Common Questions about Christianity:
Concise Answers to Complex Questions

Part Three: Religion

1. “Religion is either a reflection of one’s culture or a by-product of one’s culture. Consequently, it is relative to one’s culture rather than possessing absolute or universal religious truth.”

2. “Due to the nature of religious experiences (they are different than everyday sense experiences of sight, smell, hearing, etc.) they should not be regarded as trustworthy and genuine. These experiences are examples of ‘wishful fulfillments.’ Furthermore, Christians should not claim that their religious experiences (e.g., they experience the Triune God during worship) are trustworthy and true while the experiences of other religious followers are invalid and false.”

3. “Don’t all religions teach us the same things, that is, to be a good person?”

4. “There has been a great deal of “evil” done in the name of Jesus Christ. Christians, for instance, are responsible for an ‘imperialistic’ mentality towards other cultures. How can you believe in a religion that has promoted such hostile attitudes towards the ’other?’”

5. “Christianity cannot address the ‘human condition’ because all meta-narratives are dead.”

6. “I’m a religious pluralist. I believe that many rivers lead into one ocean. Jesus cannot be the only way to God/salvation/liberation. This belief is bias, narrow-minded, and arrogant.”

1. “Religion is either a reflection of one’s culture or a by-product of one’s culture. Consequently, it is relative to one’s culture rather than possessing absolute or universal religious truth.”

• Due to their historical and social contexts it is true that religions possess cultural elements, but it does not follow that they are not making transcendent, ultimate, and universal truth claims. If you ask Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Sikhs they will tell you that they believe that they are making transcendent, ultimate, and universal claims.

• A person who reflects this position is “assuming” that a supernatural or ultimate being or reality cannot exist. This person would have to be omniscient to know (for sure) that such a being or supernatural reality cannot exist. (If they say they are “agnostic,” then they cannot defend their position with confidence.)

• Furthermore, the person who makes this claim may also be guilty of the same accusation he or she is charging others with. For instance, we may reply to this person that their claim (“religion is either a reflection of one’s culture or a by-product of one’s culture”) is also a reflection of his or her own culture as well. If this is true, then he or she cannot claim that religions are cultural because in order to make this claim they need to possess universal, absolute, and transcendent truth or knowledge.

• Many religions trace origins to a historical context. Christianity, for instance, is based on Jesus. What is important to note is that the earliest followers of Christ proclaimed their message in relation to Christ’s teaching, way of living, and resurrection. The earliest followers believed that Jesus resurrected from the dead; it is this belief (centered on a historical event; see 1 Cor 15:3f) that encouraged and “compelled” them to share their testimonies about Jesus (establishing Christianity) and eventually led to their martyrdom.

• In short, if Jesus resurrected from the dead, then it is highly unlikely that Christianity is a mere reflection or by-product of one’s culture because the nature of such an event (a resurrected person) transcends time, space, and cultures.

2. “Due to the nature of religious experiences (they are different than everyday sense experiences of sight, smell, hearing, etc.) they should not be regarded as trustworthy and genuine. These experiences are examples of ‘wishful fulfillments.’ Furthermore, Christians should not claim that their religious experiences (e.g., they experience the Triune God during worship) are trustworthy and true while the experiences of other religious followers are invalid and false.”

• To begin with, this claim could be suggesting that there is a distinction between a “physical” and “spiritual” way of using our senses. However, we use the same mechanism (our senses) to interpret our world and reality whether it refers to a tree, mountain, book, car, God, or some ultimate reality.

• In general, we should be able to trust our sense experiences unless we are experiencing a physical injury (e.g., eyes, ears, brain, etc.), psychological impairment (we have “lost touch” with reality), hallucination (e.g., drunk, drugs), temporary sense limitation (e.g., weary, headache, hungry, weak, just woke up, thirsty, sick, etc.), a change brought upon by the environment (e.g., it’s raining, snowing, sun shining in our eyes, walking in a desert, a reed appears to “bend” in the stream, my reflection in the water/mirror, etc.) or environmental change (e.g., our “normal” sense perceptions were “designed” for earth, but will not “function” properly if we landed on another planet).

• How does a person know that religious experiences are examples of “wishful fulfillments?” In order for them to claim this he or she must also “know” that God or some ultimate reality does not exist.

• In contrast to the religious experiences of other faith members, Christians may claim that their experiences are valid in the following manner. (Christians do not need to “prove” that their experiences are valid and others religious experiences are “invalid.” Rather, Christians must explain or provide an explanation for the different religious experiences.) First, Christians believe that sin has radically affected everyone (knowledge of God has been lost, God’s truth is distorted, image of God has been defaced) (Eccl 7.20; Ps. 14.1; Jer 17.9; Rom 3.9-20). Sin negatively affects how human beings (mis)interpret God and their religious experiences.

