One of the great, subtle powers rising at an alarming and influential rate is the philosophy of Pluralism. Our own American society has fallen into the throes of this deceptive philosophy, following in the footsteps of its European mentors. The philosophy of pluralism now infiltrates world cultures and religions.
From a general perspective, pluralism is the belief that we live in a globalized society whose citizens are adherents to a plurality of cultures. Even here in America we have a growing pluralistic society diverse in language, dress, food, art, music, literature, and lifestyle. Biblically, God has intended for such a pluralism of cultures to be expressed by the nations. It is only when sin infects and pervades a culture seeking to harm others that a culture becomes dangerous. More and more countries such as England and America are becoming melting pots of varied cultures. For example, the image of what is “British” is rarely seen on the streets of London today. Amidst all of our diversification of ethnicities, we are becoming more and more culturally eclectic.
There is also religious pluralism. Often religion is a by-product of culture; more often, culture is a by-product of a religion. America is a pluralistic society of religions as well as of cultures. Our country has permitted both cultural and religious pluralism from its inception. Some religions are multi-cultural in that they transcend culture and become multi-cultural in their declaration. For example, Christianity is multi-cultural. It preaches a gospel that is for all men and for all generations. Though Christ is a Jew and was brought up in the Jewish culture, He is appointed by God to be the Saviour of the world. Christianity is not to be viewed as part of Judaism, for it is distinctively separate from any other religion.
Within a pluralistic society of religions, there are a few religions that claim absolutism. Christianity is one of these religions. Christianity declares it is the only way to God and the only way to heaven. In our day and time, people are very apprehensive of anyone making claims of extremism or absolutism in the name of any philosophy or religion. Christianity makes such a claim: Jesus Christ is The Truth.
How does the Christian present this non-negotiable claim in a pluralistic society? How does he stand by this infallible claim within a pluralistic, postmodernistic society?
The Demands of Pluralism
Religious pluralism starts with the premise that in a globalized society its citizens are adherents to a plurality of religious beliefs. Because of this consciousness, governments of the world are giving their own definition of “religion.” They seek to define religion because they believe it only exists to promote peace and harmony among its people. Any belief they see as a hindrance to peace and harmony through claims of absolute truths becomes an object of attack. Their definition of “religious pluralism” goes on to declare that any belief of absolutism breeds fanaticism, arrogance, and ultimately a religious imperialism that leads to untold misery and suffering for society.
Pluralism is nervous about any claim of absolute truth, especially the integral absolute truth of Christianity. Jesus Christ claimed to be the Absolute Lord of lords and King of kings; true Christians have claimed this of Him throughout history. Christ is God incarnate, and Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. No one can come to God but through Him. The apostles made this declaration from the beginning, believing that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.
These absolute statements are unparalleled in their reach. When Jesus said He was The Truth, He was not implying that He simply spoke true things (which He did); He declared He is the ultimate of truth. Every train of inquiry to truth must stop at Him. At the heart of every pluralistic religion is the rejection of any declaration of absolutism.
Karl Popper (1902–1994), an Austrian and British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics, wrote the following in his Open Society:
The belief that one possesses the truth is always implicitly totalitarian. To declare that such a religion proclaims, ‘I am sure,’ automatically means, ‘I must be obeyed.’
He believed that the only way to protect society is to reject all claims to absolute truths.
The famous atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins (considered one of the world’s top thinkers and a strong promoter of atheism globally) views religion as a poisonous virus of the mind. He concludes that religion is something that must be eradicated completely from the planet. Although pluralism itself does not go quite so far, it tends to promote and celebrate the equal validity of all religions and philosophies while being simultaneously intolerant of any religion that purports any absolute truth.
At first sight this seems very reasonable to many people. Who would not want to promote harmony within multi-cultural societies? It is reasoned by historians and governmental leaders that religion has been the cause of many wars and bloodshed. Even during the Crusades, Christianity raised its armies against the Muslims, Turks, and Jews. Roman Catholicism arose in Europe against the Jews and Protestant Christian remnants during the Inquisition. Likewise, the larger Protestant groups arose against small remnant Christians. Hindus and Muslims still fight against one another; Muslims fight Christians and Jews over holy sites. As if this were not enough, there are continual wars fought among factions within the same religion.
It must be clearly stated that Christ was against using war to promote His Kingdom. He said to Pilate that His Kingdom was not of this world, and “if it were my servants would fight.” He also declared that those that live by the sword will perish by the sword. Pilate responded that he found no fault in Him.
In the light of Christ words, sadly Christianity has often been non-Christian throughout its history. These historic disloyalties to Christ and His truth cannot be mended by now trying to make Christianity less offensive with its absolute truth. This would only continue its disloyalty to Christ, the Truth. Christ and His apostles declared that truth must be believed without coercion. We are to pray for our enemies as well as our friends. Trust in God and biblical love are two important ingredients for true Christianity—even these cannot be forced upon individuals. Christ and His apostles repudiated violence and tyranny.
The World’s View of Religion
The world governments believe that the basic purpose for religions is its promotion of morality. Morality is needed in our society, and religion will provide morality. The world believes that if all religions are to contribute to morality, they must first discard their differences to come together. Subtly, they are declaring that the differences between religions have fostered the world’s major global problems. Present-day world governments are putting pressure on religious leaders by asking, “Can we not do away with these differences? Are not all religions aiming at the same goal? Religions are perhaps on different paths, but are they not all coming to the same mountain?” George Bernard Shaw gives the sentiment of the world when he stated, “There is but one religion, but many versions of it.”
