I May Disagree With the Decision, But I Must Defend the Right to Make It

I just read a horrifying story out of the state of Oregon. A judge has forced a 13 year old girl to undergo surgery for a rare form of liver cancer, over the objections of her mother and the 13 year-old herself. (Here is a link, as long as it is good. story here

I have no idea about the intention of the mother, or the accuracy of the story, or if the girl has been adequately informed of the options and possible outcomes. My issue in discussing this story is the terrifying reality that a state can step in between a parent and a child and compel the child to undergo something as traumatic as liver surgery against the wishes of the parent.

I would imagine that most of us are aware of the reality that a young girl can obtain an abortion without the informed consent of her parents, but this decision launches the debate into entirely new – and dangerous – territory.

There has been ample news coverage of late regarding the parental decision not to immunize their child(ren) against various diseases. In these cases I believe the state has a compelling interest to require those immunizations if the child is going to take advantage of such state funded institutions as schools, daycares, and some sporting events. In these situations I still side with the rights of the parents if they decide against immunization (although I think it is dangerous, and founded on bizarre conspiracy theories). But, the parents must also be held accountable and be told that if they refuse the immunizations, their child will not be allowed to participate in federal or state funded programs. I believe they must also be formally educated about the need for such immunizations, and the cost to the community as a whole if they refuse the immunity, and what can happen in cases of outbreaks of diseases that have almost been eradicated through such immunizations. There is a community component in these cases that is not present in the case of the solitary girl who has liver cancer.

However, taking a child away from the custody of a parent and forcing her to undergo radical surgery is just Orwellian in the extreme, and, if I understand the story correctly, nothing but pure evil. If this decision is allowed to stand, what will be the next step? Will a state decide it has the moral and legal right to remove children from a home and forced to undergo LGBTQ indoctrination if (and when) Christianity is effectively labeled a “disease?” You scoff. You label this a non-sensical “slippery slope” argument. I counter – since when has it been deemed appropriate or legal for the state to physically force a 13 year old child to undergo a radical, and potentially dangerous, surgery when the outcome has, by their own admission, at least a 30 percent chance of failure?

I have written repeatedly in this space about how we are no longer living in the same cultural context that described this nation even 30 years ago. Dear brothers and sisters – it appears that the time for disciples of Christ to stand up and resist these abhorrent decisions is coming far sooner than later. Martin Luther King, Jr. demonstrated the power of non-violent resistance – the power of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands, of like-minded individuals who simply refuse to comply with unjust laws and lawmakers. Will we have to employ those methods in the effort to protect our constitutional right to the free exercise of our religious beliefs? And what should happen if that freedom is somehow abridged? Will we still have the courage of our convictions to stand and protect our children?

This case may be a tempest in a teapot – or it may be the canary in the coal mine that lets us know that the death of religious freedom is surely coming.

I may not agree with this mother’s decision, but for the sake of the freedom of every parent to raise their children as God has given them the authority to do so, I must defend her right to make it.

A Solid Hit and a Whiff

As I used this space to address President Trump yesterday, I feel it is only appropriate that I return today and give him the credit he deserves for his comments regarding the shootings in El Paso, TX, and Dayton OH.

First, I appreciate his denunciation of racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. I felt like those were strong statements, and much needed. He also earned my applause by calling for stricter laws regarding the sale of certain weapons (although, background checks are notoriously weak in preventing the kind of attacks we saw over the weekend). He also called for the passage of so-called “red flag” laws, which I also support, that allows for family members to notify law enforcement officers of erratic and potentially dangerous behavior, and if found to be credible, allows those officers to remove firearms from someone. Here in Colorado the state government has passed those laws, and completely inexplicably to me, all the rural law enforcement agencies immediately rebelled and said they would not comply. Holy insurrection, Batman! Here is a tool to keep a lunatic from possessing enough firepower to kill dozens, if not hundreds, of people, and the law enforcement agencies say they will not enforce it? Talk about nuts. But I digress.

Where I feel President Trump failed, and failed miserably, is to acknowledge that his words have fostered a great deal of racist behavior, bigotry, and, yes, actions of white supremacy. I did not expect a confession, though. Trump does not apologize, it is not in his personality, and certainly not in his vocabulary. So, I give him respect for his denunciations, and credit him with a total whiff in regard to taking any kind of personal responsibility.