Second, Christians contend that spiritual warfare also plays a role in deceiving people into believing that they are experiencing the ultimate reality (Eph 6.11-18). Satan and his followers (demons) manipulate, distort, and masquerade the truth so that people mistaken their understanding and experience of the “ultimate reality” to be genuine and true (Mk 4.15; Jn 8.44; 2 Cor 11.14; Gal 1.8; 1 Pet 5.8).

Third, Christians maintain that Holy Spirit “regenerates” us (we are spiritually born again and saved, our spiritual “eyes” see and “ears” hear God) and provides enlightenment, truth, illumination for understanding and experiencing God (Mt 3.11; Jn 3.5; 14.17, 26-27; 16.5-16; Acts 1.8; Rom 8.26; Eph 5.18). God’s image (which was previously “defaced and “broken”) is now being restored and renewed in Christ (Eph 4.24; Col 3.10). On the other hand, other religious followers have not experienced the Spirit’s work in their lives in the same capacity.

Fourth, Christian scriptures (Old and New Testament) also provide enlightenment, truth, and illumination for Christians thereby testifying to the truthfulness of their relationship and experiences with God (Ex 19.16; 32.16; Ps 12.6; 119; 2 Tim 3.16-17; Heb 4.12). Other faith traditions do not “use” the Christian scriptures in the same manner.

• In summary, Christians may claim that their experiences are valid because (a) our sense experiences should be trusted under normal conditions and (b) the Holy Spirit, Christian scriptures, renewing/restoring of God’s image have overcome the distortion of truth.

3. “Don’t all religions teach us the same things, that is, to be a good person?”

• Good morals are usually a by-product of these religions, but not the essence of their teachings. To summarize them in this fashion is to not do them justice because they all address the “spiritual” condition of humanity and provide answers in different ways.

• If you place a Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu in the same room and informed them that they could walk out if they agreed on humanity’s spiritual problem/answer no one would be able to leave due to their different worldviews. Thus, religions (at their central core) do not have the same teachings.

• Religions also differ as to the “ultimate goal” of each respective faith. For instance, Christianity postulates heaven while Buddhists strive for nirvana. Some religions maintain a future reincarnation, while others contend for a bodily resurrection. Some religions teach a universal salvation/liberation while others teach a limited number of people will be saved/liberated.

4. “There has been a great deal of “evil” done in the name of Jesus Christ. Christians, for instance, are responsible for an ‘imperialistic’ mentality towards other cultures. How can you believe in a religion that has promoted such hostile attitudes towards the ’other?’”

• Concerning “violent acts” and “atrocities” committed in the “name of Jesus” these “Christians” were not living like “true” Christians. Christians who have committed these horrible crimes are sinners and evil people irregardless of class, gender, or religion.

• Christians should acknowledge the “sins committed in the name of Jesus.” We should agree that acts and crimes against humanity are wrong. We should also agree that many missionaries have “distorted” various cultures as well with our “Western” and/or “Christian” view of culture.

• Admittedly, what a person believes—in this case a Christian affects what he or she does. However, the action does not necessarily nullify (nor necessarily confirm) the truthfulness or falseness of a particular belief. (We should not assume there is a direct one-to-one correlation between thought and practice. Human behavior is more complex and there are many factors involved.) It’s a fallacy to judge a belief to be true or false in light of someone’s (bad or good) behavior.

• On the other hand, if you are going to “count” evil deeds and postulate that it encourages violence and injustice, then you should also “count” the good deeds done in the name of Christ as well. Christians have built more hospitals, opened up more schools for education, and provided more for the “needy” than other religions of the world. (This point is not to brag or be arrogant. Rather, it’s to point out that Christians have also done a lot of “good” for the world too.)

• Finally, while Christianity is a “religion,” it is about a relationship. Christians are not following a religion per se, but following Christ. And while morality and ethics are an important topic within Christianity many people become “Christians” not because of the “good deeds” done, but rather, they acknowledge a spiritual condition (sin and separated from God; Rom 3.23; 6.23) and solution (Jesus offers forgiveness and reconciliation with God; Jn 3.16; 14.6; Rom 5.11; 2 Cor 5.18-19).

5. “Christianity cannot address the ‘human condition’ because all meta-narratives are dead.”

• This postmodern statement itself is a “meta-narrative” (it seeks to provide a universal truth that speaks to the “human condition,” namely, that all meta-narratives are dead). In their disdain for the Enlightenment project for providing neutral, objective, and universal truths have not postmodernists merely substituted their own criterion?

• This objection is based on questionable postmodern foundations

1. Truth (or everything) is relative. However, this very statement is meaningless because it is asserting a truth about something and yet at the same time denying that such a truth can exist.

2. The “Death of the Author” (no one can speak authoritatively). The identity and purposes of an author is irrelevant to the meaning of the text and thus their authority is undermined. However, if this is true, then the person making this (authoritative) claim (“all meta-narratives are dead”) is also “dead” (his/her identity and purpose for writing this particular view is irrelevant) as well.

