Selling Truth for Unity #1

From Charles Colson's article, "As Long as we get Along: Selling Truth for Unity":

He quotes Bishop Lee who said, "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy."

Colson can't think of anything more dangerous.  He explains that this is basically saying, "we can tolerate anything within the church just to keep the church together."  This reminds me of Paul when he addressed the Corinthians about the man they knew was sleeping with his father's wife.  They allowed it to happen!  We can't allow and tolerate open sin in order to avoid conflict or schism within the church.  In the case of Bishop Lee that was tolerating an openly gay man as a bishop in the Episcopal Church.  Doing so would be avoiding the prerequisites of a church leader laid out by Paul in his pastoral epistles given to Paul and Titus, as well as clear writings about the sinfulness of homosexuality and other sinful actions in Romans 1.  Paul also had to take such stands against false doctrines and teachers within the church.  Think the Judaizers and Gnostics of his day. 

Colson gives two reasons that so many Christians are selling truth for unity!  The first is money.  He says, "There is a lot at stake economically!"  If a church becomes split, who is going to pay for the pastor's salary and retirement?  Who is going to pay for the congregation's building loans?  Will someone's reputation be hurt?  The second reason he gives is that American Christians no longer take truth seriously!  As a result, we tend to think that all people of good will are "basically on the same side."

I've met many college students at UCI who believe that we're basically good and following the same path.  Some of these students grew up in the Christian church and have fallen away to religious pluralism and universalism.  Many take the stance that we cannot know the truth in any situation - even morality!  Everything is subjective and relative with personal preference being the guide and norm of our lives.  How dangerous is that?  Well, that's what you get when you shoot for unity above truth.

Colson concludes his article by saying, "It's all well and good for evangelicals to sit around and talk about "those crazy Episcapalians." But they're just reflecting what all of us do to a lesser degree.  Lee's words ought to be a sobering wake up call to all of us."

What about the saintly people of other religions?

Christianity is certainly exclusive.  Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ.  Outside of faith in Christ, there isn't salvation.  This rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and I'll be honest, on some days when I think about people I know who are outside of the Christian faith, it upsets me quite a lot too! Click on the topic pertaining to the unevangelized in the blog topics section to some more general answers the problem of the unevangelized and the problem of hell.

Springing from the position of exclusivity comes the argument of the "saintly" people of other religions.  The Buddha had his act together and led many people away from self-centered desires and into enlightenment.  The Dali Lama...come on... that guys more peaceful than Christians who follow the Prince of Peace.  Ghandi...he led non-violent revolutionary protests in India, sparked from reading Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.  Do all the "saintly" people of the other religions in the world go to hell, just because they don't believe in Jesus Christ?

Check out the following trailer for Rob Bell's book Love Wins.  I think he's asking basically the same question about Ghandi and about Christian exclusivity?  

So what about the saintly people of other religions?

Christianity is not a religion about human works.  It's a relationship with the God who stepped down from heaven and did the works required for salvation for us, because we are incapable of doing the perfect works required of us by God.  So, our works don't save us.

These "saintly" people were good in the world's eyes, not in God's.  In God's eyes, we're all sinners deserving his wraith, unless we have faith in Christ or bore that wraith on our behalf.

Following a set of morals and ethics doesn't make a religion true.

And lastly, Bell is off in his presentation in this video.  He's casting questions and doubts trying to raise conversation centered on Christ.  If people mistakenly misinterpret the Gospel as he says, to believe that it is about God having to save us from himself, then he should supply the answer in the video instead of letting it hang as if that's the truth, or that Christians have it all wrong, because Christians don't have it wrong.  The Gospel isn't saving us from God, it's always been God saving us from ourselves, from our sinfulness, and that is through Christ, and that is how all people come to salvation.

Jesus is the Savior of the Buddhist, of the Hindu, of the Jew, of the Muslim, of the atheist, and etc.  To receive that salvation, a person must have faith in him. 

Social Pluralism Vs. Metaphysical Pluralism

By now I'm guessing anyone who is reading this blog is involved enough with religious discussion and culture that you have seen the Coexist bumper stickers or the Tolerance bumper stickers. 