Before I hit “publish,” I must also comment on the utter hypocrisy of the left regarding these shootings. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the shooter in Dayton was a radical leftist, and had strong leanings toward leftist anarchists rather than the alt-right, looney-toon white supremacists that attracted the shooter in El Paso. So, where is the outrage from the Democratic contestants for the White House? Where are the calls for the radical left to be shunned and censored? You won’t hear that kind of language from the Democrats, because those radical leftists are the very base of the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and a whole host of others. Former President Barack Obama came out with a blistering attack on those who promote fear and hatred, and not once did he acknowledge that these extreme leftists depend on stoking fear and hatred of those with conservative, mostly Christian values. If I gave President Trump one thumb up and one thumb down, I have to give former President Obama two thumbs down. Not only did he not acknowledge the militancy of the far left, but along with President Trump, he utterly refused to confess his own responsibility in fostering a climate of racism and bigotry in this country.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we must rise above this political morass. We must demonstrate the self-sacrifice and “love of one’s enemies” demonstrated by our Lord. We can not accomplish this by promoting, or even countenancing the kind of hatred that is being spewed by both the far left and far right in this debate. There is only one way for Christians to respond –

We ascend by climbing lower.

Words Have Consequences!

From my “Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection” (#10)

Attitudes and beliefs have consequences. Words, used to express those attitudes and beliefs, have equal consequences. Words chosen to convey spiritual concepts have eternal consequences.

Since long before the election in 2016 we have been regaled with Donald Trump’s mean spirited and very often blatantly racist words, primarily through his “Tweets,” short pithy little statements uploaded to the social media platform Twitter. Mostly these have just been food for his ultra-right wing base, and fodder for his enemies. Christians who understand the seriousness of even any careless word have recoiled from such statements, but, up until Saturday, these outbursts have been viewed as the rantings of a demagogue, someone who is more bluster and bloviating than substantial.

That all changed on Saturday, August 3. That was the day someone took some racist words and transformed them into racial terrorism.

While it is still far too early in the investigation to know everything for certain, there are some facts that I believe are incontrovertible: Trump has said/tweeted some unconscionable statements regarding immigration and the racial makeup of many of those immigrants, the shooter in El Paso targeted persons of a specific race and nationality, and (this point is still being confirmed) the shooter has written a “manifesto” in which he speaks approvingly of Trump and his racially twinged statements.

It’s not impossible to connect these dots.

Do I think Trump intended his words to have this effect? Absolutely not! Do I think Trump is a racist? Probably, just like 99% of the current House of Representatives and Senators. But, mostly, I think Trump sees people in terms of green, red, and black. That is, if you can further Trump’s personal agenda (raising money, erasing debt or furthering his narcissistic agenda) he likes you, regardless of your race or gender. If you cannot do any of those three things, you are useless to him, regardless of your race or gender. Also, mostly I think Trump is just a fool – in the biblical sense. He does not believe in God (at least, the God of the Bible) and he thinks he can solve all of his problems with his own intellect. That is the biblical definition of a fool.

Do I think racist statements, regardless of how innocuous they are made, can have the kind of result that we saw on Saturday? Absolutely. Our nation is becoming more hateful, more racially divided, more prone to racial violence with each passing year. In one sense, what happened on Saturday, August 3 was inevitable. And, let us be clear about something else – the long road that ended in El Paso was promoted by the election of Barack Obama. Obama saw every event during his two terms of office in relation to race. Trump was NOT the first racist to be elected to the office of president. I’m pretty sure every one of the presidents has been racist to some degree or another – some quite blatant. To suggest that Trump is the first to be afflicted with this sin, or that Republican presidents are racist and Democrat presidents are not, is beyond preposterous.

Trump and his political minions are trying effusively to distance Trump from the shooting in El Paso. I’m sorry, but that ship sailed from the harbor a long time ago. In my mind there is just one thing Trump should, even can, do to extricate himself from this tragedy – confess that his language has been horribly offensive and exploitive, and apologize to the races and nationalities that he has targeted. He will not do that, of course, and it would just be a beginning, but it would be a good start.

