World Religions Comprehensive Exam - Question #3

NOTE: This is the final of my three world religions comprehensive exam questions. Early next week I will post the third of my worldview & apologetics exam questions. As a reminder, these are unmodified versions of essay exam responses - I had 80 minutes for each question, with no resources at hand. This one was fun to work through - hope you enjoy it!

QUESTION C. A few scholars and any number of anti-cult activists see parallels between Islam and the LDS Church. Compare and contrast the rise and development of these two movements and then evaluate the potential of the LDS as a “new Islam”.

About a month ago, I talked to a friend in Edmonton who is now the youth pastor at a small Baptist church. Years ago he led a student mission trip to Utah, and has engaged in significant research into the history and doctrine of the LDS Church. I mentioned to him that I was researching the comparisons between Islam and Mormonism. His response was immediate: “Oh yeah, there are such close parallels; it’s so obvious!”

Two days ago, I had a conversation with a neighbor who is studying at the seminary, and mentioned that I was preparing to write on the parallels between Islam and the LDS Church. His response was just as immediate: “I don’t see it; what are you talking about?”

Is there a legitimate parallel? In this essay, I will argue that there are a number of historical and theological parallels between Islam and the LDS Church, both in their origins and development. However, I will conclude that the discontinuities are greater than the parallels, and that the LDS actually has the potential to be a stronger, more influential Islam.

I. Historical Context

Islam and Mormonism both arose in a context of significant religious turmoil. Mohammad’s Arabia had been dominated by polytheism for centuries; small communities of monotheistic Jews and Christians were present, but relatively unimportant on the Arabian peninsula. There was also, however, a smattering of emerging Arabic monotheists. The global Christian community during Mohammad’s day was fractured and divided – Nestorians, Monophysites, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics viewed each other with considerable suspicion. The powerful Empires persecuted the Nestorian and Monophysite ‘heresies’. It also seems that the form of Christianity with which Mohammad was most familiar was some unknown perversion of the faith, which worshiped God the Father, Mary his sexual consort, and Jesus his biological offspring (a distinctly unorthodox trinity, to be sure).

Joseph Smith’s American context was similarly embroiled in religious upheaval. Christian monotheism was the unquestioned truth of the day, but Protestant America was divided and fragmented. The Restoration movements (Campbellites) were getting underway, and millenarianism (resulting eventually in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church) was strong as well. Yet there was considerable spiritual hunger in both historical contexts: monasticism and mysticism were powerful in 7th-century Arabia; spiritism and superstition in 19th-century America.

II. Founding Prophet & Revelation
The similarities between the founding prophet and revelation of Islam and the LDS are quite striking. Both men receive messages from angelic visitors – the angel Gabriel for Mohammad, the angel Moroni for Smith. On the other hand, Mohammad is a mature man of 40 at the time of his first revelation, while Smith is a youth of 14. Angelic visitations continue for both men, eventually leading to divine revelations.

Here the differences begin to emerge. Mohammad, who tradition holds was illiterate, receives divine revelation in distinctly oral form – the Qur’an is a command to ‘recite’, a recitation. God’s Word is dictated to and through Mohammad, and is later written down. Smith, on the other hand, is guided to uncover buried golden tablets, which contain the written Word of God preserved for him. Smith is then led to translate the divine revelation through the use of special glasses. God’s Word is already written down for Smith; he only needs to translate it.

Nonetheless, for both Mohammad and Smith, the angelic visitations and divine revelations are the beginning of something new, but simultaneously the recovery of something old and lost. Mohammad held that he was restoring Abrahamic monotheism, which had been revealed through the previous Scriptures, but was then corrupted and violated by later generations of Jews and Christians. Smith held that he was restoring primitive Christianity, which had been revealed through the New Testament, but was then compromised and corrupted by philosophical Greek Christians (Platonic Christianity).

Both Mohammad and Smith, then, viewed the former Scriptures as valuable but corrupted. Hence, the former Scriptures were now being supervened through God’s further revelations. The precise words of divine revelation were crucial in both cases – being particularly revealed through recitation to Mohammad and through inscribed translation to Smith.

A significant difference exists, however. Smith’s Book of Mormon (the golden tablets translated with the glasses) was a one-time revelation, which Smith transcribed and translated and then kept. Mohammad’s Qur’an was revealed over the remainder of his life (610 – 632 A.D.), one Sura (chapter) at a time. Smith did receive further divine revelations during the remainder of his life as well – they were recorded in additional books, particularly the Doctrine & Covenants.

Significantly, however, Muslims hold firmly that divine revelation ceased with the death of Mohammad. The revelations he received from the angel Gabriel were divinely-inspired and sanctioned; but there is no continued revelation through other prophets. Smith, on the other hand, insisted that he was not alone within the Mormon community in receiving divine revelation. Indeed, he emphasized that other Mormon leaders would continue to receive divine revelation after his death. Revelation, in LDS theology, is an ongoing process; revelation, in Muslim doctrine, is complete. This difference cannot be overstated – it represents a chasm between Islam and the LDS Church which cannot be bridged. The parallels have their limits, at which point the discontinuities rise up and outstrip them.

