Last week, I wrote about how much the pursuit of truth matters, especially in an age that values tolerance and letting people believe whatever they want to believe.  After all, if you don’t wrestle with what is true, how will you know whether it’s right or wrong to abort children, eat meat, or free Indians from the caste system?  Are you willing to say “live and let live” even if it means allowing other countries to allow forced slavery and child labor, or millions to be trapped in poverty without access to clean drinking water or basic health care?  Or do you believe that there are some things that are worth declaring “wrong,” even if those who are practicing those things disagree?

Truth matters.  It matters whether we are reincarnated when we die or whether we will giving an account to a God when our life ends.  It matters whether we need to give our money and possessions to those who have not or whether we can just accumulate to our heart’s content.  Personally, I may live my life with faith that God is real, that Jesus is divine, and that the Bible contains the words of God, but that doesn’t mean that I have checked my brain at the door.  I want to know the truth, and if I what I am following a lie, then let me know so that I can sleep in on Sunday mornings.

A month ago I was privileged to take part in a panel at Manchester High School on world religions.  One student asked an excellent question after we were done:  “How important is history and archaeology to what you believe?  Does it matter whether what you believe is actually true, or is it more about having faith?”  What a profound question!  I only wish I had been quicker on my feet to actually respond instead of just allowing others to answer.  After giving it more thought, I know that my answer would have been, “If I find out tomorrow that Jesus did not really rise from the dead, I will be heading back to school to become an English teacher.”  I’m not a pastor because it makes me happy or because I like doing nice things for people, and I’m definitely not a pastor for the money or the hours!  I am a pastor because I am convinced that Jesus is the truth, that He is who He claimed to be in the Bible, and that the smartest thing I can do is to follow Him wherever He leads me.  And, at this point in my life He has led me to being the pastor of NewLife, and by faith I believe that there is nowhere else I would rather be.

Do you see why the Jehovah’s Witnesses frustrated me so much?  At the world religions panel, a similar thing happened when a student asked the Mormon representative another excellent question – “What do you do with all of the contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon?” [there are lots of books and websites detailing these contradictions (such as the Bible teaching that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the Book of Mormon saying he was born in Jerusalem), among them www.mormonchallenge.com/ref_biblecontra.htm].  With blissful (or chosen) ignorance, the Mormon gentleman replied, “I have read both of these books through, and I can’t find one contradiction.” 

I don’t want to be an unthinking devotee who won’t question what he believes out of fear of overwhelming complexity or eternal punishment.  I want to know the truth!  I’ve found that whenever a book or movie comes out that attacks or makes fun of Christianity, I find myself wanting to read it or see it (and there have been a lot of them lately, from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, to Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, to Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great)!  Rather than dismiss it as blasphemous, I want to hear from people who don’t believe Jesus is divine, or who question the existence of God and the beauty of living life His way.  If they are right and I am wrong, then let me know so that I can stop following the lie!

I will say it one more time – Truth matters.  I love to hear of people questioning what they believe, if it is done as an honest pursuit of truth and not simply a rebellious decision to find something else to follow.  And there is a big difference between the two – it is possible to question without really wanting to hear the answer.  The Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, in his book Jesus Among other Gods, quotes Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy from New York University, as saying “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.”  As Nagel was candid enough to admit, some people already know what they want to believe and refuse to be convinced otherwise.  But for those who are honestly searching for the truth, I am excited to see them taking God seriously enough to question Him.

Faith is not blind, and it is not a crutch for weak people who can’t face reality.  When I married my wife, I took the leap of faith because the evidence had convinced me that she was someone with whom I would love spending my life.  If I had waited until I had absolute proof that marrying her was a good idea, I would still be waiting.  Likewise, when I decided at age 18 to trust Jesus with my life, it was because the evidence was pointing to the reality that there was nothing more worthy of my love and devotion than a good, perfect God who had created me and loved me enough to sacrifice His life for me.  Both my mind and my heart were in agreement that this was someone I could trust with my future.  And thirteen years later, I still believe with all of my mind and heart that that “leap of faith” was the wisest decision I could have ever made.

