“Asian Philosophies\u201d was a\u00a0tremendously successful course\u00a0at our local state college. The first\u00a0class of the quarter was full to the\u00a0brim. Late arrivals had to sit on the\u00a0floor. Most of the students were\u00a0upperclassmen; freshmen were\u00a0left dangling on a long waiting list.<\/p>\n
Even so, seats began to open up\u00a0as we began to cover the arcane\u00a0details of Upanishadic Hinduism\u00a0and Pure Land Buddhism.\u00a0As a graduate assistant on several occasions, I was always amazed to see this level\u00a0of interest. I could scarcely imagine the same numbers clambering to take a course on\u00a0the life of Jesus or the Protestant Reformation. Many students were drawn to the novelty\u00a0and strangeness of all things Eastern. This was spiritual tourism from the safety and\u00a0comfort of a mid-western town. Others students in the class were looking for something,\u00a0anything, other than their parents\u2019 religion.<\/p>\n
With the increasing mobility of the world\u2019s population, Westerners are coming into\u00a0contact with a tremendous variety of religious traditions, and they like what they see. If\u00a0one of the latest Pew surveys is anything to go by, many of the people praising Jesus on\u00a0Sunday also believe that Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and others are fellow travelers on\u00a0separate but converging paths to the same spiritual goal.1<\/span><\/p>\n Let us be clear from the outset: the \u201cmany roads\u201d doctrine is entirely inconsistent\u00a0with a Christian worldview.<\/strong> Jesus said of Himself: \u201cI am the way, the truth, and the life.\u00a0No one comes to the Father except through Me\u201d (John 14:6). The Apostles certainly took\u00a0Jesus at His word. According to Peter, there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, \u201cfor\u00a0there is no other name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved\u201d\u00a0(Acts 4:12). Paul exalted Christ as the only foundation of true religion and the sole\u00a0Mediator between the Father and fallen man (1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Timothy 2:5).<\/p>\n The view just expressed has a convenient label: it is called exclusivism<\/em>. It is, in fact, a\u00a0term of abuse. In our postmodern culture, it is roundly condemned as backward, narrow minded,\u00a0and condescending.<\/p>\n John Hick has done more than anyone else to denigrate exclusivism. In his groundbreaking\u00a0work God Has Many Names, Hick describes a former stage of \u201cignorance\u201d in\u00a0which unbelievers were consigned to everlasting damnation. This outdated view, he\u00a0says, \u201cis as arrogant as it is cruel.\u201d2 <\/span>Hick\u2019s allegedly kinder, gentler alternative is known\u00a0as pluralism<\/em>. His case rests on two critical observations. First, he draws attention to the\u00a0diversity of religious experiences around the world.3 <\/span>A Christian is filled with love and\u00a0appreciation for the God who answers prayers. A Muslim is walking in awe around the\u00a0Ka\u2018bah. A Zen acolyte is trying to attain the next level of contemplation. To think that the\u00a0experiences of our faith are the only experiences worth having is, Hick contends, the\u00a0height of arrogance. Second, Hick observes that in every religious tradition there are\u00a0\u201csaints\u201d who perform wonders, offer profound teachings, and lead personal lives of\u00a0humility and compassion. All of this leads Hick to conclude that there is a single profound\u00a0truth\u2014an \u201cUltimate Reality\u201d or \u201cthe Real\u201d\u2014that the different religions of the world are\u00a0all seeking in their own special way.<\/p>\n Hick believes he has offered an unassailable empirical argument,4 <\/span>but the sacred texts\u00a0of the world\u2019s religions are awash with contradictory evidence. As we have seen\u00a0already, the Bible makes no bones about the uniqueness of Christian faith. Hick must\u00a0either explain these passages away or write them off, which only demonstrates his lack\u00a0of respect for Christian faith in God and His Word. Pluralists love the many-roads\u00a0approach, it seems, as long as they get to build the roads and direct the traffic.\u00a0<\/strong>Christians\u00a0who take their texts seriously are denied a seat at the table\u2014so much for openness and\u00a0acceptance.<\/p>\n As for \u201csaints\u201d in all traditions, the apostle Paul is certainly willing to acknowledge the\u00a0presence of law-abiding pagans (Romans 2:14-15), but this is not enough for the inspired\u00a0apostle. Erring believers and devout unbelievers alike will be judged by a single standard:\u00a0the Gospel of Jesus Christ (v. 16). Hick is incensed. What about the Buddhists in\u00a0Myanmar who have never heard the Gospel of Christ? Will we say they are lost by a\u00a0mere accident of birth? Does this not seem so arbitrary, so cruel, so unfair? It might\u00a0seem that way to critics of Biblical faith, but it changes nothing about the centrality of\u00a0Jesus\u2019 saving blood (Romans 5:9). It is not as though the Bible avoids the question of\u00a0God\u2019s alleged injustice to man. It devotes at least two entire books\u2014Job and Romans\u2014\u00a0to this question. None of this matters to Hick, because he has no interest in understanding\u00a0the source of Christian belief: \u201cFaith comes by hearing, and hearing by the\u00a0Word of God\u201d (Romans 10:17).<\/p>\n Hick might think he can get more traction in the East. Religions in this part of the world\u00a0are valued for their many-roads possibilities, but tolerance can only go so far. Built into\u00a0certain varieties of Hinduism, as seen for example in the exchange between Krishna and\u00a0Arjuna in the famed Bhagavad Gita, is the notion that there are multiple paths leading to\u00a0an understanding of what is ultimately real.<\/p>\n One of those paths includes devotion to a\u00a0god. At least in principle, any god will do, whether Vishnu, Yahweh, Christ, Buddha or\u00a0Allah. From the perspective of the Gita, my devotion to Jesus should bring me to a single,\u00a0all-encompassing reality known as Brahman. But from the perspective of the\u00a0Gospels, my devotion to Jesus will take me in a very different direction. Hindu views on\u00a0God, individuality, the world, and salvation are fundamentally incompatible with a\u00a0Christian world view.<\/p>\n Other seemingly flexible faiths fare no better. Mahayana Buddhism spread like wildfire\u00a0through Asia because of its willingness to accommodate a variety of different belief\u00a0systems. However, Buddhism is essentially a non-theistic worldview\u2014it has no god in\u00a0the sense envisioned by Christianity. Further, as a matter of principle, Buddhism rejects\u00a0the notion of permanence (anitya). This immediately sets Buddhism against Jewish,\u00a0Christian, and Muslim notions of an eternal God, and against Hindu notions of Brahman.<\/p>\n One of us has got to be wrong about \u201cthe Real.\u201d Hick finds himself having to reinterpret\u00a0the doctrine of permanence in order to keep his theory alive.5 <\/span>As in the case of\u00a0Christianity and the Bible, he must presume to know Buddhism better than the Buddhists\u00a0do. This is hardly a recipe for universal love and understanding. The fundamental failing\u00a0of Hick\u2019s pluralism is to ignore and even denigrate the deeper differences that separate\u00a0the religions of the world.<\/p>\n While good, diversity is not the highest goal for Christians. In reaching out to the world,\u00a0the disciples were forbidden from discriminating on the basis of religion, nationality, sex,\u00a0or economic status (Acts 10:34-35; Galatians 3:26-28; James 2:1-4). In writing to the\u00a0strife-torn church at Corinth, Paul praised the\u00a0mixture of Jews and Gentiles, slaves and\u00a0freedmen, prophets and teachers, healers\u00a0and interpreters (1 Corinthians 12:12-31).<\/p>\n