Do all roads from Chicago lead to Atlanta? Do all religions lead to God? The answer to both questions should be obvious. Yet when the subject of religion comes up for discussion (which happens often for ministers), I am both surprised and alarmed by the number of people who think all religions are basically the same. Many people actually believe that the religions of the world are simply different paths to the same God. I have also heard people say that the various names for deity are just different titles for this God.
Are Krishna, Mohammed, and Jesus really identical? Can we equate the Buddha, Allah, and Jehovah? No! Nothing could be further from the truth! To think that all religions and the deities they claim are the same is extremely naive. Different religions will have certain overlapping ideas, but to suggest, for example, that Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians share the same major beliefs is to be misinformed.
Others credit each religion with equal truth status in spite of vast differences. For example, religions which deny that Jesus is God and those affirming he is God, are both considered right. I could accept such a conclusion but logic keeps getting in the way. Isn't it possible to tolerate (as we should) two opposing religious opinions without viewing both as correct?
A remarkable trend has developed in our nation over the past several decades. We have moved from recognition and respect for the diverse, multicultural makeup of society (which is important), to an insistence (spoken and unspoken) that all religions representing this diversity be treated as equally true.
To prove the reality of this new way of thinking (or non- thinking), consider how quickly people will condemn a person who claims absolute and final truth in Christ as the only way to eternal life. The one who announces such a belief is considered an arrogant religious bigot. It does not matter if this individual is basing her conclusions on defensible facts--she has violated the absolute social creed declaring that there are no absolute creeds. Even Jesus, who said, "no one comes to the Father but through me" (John 14:6), would be forthrightly rejected today.
Perhaps people fear that allowing any group to claim the truth and try to convert others could lead to the religious imperialism which our Founding Fathers refused. But is the alternative to be found in a type of tolerance which does not allow rational debate? Is this what the Fathers had in mind? Why isn't it possible to maintain each other's freedom to follow, express, and defend our beliefs without considering each belief system equally true? "In the popular mind open-mindedness is no longer connected with a willingness to consider alternative views but with a dogmatic relativizing of all views. It no longer focuses on the virtues of rational discourse among persons of disparate beliefs, as a means to pursuing the truth, but on the conclusions of the discourse. It reflects massive built-in assumptions about the inadmissibility of any religion claiming a truth status above another religion. It forecloses on open-mindedness in the same breath by which it extols the virtues of open-mindedness. Both the irony and the tragedy of this fierce intolerance stem from the fact that it is done in the name of tolerance. It is fundamentalistic dogmatism in the worst sense." (D. A. Carson, God and Culture)
We may like to believe we are showing respect for our fellow humans by telling them that their religion is as true as anyone else's, but this is really quite cruel if we are wrong. It could be compared to telling a blind man standing on the edge of a cliff that any way he walks will be equally safe. Why did Jesus speak of a narrow gate that leads to life and a broad road leading to destruction?
Are all religions the same? Does toleration of all religions demand that each be considered equally true? Is it arrogant for one religion to proclaim itself true and others false? The words of Bishop Leslie Newbigin summarize well the Christian concern. "If, in fact, it is true that Almighty God, creator and sustainer of all that exists in heaven and on earth, has -- at a known time and place in human history -- so humbled himself as to become part of our sinful humanity, and to suffer and die a shameful death to take away our sin, and to rise from the dead as the first-fruit of a new creation, if this is a fact, then to affirm it is not arrogance. To remain quiet about it is treason to our fellow human beings. If it is really true, as it is, that 'the Son of God loved me and gave himself up for me', how can I agree that this amazing act of matchless grace should merely become part of a syllabus for the 'comparative study of religions'?"
Steven W. Cornell is the senior pastor of the Millersville Bible Church in ^M Pennsylvania and has been a regular contributor for the past year.^M You can contact Steve by E-mail at stevembc@lancnews.infi.net.