Every individual who has spoken in a public setting has said things he/she did not mean or later regretted. I am certainly in that list of offensive speakers. It is not that we intentionally set out to offend – but our mouths are not always connected to our brains, and even when they are, sometimes our brains are not connected to our consciences. We sin with our mouths, let us be honest and confess that proclivity. But, I stand by my Undeniable Truth for Theological Reflection number 10 with all of my being. Words have consequences. Words that relate to theological truths have eternal consequences.

Let us be so diligent, so careful, so painstaking in the choice of our words, that we never have to apologize for denigrating the value of another human being simply based on the color of their skin, the nation of their origin, or the language that they speak.

By our words we will be justified, and by our words we will be condemned. (Mt. 12:37)

The Loss of Transcendence and the Death of Humanity

Pardon me as I continue (sort of) my lament from yesterday . . .

We are experiencing, in increasing measure, the slow death of humanity. I don’t mean humans as such (although that might be coming), what I mean is the loss of what makes us human, what separates us from lower animal life. It seems to me that the more technologically progressed we have become, the deeper into nihilism we have fallen. We know more and can do more with greater ease than ever before, and we are far sicker than we have ever been.

What got me to thinking about this was a recent camping trip. Not that long ago it was natural to assume that a family went up into the wilderness (or, at the very least, away from the confusion of the city) to get away from the noise, the hustle, the frantic pace. You left all of that “behind” so you could unwind, relax, shed some of the stress of the “dog eat dog” world. I noticed this past weekend how all of that has changed – and not just a little bit. I was stunned to see that off-road vehicles (we used to call them ATVs) are now almost obligatory for the modern camping family. That, along with mammoth fifth-wheel campers makes most camp sites look like the infield of the Indianapolis 500 auto race. As I stood knee deep in a gorgeous little stream I had to strain to hear the birds and squirrels fuss at each other because the almost constant barrage of four-wheelers on the nearby road made it impossible to hear God’s awesome creation.

It got worse. From time to time I could look up and see the passengers in these noise making contraptions. From what I could tell they were not happy. They were in a hurry to get somewhere, anywhere but where they were. Many had scowls on their faces, but virtually all were expressionless. Here they were in quite honestly the closest thing to the Garden of Eden, and they were either bored, or actually pained. They had to get somewhere else fast, so they could not enjoy where they were or what they were doing. Every so often they would come ripping back down the road they had just zoomed up. In a hurry, oblivious to the world of creation around them. Making noise, and utterly, completely unable to here the birds and squirrels chatter and talk to them.

It was so unbelievably sad.

We, as humans, have created a world where we can control virtually everything. If it’s too hot we turn on the air-conditioner. If it’s too cold we turn on the heater. If we are bored we turn on the TV or the tablet or our cell phone. If it is too quiet we blast our stereos or plug our ear-buds into our tablets and tune out the world. I just saw an article pointing out how there are signs of increasing mental struggles of pre-schoolers because of the increasing use of “screen time,” the fact that children do not interact with their physical world, but are increasingly tied to computers, tablets, or cell phones. It has now become the norm that even when we try to “get away from it all” we pack everything up and bring “it all” with us. We haul around our stress, our anxiety, our utter inability to deal with life if we are not stimulated to the ends of our hair follicles.

We have, or at the very least, will soon lose every concept of transcendence, of the “awesome.” When we do we will have lost the very last vestige of what it means to be human. To me that is not theoretical – I have actually witnessed it. People, human beings, created in the image of the Divine God himself, so completely engrossed in technology that they cannot even recognize, let alone appreciate, the awesomeness and transcendence of God’s most holy creation.

I do not have a Ph.D in psychology, but it really does not take a psychologist to recognize that we are a sick culture. Anger, depression, anxiety – all symptoms of a decaying society are rising at an exponential rate. Children are displaying acts of greater and greater violence at younger and younger ages. Prescriptions for anti-depressants are skyrocketing. Young people are identifying feelings of rootlessness and meaninglessness like never before. And, yet, the demand for the next upgrade for a cell phone or the next greatest app is unending.

I am not naive enough to believe that all of this can be reversed if we only clicked our heels together three times and repeated with Dorothy, “I wish I was home.” But, I am equally opposed to the idea that I should just shrug my shoulders and say none of this matters. It matters, and for future generations it should matter very much.