Ravi Zacharias defined faith this way in his aforementioned book:  “Faith is based on knowledge, confidence in the person of Jesus and his power, so that even when His power does not serve my end, my confidence in him remains because of who He is.    It’s a commitment of love to Him based on who He claimed to be.”  Faith in God is not the opposite of reason; it’s the most reasonable decision possible given the reality of who Jesus is.

If you find yourself searching, questioning, wondering about God and truth and whether or not Jesus is who He said He is, I commend you.  Do not believe something simply because your parents, your pastor, or your teachers told you it was true.  And if, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door, you are so certain of your truth that you dare not open the door to questions or honest exploration of other viewpoints, then I would encourage you to make room for doubt and honest questioning.  Don’t be afraid to pursue the truth, even if you are afraid of where it might lead you.

Remember Jesus, who said “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”  (Matthew 7:7-8)

“I am absolutely against any religion that says that one faith is superior to another. I don ‘t see how that is anything different than spiritual racism. It ’s a way of saying that we are closer to God than you, and that ’s what leads to hatred.”

According to Rabbi Boteach and many others, it is okay to believe whatever you want, as long as you don ‘t claim that it ’s true or better than any other belief system. If you do that, it is on par with racism, a prejudiced, superior view that will inevitably lead to hatred and violence. These are definitely strong assertions. Last week I dealt with his last line, that believing your religion is true necessarily leads to hatred. I disagreed, because Jesus and the Bible teach that his followers are his followers completely by grace, not because they are wiser, superior, more moral, or anything else of their own doing. And since faith in Jesus is a gift freely given, like finding a winning lottery ticket on your front doorstep, it would be wrong and stupid to look down on someone else who has not been given such a gift. The true follower of Jesus will never look down on anyone else. It is possible to believe Jesus is the truth and not hate others.

What about the first part of the Rabbi ’s assertion? Is it wrong for one faith or belief system to declare itself superior to another? The problem with the Rabbi ’s assertion as I see it is that he is guilty of the very thing he is railing against. Listen closely to what he is saying:

“I am absolutely against any religion that says that one faith is superior to another. ��

In other words, the Rabbi is saying that to believe that all religions are of equal value and equal truth is superior to holding to any belief system that declares itself to be true. Again �the Rabbi is saying that you can believe anything you want �as long as you don ‘t believe it to be true. By making this value statement, of course, Rabbi Boteach is declaring that there is a belief system that is better than another; namely, the belief that all religions are of equal value and truth is superior to the belief system that there is one true way and that the others, while they may have elements of truth and beauty, are ultimately wrong.

As you can see, it may be impossible to be completely tolerant. At some level, even the most tolerant person has to draw a line somewhere of what they will not tolerate. For Rabbi Boteach, he is intolerant of religions that believe themselves to be superior to other religions. I would argue that most people in the world are intolerant at some point, no matter how loudly they declare themselves to be tolerant. Take Hitler, for example. As I listened to the other world religion panelists at Manchester High, one test by which I judged their belief systems was what I would call “the Hitler test.” Would the speaker ’s belief system say that Hitler was wrong for the mass genocide he visited on the world? And if so, on what ground are they making that moral claim? Who are they to say that his belief system �Aryan supremacy �is inferior to theirs? If they truly want to be tolerant, how can they say Hitler was wrong? If someone ’s belief system teaches them that it is right to kill those who are holding back your race from reaching its pinnacle, then what moral authority do you have to tell him he ’s wrong?

Who are you, O tolerant one,
to say that Hitler was wrong?