Scholars and (particularly) anti-cult activists often focus on the place of polygamy as a central parallel between Islam and the LDS Church. Indeed, both religions, in their early years, permitted polygamy. But even here there are strong differences. In the first place, Islam did not command polygamy; it merely permitted it within certain restraints and guidelines. It was not considered the norm. Early Mormonism, however, actively promoted polygamy as the rightful natural family relationship. Furthermore, Islam was always open with regards to its permission of polygamy (although many now argue that the Qur’an implicitly tells Muslims that they ought not to engage in such practice). Smith, on the other hand, clandestinely instituted polygamy within the Mormon community, and even denied that it was practiced for a time. Polygamy was viewed in 19th-century America as a bane of devilish intent, and open admission of polygamous practice would have been the death knell for early Mormonism. Finally, the LDS adherence to the doctrine of continuing revelation allowed the Church to outlaw polygamy in the 1890s in order to avoid extinction at the hands of the United States army. Islam never had the resources or the need to eradicate polygamy from its scriptures. To sum up: Islamic polygamy was the exception to the rule, not normative, always open and never denied; Mormon polygamy was hidden and denied at the beginning, then promoted as normative and spiritually healthy, and finally banned by further divine revelation. If this were the sole (or even primary) parallel between Islam and the LDS Church, I would insist that the parallel is so weak as to be meaningless in the end.

A final discontinuity with regards to the founding prophet and revelation of Islam and the LDS Church is with regards to the issue of succession. Mohammad quite clearly did not designate a means of secure succession. He did, apparently, appoint his immediate successor; but beyond that it was entrusted to the wisdom of the umma as a whole to determine future leaders. Smith, on the other hand, developed an elaborate hierarchy of priests and leaders from which future leaders would emerge quite naturally. The consequences of this difference is evident down to the contemporary situation, where LDS leadership is strongly institutionalized and organized, while Islamic leadership is fairly diffuse and localized.

III. Rise and Development

Both Islam and the LDS Church spread and grew rapidly. The political growth of Islam is well-marked through their conquests of Persia, Byzantium, and North Africa. The numerical growth of the LDS Church has been similarly remarkable. From inauspicious beginnings, the LDS Church has emerged as a major religious force in the world – what Rodney Stark calls the most recent successful New Religious Movement. There are evident parallels between the growth and development of Islam and the LDS Church; but again there are also significant discontinuities that throw the significance of the parallels into question. I will look first at the historical development, then at the theological development, of Islam and Mormonism.

A. Historical Development

Islam and the LDS Church began with a common perspective on the nature of the faith. Both desired to integrate faith with a full economic, political, and social system. Mohammad viewed the Islamic umma as the integrated, unified people of God; Smith viewed the LDS Church as the purified church who would live corporately in obedience to His revealed commands. Mohammad and Smith shared a vision of a comprehensive, cohesive, this-worldly faith. Their faith provided all that was needed for the political, economic, and social leadership of a corporate body.
Both Mohammad and Smith pursued the implementation of that corporate vision. Both initially met with considerable opposition from the established powers that be – the polytheistic pagans of Mecca and the unsympathetic Protestants of America. Both then fled to perceived safer havens – the hijra to Medina and the Mormon establishment of Nauvoo. Muslims mark their calendars by the hijra (A.H. – after hijra), because that is when Islam was able to take full effect upon a corporate body. The Mormon flight was a little more elaborate. Nauvoo proved to be vulnerable to external opposition as well, and after Smith’s death the LDS community began a long trek to present-day Utah. The Mormon calendar is marked by that trek – July 24 being the day that the Great Salt Lake came into the view of the pilgrims. There is certainly a strong parallel between the LDS and Islam with regards to the founding corporate vision, and the commitment to move to a place where that vision could be pursued and actualized.

But the parallel ends with the Mormon trek to Utah. Mohammad’s Muslim community immediately engaged in aggressive warfare with the polytheistic powers of Mecca and the Arabian peninsula, and emerged victorious. After solidifying their hold on Arabia, Muslim armies swept out of Arabia and conquered the tired armies of Persia, Byzantium, and North Africa. The LDS Church has no parallel for the Muslim conquests. Instead, the geopolitical circumstances that the young LDS Church encountered was not that of a decadent, declining world empire; but rather that of a strong, vibrant American nation flush with manifest destiny. When gold was discovered in the west, Utah became of significant interest to the American government. The Mormons were not left alone to achieve their utopian religious vision; federal troops interfered. After the conclusion of the civil war, the federal government turned its full attention to Utah, and the LDS Church found itself under siege, particularly due to the now-open practice of polygamy. Under intense pressure, and the threat of financial and corporate extinction, president Woodruff (?name?) ‘received’ a further ‘revelation’ that the time for polygamy within the LDS Church was now past. Polygamy was renounced and ‘abandoned’, at least officially (unofficial polygamy persisted for some years).