The current chapter we are covering in our high school apologetic book, Without a Doubt, is entitled, "Do All Religions Lead to God?" 

All religions lead to God.  Is that what people who have the Tolerance bumper sticker on the back of their car mean?  The idea that all religions are equally valid and true is metaphysical pluralism.  There is also social pluralism, which recognizes that there are drastic differences in religions, to such a degree that they do in fact contradict each other, and that they can't all be true, however, a social pluralist recognizes the need for freedom of expression and belief and tolerance of various religious beliefs for peace in society. 

Since it does say tolerance, or co-exists, depending on which sticker is being referenced, this sticker could in fact mean social pluralism and not metaphysical pluralism.  One student says he knows a family at his Christian church who has this on their car.  It's likely they're social pluralist since they are at a Christian church regularly.  He doesn't personally know the family, he's just seen the car in the lot.

I bring this up because this could be a great opener for conversation with someone who has a tolerance bumper sticker; "What does this mean to you?"  Depending on the response, a Christian reply would differ.

If the person views it as a call to social pluralism, then an appropriate response could be, "Oh cool.  I'm a Christian and I agree with you.  There is a definite need for tolerance of different religious and philosophical world views in society.  We need this tolerance in order to have meaningful discussions concerning faith.  However, it's good to note that religions have contradicting teachings and can't all be true.  Some people think this what your sticker means.  Did you know that?"  You can continue after some dialog to share examples of how they contradict and share how Christianity is the only free religion in that salvation is from God and not from human merit, or how Jesus is God in the flesh in Christianity and in other religions, such as Islam, he is just a prophet, or in Judaism, just a heretic that was crucified. 

If the person has a metaphysical pluralistic view of the world's religions, then you can ask more questions about why they think so and express your understanding for wanting this to be true, but kindly share how this can't be true based on the law of non-contradiction.  A Christian can then guide and show how they contradict each other while sharing who Christ is as revealed in the Bible, or even lead the person into social pluralism and not metaphysical pluralism. 

Either view of the tolerance bumper sticker leads to an opportunity to present who Jesus is and what he has done for mankind. 

Religious Pluralism #2

Most people have likely seen the "Tolerance" bumper sticker where the word tolerance is spelled using religious symbols. What are the religious symbols that spell the word Tolerance? Religious tolerance is good, but it's good to remember that the teachings of the world's religions contradict each other. 

Watch the Prezi presentation below to learn what the religious symbols of the "Tolerance" bumper sticker are. To watch the Prezi hit the forward and back buttons to move through the presentation.  It will take a moment to load.  You can also, click on more, then click on fullscreen to view the presentation in that mode.  

Tolerance Bumper Sticker on Prezi

Karma and God? ... And LeBron James?

I pulled the following from a Yahoo! Sports' blog called, "Ball Don't Lie":

LeBron James, Mixing Karma with God

LeBron [James] apparently doesn't feel much sympathy for his old team in these troublesome times. In the closing minutes of the Cavs game, with the only issue left to determine being whether or not the Lakers would double-up the Cavs, Cleveland's former savior Tweeted about karma, hate, and divine retribution. Here is what he said:

Crazy. Karma is a b****.. Gets you every time. Its not good to wish bad on anybody. God sees everything!

I think it's very  interesting how Karma is thrown around so much today in society.  

Sharon Stone claimed that Karma was the reason that the Sichuan earthquake happened.  She claimed that China was getting what they deserved for atrocities and human rights that had occurred and still continue to occur within the country.

What disturbs me more is the mixing of Karma, initially a solely Hindu belief, with other religions. 

  

Jason Lee, Scientologist

One example of this comes from, What About Earl, a television show completely centered a dude trying to shake the chains of bad, Karma.  The actor who plays Earl, Jason Lee, is a scientologist.   This of course wouldn't necessarily mean that there is a mixing of religions, since he is in fact just an actor and the character he plays wouldn't necessarily have to represent his own personal beliefs.  However, I know if I was playing a character in a show about Karma, I would make clear statements that I don't belief in the idea of Karma, and in fact, I'd have to pass on such an ongoing role if I was an actor, because it would conflict with my Christian beliefs and I wouldn't want to lead others astray.  

