I would be willing to wager that most of you have seen this on a bumper sticker or t-shirt or sign somewhere in the last few years.

The image was designed by a Polish graphic designer named Piotr Mlodozeniec in 2001. In Mlodozeniec’s original design, the only letters that had religious symbols were the “c” the “x” and the “t” in order to represent Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the three great monotheistic religions, as they are called. It was later altered by a company in Indiana who took it, added other symbols to it, marketed it, trademarked it, and began threatening lawsuits against those who sold the image without paying for it. Needless to say, this made Mlodozeniec unhappy and he has publicly said that the Coexist company postures as idealists but are really just seeking money. Perhaps the person to make it most famous was Bono, the lead singer of U2, who has used the image in his concerts. Mlodozeniec is generally ok with U2 using it, but has said that his efforts to speak with U2’s people have been unsuccessful and he does think they should give him credit for the original design.[1]

I mention those details mainly to point out that the primary players around the Coexist movement seem to be having some difficulty…well…coexisting.

The image is, on the surface, fairly obvious and compelling. It spells out the word “Coexist” using various symbols, mainly, but not only, religious in nature. The message, ostensibly, is that the various religions of the world need to learn to coexist peacefully and in understanding with one another.

In other words, “Coexist” is an acknowledgement of what we today would call pluralism, which is the recognition that numerous religions, worldviews, and philosophies exist side-by-side in the world today (as, I should point out, has always been the case in the world). Pluralism seeks to acknowledge this reality and, in general, it seeks to call for understanding.

On the surface, of course, this is understandable. If on your street you live beside Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists, of course you should seek to coexist peacefully. Simply following the commands of Jesus and loving our neighbors as ourselves should lead to this without the help of a bumper sticker.

So that is one form of pluralism: acknowledging that many viewpoints exist in our country and striving for peaceful coexistence. Fine and good. I completely agree.

But modern pluralism in the West tends to go deeper than this and is in fact buttressed by certain other ideas. Specifically, modern pluralism tends be colored today by relativism, the idea that there is no absolute truth, and universalism, the idea, among those who believe in an afterlife anyway, that all will be ultimately saved, that it does not matter what religion you adhere to, and that, in the end, all religions are just shots in the dark that lead equally and eventually to some sort of blissful eternity.

In this version of pluralism, that I am going to call pluralistic universalism, there is a dark side. This version of pluralism does not call for us merely to understand, it calls for us to reject any exclusive claims to truth and to believe that all religions are equally true. Consequently, it calls for us to view any claims of actual truthfulness on the parts of one religion as arrogant, intolerant, foolish, and, indeed, imperialistic, that is, having an inherent desire to denigrate and destroy other faiths. Perhaps the greatest offense to a modern pluralistic society is the Christian attempt to see people convert to Christianity. Brad Wheeler has called “conversion” the new dirty word.

Conversion is a dirty word. It’s scandalous in today’s pluralistic and relativistic world to contend for one religious truth over and against another. It smacks of pride, arrogance, disrespect, perhaps hatred, maybe even violence. This is the consensus among many of the secular elite.

Wheeler goes on to quote a letter written to the Pope John Paul II from Hindu scholar Swami Dayananda Saraswati in which the Swami warns that “religious conversion destroys centuries-old communities and incites communal violence. It is violence and it breeds violence.” [2] Do note his wording: “It is violence and it breeds violence.”

This modern pluralistic universalism is aggressive and is being aggressively promoted, especially among the young. Our children will graduate college having been taught with all sincerity that if they actually believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, they are indulging in arrogance, folly, and even a kind of violence against those who disagree, for, in modern America anyway, it appears to be the case that simple disagreement is now a form of violence.

It is this modern version of pluralism and all of its implications that I wish to address today. Specifically, I wish to address it as it relates to the question, “Is Jesus the only way?” Christians have historically believed that Jesus is the only way to the Father. This was clearly the view of Jesus, of the apostles, of the early church, and of the Church in the main throughout the last two thousand years.

However, this assertion of exclusivity is now considered rude and possibly even dangerous. So the question is, is it true? Is it true and should we still hold to the belief that Jesus is the way and the only way to the Father? And does holding to a belief in the supreme truthfulness of Jesus Christ and His gospel above all rival claims render us somehow dangerous, intolerant, and arrogant?