Obviously, most Americans would say unequivocally that Hitler was wrong. Furthermore, most would declare that just about any religion or belief system is superior to that of Hitler. The point is that as tolerant as people claim to be, most people have a limit to tolerance. It ’s not “tolerant vs. intolerant, �� but a question of degree of tolerance �at what point are you willing to say “this is right and this is wrong. �� While it may be culturally offensive to suggest that some religions and belief systems, even with all their rich history, important contributions to the world, and millions of adherents, are ultimately wrong, I would suggest that to declare all religions as being of equal value and truth is naïve and a product of careless thinking. Reincarnation and heaven and hell can ‘t both be right; monotheism and pantheism can ‘t both be right. Someone (if not both parties) has to be wrong. Either all religions are ultimately wrong �misguided human attempts to explain the unknown �or one is right and the rest are wrong. Although truth has become in many ways a dirty word in our postmodern world, I would say that the pursuit of truth matters. The ability to declare some things “right �� and other things “wrong �� is crucial, because lives are depending on it. Read the following examples and decide whether you would rather be tolerant (let people believe whatever they wish to believe without making value judgments on their belief) or intolerant (declaring some things right and other things wrong):

So said Rabbi Schmuley Boteach on Larry King Live a few years back.  And so believe many others today, as I learned from the Manchester High panel on world religions that I was privileged to participate in a couple of weeks ago.  As I listened to each panelist present about his or her religion and answer questions that the students raised, I couldn’t help but detect the value placed on pluralism and tolerance.  It seemed that speakers who promoted the concept of the equality of all religions, or the right of anyone to find their own path to God – be it Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or otherwise – came across as enlightened, while anyone who dared to speak of conversion to his or her own faith as a value was seen as a contributor to the violence and hatred of the world.  For example, the representative of Baha’ism spoke of recognizing the founders or prophets of each of the world’s religions as equal voices in the pursuit of God, with none superior to any other.  The woman representing Hinduism spoke of her faith’s openness to all religions and the ways that they interpret the divine.  Even the Jewish man spoke of all religions being equally valid, with Jews being held to a higher standard by God.  While I recognize that these representatives do not necessarily speak for all adherents of those religions, nor were the panelists necessarily experts on their faith, I think it’s instructive to note the high value placed on tolerance and equality among world religions.

Enter Jesus.

“Jesus, do you believe that all religions are equally valid?”

Now, I’m not a fan of putting words into Jesus’ mouth, and he was never asked that question, so I’m not going to dare answer it as if it were his words.  But, as I mentioned last week, it would have made for a deeper discussion at Manchester High to point out that with all of the commonalities, there are some significant differences among the world religions that were represented.  For example, some believe in one God, others believe in a divine energy that can be interpreted as many different gods, and some believe in no god at all.  Some religions teach reincarnation, others believe that we live once and then go to heaven or hell, while others believe that there is nothing after death.  Since we can’t all be right, what are the options?

Option 1 – we’re all wrong.  There is no meaning in this world, and all religions are an attempt by different cultures to explain our origin, destination, the meaning of life, and to give a basis for moral behavior. 
Option 2 – there is something out there, but no one has a corner on the truth.  Each religion is man’s attempt to explain whatever “it” is, and each has some portion of the truth
Option 3 – one religion is the truth, and the others, while perhaps possessing some of the truth, are ultimately wrong at their core

Given today’s culture of tolerance, option 2 probably sounds the most enlightened and preferable to many people.  We can picture some benign being or cosmic energy that is out there but ultimately unknowable, and all religious people try to get in touch with that energy/being through their beliefs and rituals.  Option 1, while a bit scary, would also allow our culture to hold onto its valued tolerance.  Option 3 is of course the scariest in our culture, since it leaves you with the potential for a lot of people who think that their faith is superior to the others. 

So, Jesus, do you believe that all religions are equally valid?

When I read Jesus’ words, I find that his teaching comes closest to Option 3.  Certainly Jesus taught that there is meaning in this world, that God is real and knowable, and that heaven and hell are realities, so I can rule out Option 1.  Similarly, I find nothing in his teaching that treats truth as something unknowable, beyond our comprehension.  Instead, Jesus tends to hold especially the religious leaders of his day accountable for not correctly understanding what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures (see Matthew 22:29, among other).