Somehow, someway, in calm and reasoned thought or in pure desperation, we are going to have to learn how to unplug, unwind, and “deconstruct” our over-stimulated lives. Maybe when we run out of fossil fuels and we can no longer drive massive trucks that pull 40 foot fifth-wheel camp trailers we will learn how to live life patiently again. I think learning how to hitch up a horse to a wagon might be valuable for a great many of us. It would, at the very least, teach us that we need to respect and nurture God’s awesome creation.

And, it would be a lot quieter. Maybe we could learn to listen to the birds and squirrels again.

That Terrible, Exclusivist, Divisive Apostle Paul

Getting ready to preach on Ephesians 4:1-6. For those not familiar, this text reveals just how exclusive and divisive the apostle Paul was. I mean, really, how mean and provincial can you get? In today’s world where I get to make my own rules, decide on my own truth, even get to decide whether I am a male or a female – how can we even read these words, let alone use them as some kind of standard for how the church is to behave itself? Just consider how “unchristian” the apostle Paul is:

  • There is only one body – one and only one church.
  • There is only one Spirit – not a Spirit for each worldly religion.
  • There is only one hope.
  • There is only one Lord – Jesus, not Mohamed nor Buddha nor some angel that claims to have a latter-day revelation from God.
  • There is only one faith – only one road leads to God, all others lead to destruction.
  • There is only one baptism – the death that is focused on Jesus and begins the new life.
  • And, finally, there is only one God and Father.

Wow, you would think that the apostle Paul was some kind of radical or something. And you would be right.

The apostle Paul lived in a time – much like ours – where there were literally hundreds of gods and dozens of competing philosophies and religions. Even within his “home” faith of Judaism there were a number of sects that all claimed to be primary. He lived his early adult life as one of the most strict – the Pharisees. But, on that road to Damascus Paul had his entire worldview torn down. God let him think about things for three days (I just wonder if there was not a subliminal message here – Paul had to spend three days in the darkness of blindness just as Jesus had to spend three days in the darkness of the tomb. God is really good at making these little “coincidences” occur at the most opportune times!) Anyway, Ananias comes and preaches the gospel to Paul, and from that point on Saul the Pharisee becomes Saul/Paul the Christian evangelist, apologist, and author.

The book of Ephesians, I am coming to learn, is really a manifesto for Paul’s new life. Where the world in which he lived had dozens of societal divisions – Roman/barbarian, Jew/Gentile, slave/free – Paul only saw two – those in Christ and those outside of Christ (the “world”). Those in Christ constitute one body, the church of God through Christ. It is not that Paul now views all mankind as saved (the inclusivity or universalist view), but that all mankind can be one through the blood of Christ.

Today we live in a world where individualism and individuality reign supreme. The defining term for our culture is tolerance, but in reality it is a mis-definition of the word tolerance to which we must submit. To be precise, tolerance means that one must identify and actually disagree with the viewpoint of another, yet allow that person to hold that viewpoint however mistaken or ignorant that viewpoint may be. Today, tolerance means that we must validate and even agree with the viewpoints of others, which basically means that we cannot even disagree with the other person. To disagree, and especially to label another’s viewpoint as “wrong,” “ignorant,” or (heaven forbid) “sinful” is to commit the most grievous of societal prohibitions.

Which takes me right back to Ephesians 4. The apostle Paul is utterly, completely, and totally exclusivist. There is only one road to God. One Lord means just that – any person who claims equality with Jesus or to be Jesus’s latter-day prophet is simply a charlatan and deceiver. There is just one body, one church, and all the claims that the divisions we see in Christianity are somehow blessed by God are just ludicrous. There is just one faith, not dozens or hundreds of equal “roads to heaven.” There is just one baptism, not one for the forgiveness of sins, and one for admission to a church, and one for the bestowing of the Holy Spirit, and one for the gifting of special talents and abilities. And, just to top everything off, there is just one God.

Even for many in the church today, the claim of exclusiveness is a troubling and divisive one. Our culture has so absorbed the doctrine of individualism and “equality” that to suggest a differing viewpoint is wrong, and especially worthy of being condemned by God, is just, well, so unchristian. But it is exactly that fear, that uncomfortableness, that reticence, that we must overcome if we are going to fairly and truthfully present the gospel of Christ.