The gospel that Jesus preached was universal in its invitation but exclusive in its content.

The question before all other questions is this: did Jesus teach that He was the only way? In other words, did Jesus believe that Jesus was the only way?

The primary text for our consideration is found in John 14. In this chapter, Jesus is comforting His disciples and preparing them for His eventual ascension to heaven.

¹ “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. ² In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? ³ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. ⁴ And you know the way to where I am going.” ⁵ Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?”

Thomas’ question revealed that the answer Jesus felt the disciples should know was not one that they did in fact know. “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus’ response is most telling.

⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

The article that Jesus uses is significant: “the.” “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” And then notice the assertion of exclusivity: “No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Against all sentimental fuzziness and all ecumenical universalism and all universalistic pluralism, Jesus pronounces a most jarring truth: there is only one way and that way is Jesus.

I once preached on this verse and was somewhat surprised to receive an angry letter from a church member concerning the implications I drew from it. I had preached then as I am preaching now that Jesus and Jesus alone is the way to the Father. In this church member’s letter to me he expressed great disappointment at this narrow message I was preaching and expressed that he did not want to be a part of a church that would dare pronounce that we alone were ultimately right. He then (inexplicably) wrote that the Constitution of the United States insured religious liberty for its citizens to believe whatever they want. I say “inexplicably” because I of course realize and agree with that latter fact. I never have thought that citizenship should be tied to theological truth. I am not in favor of forced conversions. But, for the Church, we must continue to proclaim what the Church at her best has always proclaimed: that Jesus and Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life.

The exclusivity of the content of the gospel does not negate the universality of the invitation of Christianity. Christ alone saves, but we call upon all people everywhere to come to the Christ who alone saves.

You can see this dynamic between exclusive content and universal appeal in the words of Jesus from Matthew 11.

²⁷ All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. ²⁸ Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰ For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Do you see?

The exclusivity of the content: “no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

The universality of the invitation: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”

The Church must hold to both of these realities.

The saving work that Jesus accomplished leaves no room for other alleged saving works.

What is more, the saving work that Jesus accomplished leaves no room for other alleged saving works. In short, what Christ did, He said He was doing for the world. The words of John 3:16 speak to this clearly: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Who does God love? The world. For whom did God send His only begotten Son? The world.

The saving work of Christ is directed toward and opens the door for the whole world, that is, for all who will come to Him in repentance and faith. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul makes a further claim about the saving work of Christ that likewise involves the whole world.

²¹ For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

By depicting Christ as the second Adam who undoes what Adam has done, Paul was making a claim about the worldwide scope of Christ’s saving work. Thus, Jesus did not lay down his life for a localized tribe but rather for all the peoples of the world. In so doing, He left no room for competing saviors. He alone is Savior.

David Lynch is a fascinating and eclectic movie and TV director who is perhaps most well known for his hit series “Twin Peaks” from the early 1990’s. A former Presbyterian, he appears to have a deep interest in spirituality. He said, “I sort of think that the great religions are like rivers. Each one is beautiful and they all flow into one ocean.”

Now this is a very modern thing to say, and, on the surface, it sounds so very nice. But please note that the only way that sentiment is true is if Jesus’ claims of laying down His life for the whole world are false. Meaning, if Christ Jesus truly was nailed to the cross for the sins of the world and then rose victorious over sin, death, and hell, in what possible way is that “river” flowing to the same place as the “river” that says He did none of these things?

A dose of basic logic might help us here. Mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true. Christianity says that Jesus laid down His life for the sins of the world. Islam, for example, says clearly that He did not. Logically, both of these assertions might be false, or one might be true and the other false, but what clearly cannot be the case is that both be true. Yet it is this idea that many in the world have seized upon: that they as well as all other competing claims are all true!

Understand that if you indulge in this kind of pluralistic universalism you must either deny or shrink the saving work of Christ. However, in doing so, you will be denying what Jesus said was so: “For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son…”

The missionary mandate that Jesus gave to His Church assumes the exclusive truth of the gospel.

There is also the matter of the missionary mandate that Jesus gave His Church. In Matthew 28, Jesus calls upon His followers to go into the whole world, taking the gospel with them, and making disciples.