However, Option 3 is not technically correct either, if you want to be faithful to the teaching of Jesus.  Jesus didn’t come to start a religion known as Christianity that would be “the truth.”  Instead, he pointed people to himself, saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father (God) except through me” (John 14:6).  Therefore, it’s not really about which religion is right or true (because let’s face it, Christianity comes in many shapes and sizes).  Jesus taught that truth was found in Him, that if we want to understand what is true and right, we need to look at Him and follow Him.  Only then would we find God.  If Jesus really is the truth (and not Christianity), and all that he taught is truth, this certainly contradicts the tolerance (all faiths are equally valid) that our culture teaches.  However, I also think it means three things for the follower of Jesus:

1) Contrary to Rabbi Schmuley’s assertion, a follower of Jesus should never consider himself superior to someone who does not follow Jesus.  This is because Jesus and the rest of the Bible are clear that no one has come to be called his follower by their own righteousness, morality, or wisdom.  It is all grace; Jesus has chosen his followers (John 15:16), and has given us the grace to say yes to him.  None of us deserve to be called his followers, but by his undeserved grace some of us are.
2) Those who follow Jesus are not necessarily more moral than anyone else.  Rabbi Schmuley may be a kinder, more loving man than I am.  Again, following Jesus does not mean that I see myself as morally superior to anyone else.
3) Just because someone is not called a “Christian” does not mean that Jesus can not call them his follower.  I am not trying to convert people to “Christianity.”  I want people to follow Jesus.  I would not dare to speak on the eternal fate of anyone who calls themselves Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim, except to say that my understanding of Jesus is that no one becomes his follower by being a good person.  Instead, it is by recognizing one can never be good enough for God and is in need of His forgiveness and grace, which is offered through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

If I am going to be faithful to the words of Jesus, then I must say that not all religions are equally valid.  Jesus is the truth, and there is some truth in all faiths insofar as they reflect that truth.  But to answer Rabbi Schmuley, just because Jesus is the truth does not mean that I see myself as superior or hate those who do not agree.  To act in such a way would also be contrary to the truth, contrary to Jesus.

Next week I’ll continue to discuss Jesus among other gods and how to reconcile the exclusive claims of Jesus with the age of tolerance in which we live.  If you have any questions, thoughts or comments to add, please post your comments so that we might correctly speak of Jesus in our tolerant culture.

I’m struggling to put into words just how normal yet abnormal last night’s scene is to me.  Every night it happens – a well-groomed man and woman stare at me through my television and tell me 15-20 random events that happened in our world today. Typically, they are tragic events such as murders, earthquakes, bombings, and the like.  They tell me all that I need to know, and 30 minutes later they are gone. 

Has this become so normal to us that we miss how odd it all is???

I say that this scene is abnormal and odd because it is completely devoid of any expectation that I’m supposed to make sense of or take action in response to the news of a mother who stabbed her children, or a high school student who has been murdered, or soldiers who lost their lives.  I’m given an update on random events happening around my world, with the goal apparently being to inform me, to let me know that there are some seriously grieving people in Hartford right now, and that there is a family in East Hartford who just lost a son or brother, and that the war in Iraq has claimed five more lives.  And I sit there with my son, more informed, a little more numb to the violence in our world, and not in any way a better person for it.

How am I supposed to respond to this thing called the evening news?  Am I supposed to get sad?  Shrug my shoulders at the chaos of our world?  Get involved?  What if I decided to do something about every story I heard – to counsel women in Hartford experiencing post-partum depression, to send flowers to the East Hartford family, to protest the war in Iraq?  Would I ever be able to remotely keep up with the staggering needs presented on a nightly basis?

And how am I supposed to prioritize the 15-20 stories I hear on the news every night?  Who is to say that a woman in Hartford stabbing her children is the most important story of the day?  What about the soldiers dying in Iraq?  Is that more important?  What about the numerous things going on around the globe that didn’t make the evening news?  Is the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, not an issue today?  Is homelessness in American not a problem today?  Is the AIDS epidemic in Africa not important today?