3. “There is nothing outside a text” (all we have are our interpretations of interpretations of interpretations, ad infintum). Thus, there is no objective reality outside of the text that can “control” or “determine” the meaning of the text. This statement (“there is nothing outside a text”), if true, then is also an interpretation of an interpretation and cannot “control” or “determine” meaning as well. If this is true, then how can it provide justification for its own merit? On the other hand, if God exists, then He exists outside all texts and can control and determine the meaning.

4. Hermeneutics of Suspicion: Within each text there are “power plays at work” underlining the author’s ideas and words. Thus, texts have consciously or subconsciously supported or promoted a particular line of thought or viewpoint. In brief, this position argues that we subjugate or control the “other” (anyone not associated with privileged status such as minority races, women, homosexuals, etc.). However, this notion of “suspicion” is self-refuting because they too, may be writing, speaking, teaching from a “privileged position” and “consciously” or “unconsciously” promoting their particular viewpoint in order to define and establish “their brand of truth and meaning.” Could we not also assert that these authors, professors, and culture critics undermine the very position they wish to establish?

5. All “narratives” have many readings and are “true” (in some sense). Briefly, this view asserts that empowering the reader is important because he/she is (now) free to create their own meaning and interpret the text according to their perspective. This understanding of many readings being “true” appears to be false, however, in light of “narratives” concerning the afterlife. For instance, we only have a few options including (a) annihilation, (b) reincarnation, (c) spiritual resurrection, and (d) bodily resurrection. How does empowering the reader lead to truth if all of these respective options are not viable at the same time and in the same relationship at the point of death?

• If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then Christianity is a meta-narrative.

(top)

6. “I’m a religious pluralist. I believe that many rivers lead into one ocean. Jesus cannot be the only way to God/salvation/liberation. This belief is bias, narrow-minded, and arrogant.”

• First of all, let’s address the issue of religious pluralism. If religious pluralism is true (all “ethical” religions lead to salvation/liberation), then all world religions (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc.) are wrong (since none of these religions would agree that all “ethical” religions lead to salvation/liberation in light of their respective teachings and practices).

• It’s also important to note that the different religious traditions possess conflicting truth claims concerning the ultimate reality, the spiritual condition of humanity, the answer to humanity’s condition, and the nature of the afterlife. If the various religious doctrines contradict one another then how is it possible that all of them are right at the same time and in the same relationship? (Perhaps one could be correct, but not all of them.) We need to ask those who believe in religious pluralism for their justification for believing it to be true. For example, do they base their reasoning on an ethical criterion, scriptural revelation, and/or spiritual experience?

• It is simple “logic” to reject those beliefs that are incompatible with one’s belief system. For instance, I believe that water is composed of one atom of oxygen bound to two atoms of hydrogen, but you believe that water is composed of three atoms of oxygen bound to three atoms of hydrogen. Doesn’t simple “logic” compel me to reject your understanding of what properties constitute water? Are people accused of being “arrogant,” “bias,” and/or “narrow-minded” for believing that water is composed of one atom of oxygen bound to two atoms of hydrogen?

• Couldn’t we also say that religious pluralists are just as “arrogant,” “bias,” and “narrow-minded” as Christians because they are claiming to “know” the truth? The very claim of “religious pluralism” is also a religious truth claim (all ethical religions will lead to salvation/liberation). Pluralists, not only Christians, also claim to “know” what is true.

• Also, don’t you as a pluralist reject my view (Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to God and forgiven) as a Christian? If it is permissible for you to reject my religious truth claim (and not be regarded as “arrogant,” “bias,” and “narrow-minded”), then it should also be permissible for me to reject your religious truth claim as well without such accusations.

• Regarding Christianity in general and Christology in particular, Jesus is the most unique person to have ever lived (virgin birth, fully and completely divine/human, morally perfect, died on the cross for sinners, resurrected from the dead, our advocate against false accusations, and makes intercession for his people).

• If Jesus lived a perfect life and died on the cross as a perfect sacrifice, then only through Jesus can we be forgiven (his perfect life of obedience—his righteousness is accredited to us and his death pays the price for our sins) and reconciled to God because God’s holy standard can only accept a perfect sacrifice for the payment of sins (see 2 Cor 5.21).

• If Jesus was raised from the dead, then he is unique (like no one else) and possesses God’s (the Father’s) “stamp of approval” on his life, teaching, and service. Some of Jesus’ claims include John 14.6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one can come to the Father through Me.” (cf. Mt 11.27-30; Mk 2.1-12; Jn 4.13-14; 5.24-27; 6.35-40; 10.7-10) Jesus speaks with ultimate authority and truth and he clearly and universally teaches that salvation is found in him alone.

• Jesus’ resurrection demonstrates that he has conquered sin and death. However, we know that only “God” can conquer sin and death. Thus, the early followers of Jesus came to the realization that Jesus, too, in some mysterious way must also be “divine.” (The New Testament teaches first implicitly, then explicitly that Jesus is divine.)

(top)

<-- back to list of questions