¹⁸ And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Jesus clearly did not see this as an arrogant thing to command or an imperialistic or colonial thing to command. He clearly saw evangelism as an act of love. But it being love flows the premise that the gospel is true. In other words, if the gospel is true and Jesus is the only way to the Father then it is love to advance the gospel throughout the world and it is cruelty not to do so.

It is profoundly difficult to harmonize pluralistic universalism with Christ’s call to world missions. Many have stumbled over just this call.

For instance, on December 6, 1999, Time magazine decided to put Jesus on its end-of-the-year cover, as many of these magazines often do around Christmas. Furthermore, they asked the famed novelist Reynolds Price to write a major piece reflecting on who Jesus Christ was and is and what He has meant for the world. It was a very well written and fascinating article in which Reynolds Price spoke of his own faith in and appreciation for Jesus Christ.

But something surprising happened at the end of the article, something tragic. As Reynolds Price concluded his article, he spoke of the great difference that Jesus can make in our lives and in the world. Then he said that even though he personally believed in Jesus, He found that he could not follow Jesus in one particular area. Listen to what this area is.

            Yet a person who shares Jesus’ belief in himself may feel what I cannot – that one must accept his final instruction to the disciples at the end of Matthew: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go then and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and see, I am with you all the days to the end of the age.”

He then went on to say that too many people have done too much harm in the world in the name of the Great Commission and that he chooses not to listen to Jesus in this area. It is a frustrating thing to read, but a profoundly honest one as well. Regardless, a refusal to follow Jesus’ command to take the gospel to the nations is a palpably modern kind of refusal. One wonders if Price really has refused to do so because of the sins of Christians in the past or because doing so flies very much in the face of pluralistic universalism.

Again, the Swami who I quoted earlier plainly asserted his conviction that conversion is violence. In the modern paradigm, it is easy to understand how it is viewed thus, because in the modern paradigm there is really no such thing as truth at all. Thus, (a) assertions that one has the truth and (b) appeals for others to abandon what they think is true and adopt the truth above all other truths are repugnant notions.

Let us be sure of this, however: a person who professes to be a believer but who does not believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father is not going to pour heart, mind, body, and soul into the mission field. On the other, a person who professes to be a believer but does indeed believe that Jesus is the only way will be unable to be silent.

The exclusivity of Jesus Christ and the commission to take the gospel to the nations walk hand-in-hand.

Concluding Thoughts on Responding to Pluralistic Universalism

I would finally like to offer some random observations about pluralistic universalism that I think should be taken into consideration.

• We must remember that pluralistic universalism is a theological claim arising out of modern sentimentalism whereas the exclusivity of Jesus Christ is a theological claim derived from Jesus’ on words and actions.

One of the many modern maladies we face is the world today is the malady of groupthink, the malady of the pressure to believe something is true or to see something as wise simply because many people are saying that it is so. When one is caught up in groupthink, one fails to evaluate the origins of ideas. But asking where an idea came from can go a long way in helping us to see an idea for what it truly is.

For instance, pluralistic universalism is a theological claim emanating from modern sentimentalism. It is not borne of rigorous thought or even of a love for the truth. It is borne of a modern sentimentalism that cannot bring itself to believe that truth exists or that truth may be situated in a single source. Modern sentimentalism cannot bear to say, “You are wrong.” Modern sentimentalism cannot bear to say, “You are mistaken.”

But where does the idea that Christ is the only way come from? It comes from Jesus Himself, the Son of God, who came to proclaim freedom and liberation and forgiveness and eternal life! I ask you: with whom would you rather cast your lot? A modern society that does not seem to know up from down or Jesus?

• We must remember that pluralistic universalism is not opposed to Christian truth per se. It is really opposed to truth itself.

One of the other dangers of groupthink is that its saccharine exterior blinds us to the truly pernicious implications of what it asserts and the truly dark regions from whence it emanates. For example, we can get so caught up in the modern call for a leveling of all theological differences and for a rejection of all exclusive truth claims that we fail to realize that pluralistic universalism does not only undermine Christian exclusivism, it undermines truth itself. The primary objection of pluralistic universalism is not really that Jesus is the only way, it is that there is a way at all. It is built on a premise of hyper-skepticism and it is truly claiming that no man can know any truth definitively at all.