The question I would like to explore briefly today is: What messages are we being given by the medium known as the nightly news (or Internet news, or the morning newspaper)?  Not just the stories – what are the underlying messages?  What are we being taught by watching two well-groomed people enlighten us about 15-20 random events in our world? 

Some of you may remember a communications theorist named Marshall McLuhan, who became famous for his quote, “the medium is the message.”  Essentially, McLuhan argued that a medium like television, or radio, or a book, sends a message just by being a television, radio, or book, regardless of what the content may be.  A recent book, The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture by Shane Hipps, has helped me to think about the impact that media such as books, television, and the Internet have had on the very message of Christianity, and has helped me as I consider some of the messages we receive through something like the nightly news.

 As we are told 15-20 unrelated stories full of joy and despair, tragedy and celebration, I believe that one subliminal message is being communicated to us that has a profound impact on the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is a message that cuts across Christian thinking and Biblical teaching and is easily recognizable in the lives of most Americans (especially younger Americans) today.  That message is that there is no metanarrative, no overarching story or truth that organizes and makes sense of these many different events.  Basically, stuff happens – good stuff, bad stuff, but there’s no connection between Britney and K-Fed’s divorce and the falling gas prices, or between Kramer’s racist tirade at a comedy club and the death of a Lebanese Christian cabinet member.  Robert Altman may have died, and a raid in Baghdad killed five people, but these two things have nothing in common and there is no meaning behind them.  Usually referred to as relativism, this message of no overarching truth making sense of the events of daily life is subscribed to by many in our world.

To help us make sense of this message, think about life before the telegraph, which was the forerunner of electronic media such as the television and Internet.  Before the telegraph, information traveled at a speed of about 35 miles per hour, or the speed of a train.  If a mother stabbed her three children in another town, it might take a day to learn that information.  If five soldiers died in a war halfway around the globe, it might take months to notify their family, and the rest of us might never hear about it.  With the invention of the telegraph, suddenly information could be sent from Washington to Baltimore (as it was by Samuel Morse in 1844) in an instant.  Information that was once local and rooted in a local context and history that provided it with meaning now could be displaced and presented with no apparent connection, cause, or meaning.  In 1830, any woman that I heard of who stabbed her children probably lived in my town, and I knew her family and her history.  Today, all we know is that a woman stabbed her children.  We don’t really know who she is or what her story is, except for what the television and newspapers tell us. 

Again – I believe that the subliminal message being sent through the evening news is this:  there is no metanarrative, no overarching story or truth that organizes and makes sense of these many different events.  Stuff just happens, so at least you can be informed.

This past Sunday, I had preached a big picture sermon about salvation history and how it finds its consummation in Jesus.  If you believed me, I was claiming that there is a metanarrative, an overarching story that organizes and makes sense of many different events.  I claimed that the metanarrative is that God has chosen and blessed his followers so that they might bring His blessing to the world, transforming a fallen world of injustice, chaos, and hatred into a place of justice, peace, and love.  I also claimed that the second theme of this metanarrative is that God’s people continually act out the theme of falling away and returning, slavery and exodus, exile and restoration, but that the pattern was answered by Jesus’ death and resurrection, through which is offered forgiveness of sins once for all, an escape from the cycle into a life of freedom from the slavery of sin and perfection in the sight of God. 

If the metanarrative is true, then we can see the tragedies depicted on the evening news as more proof of the injustice, chaos, and hatred that mark our fallen world, and can realize that God has called us to bring justice, peace, and love into the world wherever we go.  We will certainly never be able to address each issue presented in the news on our own, but we can recognize that as chaotic as things may seem, there is a grand story that encompasses everything from a mother stabbing her children to an elderly woman serving at a soup kitchen, from a war in Iraq to forgiveness offered between friends.  This world is fallen, but God is redeeming the world through Jesus Christ and His followers.  As we join God’s mission to bring His transforming love, peace, and justice to this world, we proclaim to everyone who is watching that there is meaning in the chaos.