to you because you can read it for yourself and I also don't want to put words in either of their mouths. Basically, Walloworld is arguing that Christianity is, and must be exclusive, and it is not unreasonable for it to be so. Steven at Ice and Silence argues that there is a way to frame Christianity in a non-exclusivistic way, and indeed, it must do so.

Kudos to both for some irenic, yet pointed discussion. I wanted to interact mostly with a few of Stephen's comments on my stuff. Walloworld is King of the Blogs, so he doesn't need me to defend him, even though I agree with him.

I will say that I read the candy bar thing from Walloworld as an illustration, not a proof. So, I have to admit that when I read the ensuing debate I kind of skimmed it, rather than waded deep into it. Walloworld's candy bar did what an illustration is supposed to do, it illustrated. All illustrations break down at some point and though I still favor Walloworld, I will concede that Steven had some good points. However, I don't see much value in arguing over an illustration.

If I had to summarize the point of the argument, it would simply be a debate over whether or not the Christian faith is, or must be, intrinsically exclusive. Steven proposes that one can hold to the Christian faith in a non-exclusive manner. Here is a good summary of his argument:

To put it into simpler terms, the Jewish view of God and way to reach God simply doesn't work for me- but I can accept that, for Jews, it is a wonderful faith system which enables them to reach God as best they know how. Similarly a Buddhist may look at a Christian and say "No other way than that of Buddha will EVER work for me- but surely for the Christians Jesus is just as valuable a medium."

He also warns Christians that exclusivism poses a danger from within, not so much as without. Again, quoting him:

Secondly: I'm afraid, Bill, that you interpreted my closing statement incorrectly. You took it to mean that I suggested that Christians shouldn't be exclusive because "somebody might start a fight." What I intended to mean was that Christianity as a religion would fall because of its own members growing tired of their religion, which seems to profess peace, allowing them to morally hate other people- which to many is exactly what is allowed by exclusive statements.

Stephen has some similar thoughts things I have said, particularly my contention that John 14:6 advocates exclusivism:

But does this statement really mean what we now think it does? It is widely interpreted today as "You have to believe and accept that I am your savior, the son of God, and you must believe that I died for your sins on a cross and rose three days later to open the door to heaven. When you do all that, you'll be ok." I would offer another interpretation: "Hey guys. You've got it all wrong nowadays. Everyone's too busy fighting, and I seem to be the only one offering the path of peace. Well let me tell you something- I'm afraid fighting just doesn't cut it- you've gotta be nice to each other, just like I said- and then everything will be groovy!"

As to my comments that the Christian worldview provides the foundation for tolerance, Steven says this:

I'm sorry, Jolly. But if you truly believe that, then you have not met as many people as I have. The Crusades were started on account of Christianity. I didn't see much love for Muslims marching along with all those arrows and swords... In truth, I've met some very judgemental people in my life, but it seems to me that those who are the most judgemental of others tend to be conservative christians. Now, this is NOT to say that ALL conservative Christians are judgemental- far from it. I have a number of wonderful friends (who probably pray for my soul constantly, bless their hearts) who are conservative and Christian, and who are also wonderfully nice people.

Here's a few thoughts on his thoughts.

First of all, I would say that there is just no way to interpret John 14:6 the way my friend (I hope he will take this in the spirit of friendly debate) Steven does. In this passage Jesus is talking about the way to heaven - He is the way. The grammar doesn't allow for a multiplicity of ways here. In the original Greek there is a grammatical device by which the writer can distinguish when something is one among many. It didn't do this here - it indicates that Jesus is "the" as in "one" as in "only" way. Jesus wasn't talking about a religion that was to develop in the future, He was talking about Himself - He is the way to heaven, not any system of religion. Of course there is also Acts 4:12:

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (electronic ed.) (Ac 4:12). Wheaton: Good News Publishers.

Whereas John 14:6 affirms the exclusivity of Jesus in the positive, Acts 4:12 affirms in by negation - by ruling out any other way to heaven.

As to the other matters, I think we are debating two different things here. Steven has a big concern, as do many, as to whether or not exclusivism leads to moral hatred. On the one hand he acknowledges that "many" Christians interpret exclusivist claims that way. I thank him for not saying that "all" Christians do this, and for throwing a bone to the conservatives by admitting that some of them are "wonderfully nice.";-) This shows the disconnect - there are the teachings of Christ and then there are their applications by His followers. I, and I think Walloworld, Al Mohler, and whoever else, are arguing that, in and of itself, the Bible does not endorse moral hatred. Furthermore to say so is a non-sequitur, Biblically you cannot make the logical leap from exclusivism to moral hatred. This puts an either/or where the Bible gives us a both/and. The Bible teaches both exclusivism and love for neighbor.

On the other hand, I doubt that any of us would argue Steven's point that many who name the name of Christ have practiced moral hatred. Yes, contrary to his playful little jibe, Jolly has met lots of people (although I have never met any who went on Crusades). I have seen the judgmentalism practiced by many. In fact, I have met professing Christians who think I'm going to hell for various reasons. But all of this is a problem with them, not the exclusivistic teachings of Scripture.

One could argue that this is reason enough to quit teaching such things. Even if no harm is intended with the exclusivistic claims of Christianity, the harm they produce warrants their removal. Yet, I have never seen this kind of logic applied in other ways. Cars are one of the leading killers in America today. Yet, do we outlaw them, or enact laws to curtail their misuse? Similarly, the answer to the moral hatred that grips so many who name the name of Christ can only be curtailed through teaching the whole counsel of God.

There is another matter that was not addressed here that I think needs to be. The matter is the question of "who defines what a Christian is?" If Jesus and the apostles gave us a definition of what a Christian is, can we redefine it? This is what Kimball is saying and Steven is implying. Yet, to those of us who name the name of Christ we say that we have no right to redefine Christianity in ways that would contradict the words of the New Testament.

I would say that if you want to redefine Christianity in non-exclusive terms, that is your right, just please don't call it Christianity. What you have left after the redefinition will not be Christianity, it will be a separate religion.

The bottom line is that there is no way for us to soften the offense of the exclusive claims of Christianity. Its what we signed onto when we followed Christ. We claim allegiance to Christ, He calls the shots, not us. We are not in the business of redefining, we are in the business of following. Therefore, we must hold to exclusivism and hold to love for our neighbor. Though Steven and I may be at an impasse on the exclusivism issue, I would join arms with him and anyone else against anyone who uses this as an excuse for moral hatred.