Thus, pluralistic universalism is selling more than it pretends to be selling…and what it is selling is outright anarchy.

• We must remember that pluralistic universalism is self-defeating. If it is true that no theological claims can be considered ultimately true, then the theological claim that no theological claims can be considered ultimately true is also untrue.

But it does not come right out and say this. Instead, pluralistic universalism actually does claim to know one essential truth: its own claim of pluralistic universalism. But surely this is nonsensical. Just think about it: pluralistic universalism claims that no theological statement can be known with certainty. However, pluralistic universalism is itself a theological statement. It is as much a statement as the statement, “God is love,” or, “Jesus is Lord.” The statement of pluralistic universalism is, “No theological statements can be considered ultimately true or should be privileged over other theological statements.” But if that is true then the statement, “No theological statements can be considered ultimately true or should be privileged over other theological statements,” likewise cannot be known to be true and likewise should not be privileged.

In other words, if the premise of pluralistic universalism is true then pluralistic universalism is itself unknowable and, for all we know, false. If it is true, then we indeed cannot know anything…including pluralistic universalism.

• The fact that Christianity is the one and only truth does not mean we cannot find points of commonality in other religions to help us begin our evangelistic conversations.

C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through.” By which he meant that there are usually certain ethical agreements among religions, and, on these commonalities, we can make points of connection. Modern pluralistic universalism would tell us to make the connection, then stop and simply celebrate the connection forever. Christianity says on the contrary that we should make points of connection in order to advance the gospel in the world.

For instance, if your Muslim neighbor tells you that Islam teaches that we should be honest and upright in our dealings with men, you should acknowledge that as a truth that is shared between the two religions. However, you should then ask, “Why do you think we should be honest and upright?” It is quite possible when you do so that you will be told by the Muslim that we should be honest and upright so that Allah might be pleased with us and welcome us in eternity. But that introduces a significant difference between the two faiths: the idea of works righteousness or the idea of somehow earning our way to heaven. And, at that point, the Christian can begin to speak in response of man’s inability to ever be honest or upright enough and of God’s loving solution to man’s predicament in the sending of Christ.

I would contend that Paul did precisely this in Acts 17 when he was in Athens, Greece. Notice how he found a point of commonality and then used that point of commonality to advance toward the gospel.

²² So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. ²³ For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. ²⁴ The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, ²⁵ nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. ²⁶ And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, ²⁷ that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us

The point of commonality was worship. The Athenians were a worshiping people. So are Christians. Paul seizes upon this. He notes their religious nature and establishes a point of contact. But Paul, not being a modern American pluralistic universalist, was not content to stop there. He moved from the common experience of worship to tell them that their conception of God was woefully inadequate, that God is knowable and irreducible and that God has come to us and we can now come to Him.

This is a beautiful model, church!

We should seize upon points of agreement between the religions, but then we should move on to the heart of the gospel: Jesus Christ.

• The fact that the gospel is an offense does not give us a mandate to be needlessly offensive. We should be fiercely convictional in the truth and clear and loving in how we proclaim the truth.

Lastly, though I would hope I do not actually need to point this out, let me remind us that the fact that the exclusivity of the gospel is inherently offensive to modern man does not mean that we should therefore strive to be needlessly offensive ourselves. If we are going to offend, let the gospel do it. We are call by Jesus to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16), and not a blowtorch and sandpaper. We should emanate the sweet aroma of Christ, not the stench of anger, belligerence, and irritation.

Your non-Christian friend is a human being. He or she needs to see that Jesus is glorious, not that you are angry. He or she needs to see that Christ is quick to save, not that you are quick to belittle or dismiss. They need to see that Christ is moving towards them, not that you are moving away from them.

We should, Church, run to the world with the light of the gospel, the light of peace, hope, glory, and joy!

Is Jesus the only way? Yes! Yes He is!

And what a glorious way He is!

 

^[1] See https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/21/coexist-s-bonehead-bumper-sticker-politics.html and https://www.atu2.com/news/cant-we-all-just-coexist.html

[2] Brad Wheeler, “One of the Dirtiest Words Today: C——–n.” Nine Marks eJournal. (November-December 2006), www.9marks.org