LeBron, in this quote, is clearly mixing religions.  I read online that he is Roman Catholic, so why is he referring to Karma?  Why are we mixing religions?  Is this just another sign of religious pluralism running a muck?

I think what disturbs me most about this quote from LeBron is the clear evidence of watering down religion.  Because of religious pluralism the fundamental teachings and beliefs of each religion has been hacked down to bits, to the point that universalism is possible.  Terms such as Karma have been ripped from their religious meaning and origin.  Karma now is strictly, people getting what they deserve, "what goes around, comes around."  Karma no longer rests as a key piece to a more complex system of Hindu theology. 

Frankly, it makes me sick and I want to puke (not literally, not yet). 

Religious Pluralism #2

Religious pluralism, which I'll define as the view that all religions are equally true and valid, is for most people, deeply rooted in the idea that truth is relative.  Truth is dependent upon a matter of perspective.  This makes truth subjective and not objective, which makes it so one religion can't be exclusively correct.  If I think Christianity is true, then it's true for me.  If a Muslim believes the Qur'an's teachings are true, then it's true for that individual.  Ultimately, this means everyone's religious view is true for the individual.  I could not tell someone that their religious view is wrong. 

Here's a problem with this line of thinking.  Two plus two equals four.   That's true a statement, and since it is true it is true for all people, at all times, and in all places.  Even if I think two plus two equals five, and that's my perspective, I will be wrong because two plus two never equals five for anyone, anytime, anywhere.  If it is true that Hu JinTao is president in China right now, then it's true for everyone, everywhere, in all situations.  Truth, extends to everyone, and it is not changed on account of someone's personal view!  This applies to religion!  

Another example, I am a male!  Regardless of your view or perspective, I am a man, and my wife is a woman.  

Applying this principle, that truth extends to all, to religious pluralism, Jesus either is God (Christianity), or Jesus is not God (Judaism, Islam), or Jesus is one with the divine source that is at the heart of all things (Hinduism), or Jesus was just a dude (Buddhism).  

Living Loud: Defending Your Faith contains a chapter entitled, "What is truth?", which speaks more in depth on this issue of relative truth.  Click on the image of the book to get your copy of it today.  

                                                                                                           

Religious Pluralism #1

Is it possible for all religious paths to lead to the same destination.  Religious pluralism, or universalism, ultimately teaches that all religions are equally valid and true, or equally valid expressions of the truth.  But, is this possible?  Do all trails really lead to the "happy hunting ground"?

What do the different paths say about the nature of God?

Hinduism essentially teaches that everything in the universe is divine.  Everything consists of the same divine, imperishable source, or energy, known as Brahman.  This source is essentially impersonal, yet it is the make-up of all things in this life – water, air, earth, flesh, and etc.  

Buddhism according to the traditional teaching of the Buddha is considered an atheistic religion with no divine being or source.  Everything, just, is, yet is always undergoing change.  

Judaism teaches that the Lord revealed in the Tanakh (the Christian Old Testament) is the one true God. 

Christianity teaches that the Lord revealed in the Old Testament is Lord, yet the New Testament reveals God through the person of Jesus Christ.  The Old Testament reveals God to be one in essence but three in person, yet this teaching isn’t fully revealed until the incarnation (the taking on of flesh) of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.  

Islam accepts the teachings of both the Old and New Testament according the Quran, however, most Muslims will say that these written words from Allah have been distorted and changed.  Muslims claim that Jesus was not divine, that he was not the Son of God, that Jesus was a prophet and only a prophet.  At the same time, Muslims reject the doctrine of the Trinity.  

These are just a brief look at five of the world’s major religions’ teachings on the nature of God.  Based on the law of logic known as the law of non-contradiction, two statements that directly contradict each other cannot both equally be true.  They both can be false, but both statements cannot be true.  To put this into an equation, A cannot equal Non-A.  To plug in two of the teachings just mentioned into this equation, we see that, Jesus is God incarnate (Christianity) cannot equal Jesus Christ is not God incarnate (Islam).  From this example it must be concluded that both of these statements cannot be true statements.  However, both statements could be false.