More and more there is the belief that religions are basically the result of human imagination. Therefore, all religions, especially Christianity, must give up their imagined claims to final truth. They must present themselves, as one liberal wrote, as “simply human imaginative responses to the necessity of finding orientation for life and for particular historical situations.” They conclude it should be the duty of all religions to believe that all religions lead to the same goal, and we must get in harmony with one another to bring this about. All of their differences are relatively unimportant.
This was the burden of a play written by Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781). He was a German writer, philosopher, dramatist, and art critic, and probably one of the most outstanding representatives of the Enlightenment era. His plays and theoretical writings greatly influenced the development of German literature. One of his prominent dramas was entitled Nathan the Wise. The setting of this play is in Jerusalem, in the time period of the Third Crusade. The work has three main characters: (1) the Jewish businessman Nathan, who is presented as a wise man; (2) the enlightened Saladin; and (3) a Templar, who represents Christianity. These three present in the drama the hope of endeavoring to bridge the gap between the three religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
Although there are several parts to this drama, the centerpiece is its famous “ring parable.” Here, Saladin asks, “Which of the three religions is true?” Nathan then tells the story of a father who inherited a magic ring which would make its owner a good man, accepted by God and man. His problem is that he has three sons that he loves equally. Having promised the ring to each son at different moments of weakness, he secretly makes two other rings exactly like the original. On his deathbed he gives a ring to each of his sons. These sons eventually argue and quarrel over the ownership of the real ring. Amidst their argumentation, they come before a wise judge who states that each one of them should live in such a way that he proves the power of the ring. He concludes by telling them that it does not matter in the end which ring is the genuine one. Thus, the burden of the play is to prove that all religions have the same heart and that this same heart is “active love.” It does not matter whether each son has the real ring or not; the key is that they have true active love.
The Assumptions of Nathan the Wise
There are three assumptions inherent in this drama by Lessing: the belief (1) that the main objective of all religions is to stimulate good behavior, (2) that all religions agree that this is their main objective, and (3) that all religions will accept that distinctive doctrines or beliefs are relatively unimportant.
The first assumption declares that the main objective of all religions is to stimulate good behavior. We read in Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” This can be found in many religions in some form or other. Islam declares, “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” It is stated in Hinduism: “One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable towards himself.” Buddhism affirms, “A state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Confucianism tells us, “Do not do to others what you would not want to be done unto you.” Even the philosophers and secularists such as Plato wrote, “May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.” To culminate this acknowledgment the secularist religion of Humanism states a similar thought, “Don’t do to others what you would not want done unto you.”
There is a thread of moral value running through this universe that the natural man, in an honorable quest for right, realizes exists. All human beings are created in the moral image of God. But it is not true that all religions and philosophies are concerned about morality. The Pantheon of Rome with its many gods is not concerned about morality, for many of their gods were more immoral than those who worshipped them. To say that morality is religion’s primary goal is not necessarily true. Religion is not in and of itself promoting a moral code. Its primary intent concerns its gods or the God. Even though pirates may have claimed a strict code among themselves concerning the treasures that they took from others, to other people this was no moral code. The primary goal of Christianity is to love God with all our hearts and then to love our neighbors as ourselves. The Bible brings these two so close together that if a person says he loves God and hates his brother, he is called a liar. But if I did love (outwardly) my brother and yet did not keep the commandments of God, I will be judged and condemned for not loving Him. If we love our neighbors but not God, how will we be judged by Him?
Another false assumption of Lessing is that the distinctives of various religions do not matter. This assumption borders on the absurd. What makes a religion different is its distinctives; otherwise, its identity would cease to exist. We carefully must acknowledge these distinctives. For example, Buddhism believes that there is one soul for the purification of the human being. This religion declares that truth is one and there is not a second truth. Yet this is different than the teaching of Christ Who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” If biblical Christianity declares itself to be a totalitarian religion, then we must state that what contradicts truth is not true. Aristotle, the great philosopher observed, “The law of non-contradiction is that nothing can both be and not be at the same time.” Once we know a birch tree, we can then know without any other information that it is not an oak tree. If we state that “the law of non-contradiction is false,” then for this statement to be true, it must deny the fact that the law of non-contradiction is true. No religion is going to deny the fact that their distinctives are most important and needed, and that they are true.
Every religion has a right to question the validity and absoluteness of other religions, yet the questioning is in the light of its own religion. It should not take offense if questioned. We cannot take the fact of a religion’s sincerity and believe that the sincerity is the proof of its validity. Sincerity’s testing will often come from its worldview, and even then if that worldview is nebulous, and without any absolute foundation within itself, then it has no proof. Men have a right to declare what they believe to be true as long as they do it peacefully. But the State in its pluralism has now gone a step further in declaring that nothing will be accepted which is contradictory to the State and its philosophy.
If the State believes that all religions are the same and with the same goal, then perhaps we need to ask the question, “Are all medicines for healing?” The answer certainly is that not all medicines are equally safe. Some could be for death. To simply state that all medicines are for healing doesn’t guarantee that it is so. Every medicine must be proved to be true for healing. Even postmodernists, who are really existentialists in perspective, will endeavor to gain proof of medicine before they take any. Therefore, whatever is true must be tested by some basis of evidence. What is that evidence? Is it human logic? There must be some guide of infallibility; whatever it is, it must be consistent with truth. We must check truth on the basis of evidence.
In our next article we want to pursue the basis of evidence concerning religions. Are all religions the same? Do they have the same goal? What does the absoluteness of a religion mean? And is there such a thing as an absolute religion? Yes, these questions must be answered with candor.