I am in no way suggesting we do so in a rude, hateful, or condescending manner. Within the Churches of Christ I am reminded almost daily of our history of shameful rhetoric. But the pendulum can swing too far the other way, and never to challenge an incorrect or dangerous belief is no more loving than it is to ridicule that belief. I am reminded of Alexander Campbell’s practice (which infuriated some of his supporters) of spending time, and even eating several meals, with his debate opponents during his long, and lest we forget, vigorous debates. Campbell never surrendered an inch to those he disagreed with (and, sadly, his prodigious verbal broadsides became the model for far less charitable disciples), but it appears to me that he viewed those he debated as erring opponents and not enemies. There is a huge difference.

Ephesians 4 is a great passage of Scripture, to be sure. But it has a sharp edge – and Paul will go on to say some very harsh, and condemning, words about those who are outside of Christ (walking in futility, darkened in their understanding, alienated from God, ignorant, hard of heart). We must learn to handle that edge carefully and wisely. But, let us never be fearful of that edge to the point that we bury it.

The Inescapable Destiny of the Age of Narcissism

Once again I delve into the philosophical . . .

There can be no doubt but what we are firmly entrenched in the age of narcissism. A person could argue when this age began – my guess is back at least as far as the 1960’s – but these shifts in worldview rarely come with crystal clear transitions. We don’t snap our fingers into a new way of thinking, we mostly just sort of ooze into them.

You really do not have to look any further to see the decline of community and a civics oriented approach to life than to look at the decline in the office of the presidency of the United States. I only know of the presidency pre-Ronald Reagan mostly from history books – although I was alive during the Nixon and Carter presidencies. A person could argue that Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, and then Reagan all made the presidency about them (in increasing measure), but you can also argue that each of those presidents focused primarily on the health of the nation. Certainly with Reagan you can identify a growing sense of “celebrity” status about the presidency – he was an actor, to be sure. George H.W. Bush got in on Reagan’s coat-tails, but clearly with Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and now with Trump, the decline has been precipitous and, in my humble opinion, cataclysmic. The health and well being of our nation is but a talking point – the race to the White House now is all about the cult of personality, and the narcissism of Obama and Trump in particular was and has been, not to be too inflammatory, obscene. Judging from the crop of Democratic contenders for the right to oppose Trump in 2020, the fall from civility and civics will even be worse (if that’s possible).

But, let’s not just throw stones at the politicians. In every aspect of our American life, the self has utterly and completely replaced the concept of sacrifice and service for the community. In fact, there really is no concept of “community.” Look at the hideous condition of our judicial system. The victim of a crime is brutalized twice – once by the offender and once again when his or her “trial” only serves to minimize the offense and to call into question the legitimacy of the accusation and the right of the victim to obtain justice. Our entire judicial system has devolved into the protection and immunization of the accused, while the legitimate rights of the community, not to mention the victimized, to be protected from such criminals has long since been abandoned.

Consider as well our educational system. Education is, by definition, the acquisition of knowledge and experience that a person has previously not had the opportunity to obtain. In order to be educated, you had to have your ignorance exposed and either corrected, or completely eliminated. Or, at least, that used to be the definition of an education. Now, education is simply the reinforcement of previously held opinions and biases. Colleges and universities are no longer institutions where you attend to have your worldview challenged and expanded, they are now simply places where you go to have your prejudices given official sanction. Primary and secondary schools have become the principle avenue of leftist indoctrination. We no longer teach our children the basics of civics, and “reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic,” we teach social Marxism, gender fluidity, and the skill of demanding one’s personal opinions as absolute rights.

