April 5,
2008
Reaching back into the vault of questions and articles …
“In spite of the religious inclusivity of New Age thinking,
in spite of its interest in Oriental religions, and in spite
of its criticism of mainstream Christianity, it is still
Christ who dominates New Age speculation wherever the need
is felt to explain the relation between God and humanity by
some mediating principle”[1]
Background
I was recently on a flight and was barely settled in my seat
on the plane when the woman seated beside me struck up an
engaging conversation which very quickly turned to questions
about the Bible, Christian theology, and finally Jesus
himself. Although she was interested in my Christian
understanding, her theological perspective had developed
from a combination of Hindu philosophy, New Age thought and
some vague Christian principles,[2] which she freely
disclosed. Eventually our conversation began to focus on
Jesus Christ and she mentioned that she believed what Jesus
said about himself in the Gospels, but the way to the
Father[3] was not limited to Jesus alone. To this, I
mentioned that I questioned the value of religious
pluralism, given the theologically exclusive nature of the
Bible and Jesus’ explicit claims to be the only way to God (eg.
John 14:6). It is her response and objection to my thoughts
on the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ that is the focus of
this brief essay.
Three Observations
1) On a very basic level, she was clearly opposed to the
theologically exclusive nature of Christianity. It was
readily apparent, however, that it was not necessarily
Christianity per se that she was opposed to, but any system
of religious belief that claimed to be exclusive (ie., I was
free to believe in Jesus alone, but I was not free to tell
her that she should consider it as well). Not surprisingly,
her personal philosophy modeled this perspective, as she had
incorporated a variety of Christian, Hindu and New Age
thoughts into her own eclectic belief system.
2) She also believed that since the Old Testament (and
presumably the New) was written in the context of a specific
time and place, it was only truthful in such a context
(although she believed that the Bible is right in everything
it teaches). That is, Israel’s claim that there was only one
God really meant that there was only one God in their world,
not that there was only one God in the world that we know
today. In the perspective of the small geographic area of
ancient Israel, the Israelite God was seen as the only one,
and therefore they could say that the salvation of the world
came through him only. Currently, in our more ‘modern and
enlightened’ perspective, we can see that any ancient claim
to exclusivity was simply ignorant of the facts that we know
today. As a result, she believed that Biblical Christianity
represented an incomplete understanding of both religion and
the world.
3) She also suggested that Jesus’ words that “I am the way,
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except
through me” in John 14:6, meant that no one comes to the
Father (ie. achieves ’salvation’) except through
Christ-consciousness, not through exclusive belief in the
person of Jesus Christ. In fact, her Yogi clearly
articulated this position by writing “Jesus meant, never
that he was the sole Son of God, but that no man can obtain
the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond
creation, until he has first manifested the ‘Son’ or
activating Christ Consciousness within creation”.[4]
Further, Christ Consciousness is defined as “a state of
total enlightenment, love and compassion to which all human
beings must aspire … being directly aware of one’s oneness
with God”.[5]She proposed that all religions of the world
actually lead to God, and the life of Jesus was just one of
many examples of how to get there. Speaking of Jesus,
Krishna and Mohammed, Paramahansa Yogananda wrote “[w]e
revere them because they knew and felt God … [and they had]
manifold ways of expressing the truth”[6] and also “as God
is one, necessary to all of us, so Religion is one,
necessary and universal”.[7] Finally, her position could be
summed in her Yogi’s interpretation of Jesus’ words in John
3:5-6, that “unless we transcend the body and realize
ourselves as Spirit, we cannot enter into the kingdom or
state of that Universal Spirit”.[8]
Three Comments
1) Her opposition to any exclusive system of belief is
difficult to accept given that pluralism is ultimately an
exclusive position as well. For example, on one hand,
orthodox Christianity teaches that there is no other way to
God except through the person of Jesus Christ - any other
belief is invalid. On the other hand, religious pluralism
holds that there are many possible ways to God - again, any
other belief is invalid. That is, as each view is intolerant
of any other view, each position is, in fact, exclusive (as
is the case with every opinion, whether the subject matter
is large or small). Exclusivity is not inherently wrong and
cannot (and should not) be avoided or feared. In reality,
the only option available is the simple choice of which
exclusive belief system to hold to.
2) From a Biblical perspective, both the Old and New
Testaments describe God not only as the ruler of the known
nations, but also as the God of the entire created world.
For example, the creation account of Genesis 1 presents all
of the created world as a work of God - the oft-repeated
phrase “heavens and earth” refers to all of creation (both
terrestrial - oceans, land, plants, etc) and
extraterrestrial (sun, moon, stars, etc), not merely to a
few known socio-political states. In fact, the theme of God
as the creator and controller of the entire world is evident
throughout the Old Testament (the Psalms and Isaiah being
prime examples). Additionally, even during and after the
exile of the Israelites,[9] God was still seen as the
ultimate and solitary sovereign ruler of the universe (eg.,
Neh 9:6). Finally, the apostle John picks up this theme, via
a direct revelation of Jesus, and states that Jesus himself
will receive praise from members of all the nations and
peoples of the earth (Rev 7:9). Clearly, the perspective of
the ancient Biblical authors was not limited to a few
ancient Near Eastern communities, but rather the entire
created universe is in view, including all the people and
nations living on earth.
3) Throughout the history of the Christian Church,[10] it
has been consistently understood that Jesus is the only way
of salvation. Daniel Clendenin writes that “Christianity
inherited from Old Testament Judaism the idea that one
religion alone is true … [and the] New Testament portrays
Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity”.[11]
Kenneth Cragg adds that the “Christian Christ, after all, is
the only one there historically is”.[12] If Jesus Christ is
fully God and fully man, as orthodox doctrine teaches, then
the exclusivist position is unavoidable (remember the first
comment). Clendenin writes, “as [John] Hicks admits, ‘if
Jesus was literally God incarnate, the second Person of the
Holy Trinity living a human life, so that the Christian
religion was founded by God-on-earth in person, it is then
very hard to escape from the traditional view that all
mankind must be converted to the Christian faith’”.[13] In
John 14:6, Jesus Christ said that no one could come to the
Father apart from him, not apart from his example, his
achievement, or his consciousness, etc. The emphasis of
Jesus’ words is not on the “through”, but on the “me”, as
repeatedly stated throughout the rest of the New Testament.
For example, earlier in the book of John, Jesus stated that
whoever believes in him (Jesus) would receive eternal life.
It is important to note that the text does not say “whoever
believes as he did” or anything that implies that
modelling[14] Jesus’ life is the road to salvation. Finally,
at the beginning of his book, John declares that it is the
person of Jesus who takes away the sin of the world (John
1:29), not the enlightenment or understanding of an abstract
Christ-consciousness that takes away sin. Note too that
Jesus takes away the sin of the world, not his own personal
sin, as would be the case if his Christ-consciousness was
his own personal example of the way to the Father. First
Timothy 2:5 states that there is “only one mediator … the
man Jesus Christ” - not that there is one principle or one
example, but one person of Christ. In fact, “the Bible does
not draw a distinction between Jesus the man and another
entity known as ‘the Christ.’ Jesus is pictured as being the
Christ (Greek Christos, ‘anointed one’)”.[15] With regard to
Romans 3 and 5, Ronald Nash writes “Paul makes it clear that
the one and only ground of human justification before the
holy God is the atoning work of Jesus Christ”.[16] Clearly,
the Biblical texts teach that it is the actual person of
Christ that offers salvation to the entire world,[17] it is
not up to each individual to achieve salvation or
‘consciousness’ on their own.