Thank goodness the church is not affected, you say. Ahem, cough, cough. The church is probably one of the worst promoters of our age of narcissism. Consider the average “worship” song these days. Worship is all about “my” relationship with Jesus, my “bff”. We sing and talk about how Jesus died to save “me” and to make “my life” all better. Funny, but you rarely read the New Testament authors write such things. For them, Christ died to save the church – the community of God. While “I” am certainly a part of “us,” the emphasis in the New Testament is on the community, the church, the entire people of God. And, yes, there have always been songs such as “Amazing Grace” which focus on the “I,” (as do a majority of the Psalms). The emphasis of those songs, and Psalms, is on the collective “I.” In other words, there is a community that speaks as the “I.” This is made clear in any textbook that discusses the Psalms. It is a fascinating, and prevalent, viewpoint of the Israelite people. Then there is the purely narcissistic use of the personal pronoun, and what I hear in most contemporary Christian music is entirely that of the latter Americanized version, and not the ancient Israelite version.

The last three or four decades of church growth curriculum has focused entirely on the individual and his or her wants. This is nauseatingly evident in the “Seeker Sensitive” churches spawned by Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek phenomenon. However, it is just as present, although somewhat more hidden, in the “Emergent Church” folly of the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Both the “Seeker Sensitive” church and the “Emergent” church reaction were focused on the wants and preferences of the individual. In the case of the “Seeker Sensitive” church the goal was to remove any aspect of “religiosity” from the church (a bizarre and irrational move, if you ask me), and the reaction of the “Emergent Church” was to restore the outward symbols of Christianity while gutting it of its most exclusive (and thus, embarrassing) claims. Thus, a person could be a member of a “Seeker Sensitive” church or an “Emergent” church and have all of their personal needs met, while not even remotely being confronted with the life changing and culture shattering aspects of New Testament christianity.

So, if we are firmly entrenched in the age of narcissism, what is our destiny? Consider, if you will, the parallels between our narcissism and the narcissism of the Roman empire. The emperors increasingly came to view themselves as divine – as gods. It started with their deification after they had been dead for a while, but soon that was not good enough. What good is being declared a god if you are not alive to enjoy divine worship? So, over time the emperors allowed themselves to be declared “gods” (or did so on their own) so they could enjoy the perks of divinity. Also, as the empire grew and became more diverse (losing its sense of “community”) it became more brutal, especially in regard to conquered peoples. Further, strict sexual taboos were weakened to the point of nonexistence. Finally, “Religion” became a matter of publicly placating local deities and was of utter inconsequence beyond matters of personal conscience.

As I see American culture, we are following in the footsteps of Rome almost exactly. Our politicians are increasingly demanding we submit to their cult of personality. In other words, we are to elect them, not for the service they have in the past or can in the future provide to our commonwealth, but simply because they are “divine” individuals and we owe our fealty to them. Our culture is growing more brutal by the year – note, for example, the stratospheric growth of the phenomenon of Mixed Martial Arts gladiatorial fights. We abort babies by the millions, and leave our elderly to die unattended and unloved. Sexual barriers are being dismantled wholesale. We now allow men and boys unfettered access to women’s restrooms and locker rooms just because they “feel” like they are women. The concept of religious belief has been eviscerated. It is okay to be religious, so long as you worship the pagan gods of modern culture, and if you keep your religion to yourself. Do not even dare to make the claim that Christ and his cross destroys the culture of the “prince of the power of the air” as Paul describes it in Ephesians 1.

So, what is our destiny? Where is the Roman empire? Or the Greek? Or the Persian? Or the Babylonian? Or the Egyptian? Yeah, I thought so.

Book Review – The Recovery of Mission (Vinoth Ramachandra)

Vinoth Ramachandra, The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 284 pages, with extensive endnotes and comprehensive bibliography.

I get my book suggestions/recommendations mostly from my social media feeds, primarily Twitter (I follow a couple of major book publishers) and through blogs and other odds and ends kinds of sources. This book was recommended personally by a “digital” friend – someone I’ve never met in “3-D” but someone who corresponds with me via this blog. I was extremely hesitant at first because (hangs head in shame) I just was not convinced anyone with the last name of “Ramachandra” could write anything of substance regarding Christianity and the plague of pluralism. To my friend’s great credit he kept asking if I had read the book, and so I finally put it on my “wish list.” I eventually had the time slot and the money to buy the book, and I am very, very, grateful to my friend for consistently pushing me to consider it. It is worth every penny, and a significant addition to the conversation regarding where Christianity is headed. I have to note here that the publication date is 1996 – what would the author’s opinion be today?!