On the other side of the “all religions are the same” coin,
is the incompatibility of Christianity with any other
religious system. That is, if all religions lead to
God/salvation, then why is the concept of God, man, sin,
salvation, life after death, etc. different in all
religions? For example, if they all ultimately lead to the
same place (ie., salvation), would they not all have the
same understanding of that place? In Hinduism, salvation is
the reality of Nirvana attained by knowledge, devotion and
works. In Islam, salvation is achieved through devotion and
works. However, in Christianity, salvation is the free gift
of eternal life given through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom
6:23) and occurs after death in which there is no second
chance (Heb 9:27). Clendenin concludes that, “John Hicks
admits that these conflicting truth claims present ‘an
obvious problem’ for the pluralist hypothesis that all …
religions are equally valid … [and Harold] Netland, having
compared the basic beliefs of five great religions,
concludes, ‘it is difficult indeed to escape the conclusion
that some of the central affirmations of Christianity,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Shinto are opposed … they
cannot be jointly accepted without absurdity.”[18]
Conclusion
Throughout this discussion, it is important to recognize
that there were points of connection between my fellow
passenger and myself during our conversation. For example,
she had a openness and hunger for the truths of the Bible
and she understood the importance of ‘context’ in
determining meaning. She also identified the special nature
of Jesus Christ, but she had yet to grasp his full
significance (either historically or personally). Also, her
acceptance of others different than herself is something
that many Christians could learn from.The fundamental issue
behind her three objections is the exclusive nature of any
religious belief. In contrast to her personal interpretation
of the Bible, the message of orthodox Christianity is that
Jesus Christ is the exclusive “way, truth and life”. Of
course, even though salvation is found exclusively through
Christ alone, one cannot say that other religious systems
have nothing positive to offer to humanity. In fact, our
current society’s renewed interested in spirituality is
partly responsible for the Church’s re-discovery of its
importance to the Christian life. As Clendenin writes,
“God’s general revelation to all people affords a
rudimentary but nonredemptive knowledge of God”.[19]
In the end, exclusivity is not inherently wrong, nor can it
be avoided in Christianity, pluralism, or any other system
of religious thought. The Biblical understanding of religion
and the world is not incomplete, but rather, it is truly
comprehensive. Both Jesus himself and the various Biblical
authors claim that salvation and the way to God is available
only through belief in the historical person of Jesus
Christ.
“According to some people, there are many so-called gods and
many lords, both in heaven and on earth. But we know that
there is only one God, the Father, who created everything,
and we exist for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we
have been given life.” 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, NLT
——————————————————————————–
[1] Wouter Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture,
p. 189.
[2] She adhered to the teaching of the Self-Realization
Fellowship, based in California. Throughout our
conversation, she frequently referred to and quoted from the
founder of the Fellowship, Paramahansa Yogananda
(1893-1952).
[3] Given her Hindu perspective, it was interesting to hear
her state that she was a monotheist.
[4] Paramahansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi, p. 179n.
[5] Hanegraaff, p. 190.
[6] Yogananda, The Science of Religion, p. 52. Point #3 of
the Aims of the Self-Realization Fellowship is “to reveal
the complete harmony and basic oneness of original
Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and original Yoga as
taught by Bhagavan Krishna; and to show that these
principles of truth are the common scientific foundation of
all true religions.”
[7] Yogananda, The Science of Religion, p. 6. He understood
religion to primarily mean ‘God-consciousness, or the
realization of God both within and without’, and not just a
set of beliefs or dogmas.
[8] Yogananda, The Science of Religion, p. 61.
[9] If there ever was an event that would have caused the
people of Israel to say that God was merely a national
leader, and a weak one at that, the exile would have been
it. However, through both the glory days and the times of
desolation, the Lord was consistently seen as sovereign over
the entire world. Clendenin writes “[t]here is no God but
him in all the earth, and all who come to him must meet him
on his terms, not their own (Deut. 4:35-39; 32:39; Isa 44:6;
45:5-6, 18)” (p. 131).
[10] For example, Origen, Cyprian, Fulgentus, the Council of
Florence, Calvin, Luther and Lausanne II (see Clendenin, pp.
70-73).
[11] Daniel B. Clendenin, Many Gods, Many Lords, p. 68.
[12] Kenneth Cragg, The Christ and the Faiths, p. 197.
[13] Clendenin, p. 69.
[14] One of the hallmarks of evangelical Christianity is
that the only requirement for salvation is belief in Jesus,
not the accomplishment of certain deeds or the attainment of
a certain spiritual maturity or consciousness. Whereas one’s
ability to achieve Christ-consciousness is ultimately
centred on self, one’s willingness to simply believe in the
gift of salvation is centred on God and his grace.
[15] Richard Abanes, Defending the Faith, p. 87.
[16] Ronald Nash, Is Jesus the Only Saviour?, p. 17.
[17] For example, “Jesus, whom God raised from the dead … He
is the one who has rescued us from the terrors of the coming
judgment” 1 Thessalonians 1:10b, NLT.
[18] Clendenin, p. 67.
[19] Clendenin, p. 73.