Ramachandra begins with a critique of three authors who, independently and with different emphases, seek to blend Christianity into what they would consider a healthy pluralistic religious amalgamation. They each object to any claim of exclusivism by Christians, and in varying ways attempt to prove that every religion has a common core that should be accepted and valued by everyone, and that no one single religion has a monopoly of what is true, or right, or normal. I have to say that this first part was extremely difficult for me to follow, as I am not at all familiar with Hinduism or Buddhism, and the writers the author critiques are related primarily to those East Indian religions. The main culprit of religious intolerance, according to each of the authors Ramachandra critiques, is clearly Christianity, and each of them suggests that it is Christianity that has the most to repent of in terms of humanity reaching a consensus of religious truth and tolerance.

In part II, Ramachandra draws parallels between the three authors and addresses those parallels more generically. It is in this part that he introduces Lesslie Newbigin, which was enlightening to me. Having just recently started reading Newbigin, it was interesting to me to read a critique of Newbigin, although it is a favorable (and constructive) critique.

It was in the third part that I feel the value of this book lies (although, to grasp what Ramachandra says in part III you have to work through the first two parts!) In part III discusses “The Scandal of Jesus,” “A Gospel for the World,” and “Gospel Praxis” (a fancy word for ‘work’ or ‘practice.’) Here Ramachandra specifically points out that in order to be genuine, the Christian message must be scandalous. It is exclusive. It is not authoritarian (as in the mistaken form of Constantinian “Christendom,” but it is most certainly exclusive). The more acceptable a person tries to make Christianity in relation to the major world religions, the less Christian it becomes. In other words, you cannot make Christianity merely a sub-specie of the generic word “religion.” The belief in Jesus of Nazareth is unique, exclusive, and therefore exclusionary of the major tenets of these world religions.

I should add here that Ramachandra does a good job of pointing out a necessary corollary – people who insist that Christianity can be made compatible with other world religions (especially the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism) do not fully understand those religions, or intentionally misrepresent them. The deeper one understands those religions it becomes apparent that they are just as exclusive, and that they are completely incompatible, with Christianity. Stated another way, you really have to  change those religions as much as you would have to change Christianity in order to make each of them compatible with each other.

This point to a huge issue I have with so many proclaimers of Christian pluralists today. One, they utterly misunderstand Christianity. Two, they utterly misunderstand the world view that they claim is superior to Christianity, and that they try to make Christianity conform to. I believe most Christian pluralists today loathe Christianity, and their complete unwillingness to view the Christian faith from the pages of the New Testament, choosing rather to cherry-pick obvious failings of the Christian centuries (the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Wars of Religion, etc.) makes it obvious their critiques are not genuine. Their blindness to the moral failings of the major world religions is equally disastrous for their agenda. You simply cannot overlook the atrocities committed by Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and others against persons of differing faiths.

Okay, I apologize for getting a little preachy here, so I have to get back to Ramachandra’s book. He does raise some questions (and points to answers I am not sure I can accept), but in general he remains faithful to what most would consider “creedal” Christianity – the Christianity of the first two or three centuries. Perhaps his most critical question is this – what is the eternal destiny of those who have never had a chance to hear of the saving work of Jesus? The pluralist wants to say that all roads (and religions) lead to God and heaven. Ramachandra will not go there – but he does suggest that the blood of Christ is effectual even for those who have not specifically heard of Jesus. This is a question that is just above my pay grade for me to answer, but as most pluralists will begin with this question in order to push their agenda, it is one that must be addressed by every disciple of Christ.

At over twenty years, this book is just beginning to get a little “long of tooth,” but it is contemporary enough to be valuable for Christians, and especially Christian teachers (preachers, elders, Bible school teachers) to read. Whether you agree with his answers or not, you need to hear and to consider the questions he raises. His deft, and in my opinion, powerful, responses to three different, but common, objections to the exclusiveness of Christ are important to consider.

This book is a valuable addition to the section of my library that includes Os Guinness and Lesslie Newbigin. They write from entirely different points of view, but each in his own way points in the same direction. The faith of Jesus Christ is exclusive, and to be faithful to Jesus his disciples must honestly and fearlessly present that exclusiveness. Any attempt to marginalize or minimize the message of the cross is simply heretical.

Why is that such a hard message for ministers of the church to understand?