Thus, while the budding Islamic empire established its pre-eminence in its homeland and burst forth from there to expand a unified political-religious empire; the fledgling LDS Church withdrew to Utah, where it was besieged and eventually had to capitulate to the dominant federal government. In other words, Islam achieved its vision of a unified church-state; Mormonism failed to do so.

B. Theological Development

(1) Theology: The Muslim and Mormon conceptions of God are not only discontinuous, they are contradictory. The only parallel they have is heterodoxy with regards to traditional Christianity. The Muslim God is absolutely unitary, and fundamentally transcendent. The Mormon God is definitely triune, and fundamentally immanent. Allah created man; the Mormon God began as a man, and progressed to divinity. Muslims cannot intimately know God (setting aside the Sufi quest for the time being); Mormons can not only know God, they can become God themselves.

(2) Revelation: The Muslim and Mormon conceptions of divine revelation differ in a similar fashion. To Muslims, God’s revelation is complete and final. There is no need of further revelation, since God’s revelation through the Qur’an is complete. What is needed now is obedience and right practice. To Mormons, however, God’s revelation is continuous. God continues to speak to the elders and prophets within the LDS Church, and the body of Scripture thus continues to grow – this is anathema to Muslims! Furthermore, Mormons (like Christians) believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to believers to provide immediate divine guidance throughout daily life. Again, to Muslims, this is blasphemous.

(3) Founding Figures: Speaking ill of Mohammad is a capital offense in many Muslim countries. The prophet is held in high reverence. Indeed, the shahadah (declaration of faith) is not solely “There is one God, Allah,” but also, “and Mohammad is his messenger.” A Muslim will not smile upon reviling the name of Allah; but a Muslim will not tolerate reviling the name of Mohammad. Through the development of the hadith and sunna (the traditions of the further teachings and practices of Mohammad), the example of the prophet is held up as the perfect Islamic ideal. Mohammad never claimed to be sinless, but later Muslims make that claim for him. The situation is considerably different within the LDS Church. When apologists like Stephen Robinson try to emphasize the similarities of Mormonism and evangelicalism, they tend to avoid speaking of Joseph Smith at any length. Smith is not rejected or renounced; he is merely ignored and downplayed. He certainly does not hold the pre-eminent place in contemporary Mormonism that Mohammad continues to hold in contemporary Islam. (Indeed, I hear that the status of Joseph Smith has been removed from the main floor of the temple in Salt Lake City, and placed in hidden recesses of the basement.) Furthermore, Mormons emphasize that Smith admitted his own sinfulness and imperfection, a contrast to Islamic idealization of the prophet Mohammad.

(4) Priesthood: A final discontinuity in theological development has already been alluded to. Mohammad never established a priesthood, or a body of learned followers which would perpetuate the leadership of the Islamic umma. Smith, on the other hand, established orders of priesthood that would continue after his own death. Mormon hierarchy reaches its apex in the Order of the Twelve Apostles, who must have obtained to the highest level of priesthood (Melchizadek?) – it is from the Twelve Apostles that the future president of the LDS Church must arise. Succession in the LDS Church is organized and established; not so in Islam – hence the early split between Sunni and Shi’a over succession to Ali (the 4th caliph). Along the same lines, the LDS Church is a highly-structured, highly-institutionalized faith – a radical difference from the diffuse nature of worldwide Islam.

IV. The LDS Church as a New Islam?

Christian apologists and anti-cult activists are often strongly influenced by the relationship of Islam and the LDS Church to evangelical Christianity. From an orthodox Christian viewpoint, there are undeniable parallels between Islam and the LDS Church.

(1) Both arise in contexts where we can bemoan the failure of the Church to be the Church of Christ. The fragmentation, disunity, and disputation within Christianity in 7th-century Byzantium and 19th-century America is a blight upon the reputation of Christ’s Church, and fed the rise of new religious movements in Islam and Mormonism.

(2) Both faiths begin with male prophets who receive angelic visitations leading to new divine scriptures.

(3) Both faiths repudiate the corruptions within and deviations of contemporary Christianity.

(4) Both faiths contain misunderstandings of, or misrepresentations of, orthodox Christian belief.

(5) Both faiths represent ‘Christian heresies’.

(6) Both faiths grew with incredible rapidity, becoming worldwide faiths within 100-150 years.

(7) Fundamentally, both faiths are rejections of biblical Christianity, and are thus part of the ‘broad road’ of Matthew 7.

It is this last parallel which often dominates the mindset of Christian apologists – both Islam and the LDS Church draw people away from saving faith in Jesus Christ and into the false hope of a false religion.

If we get past those similarities and parallels, however, we discover (as I hope I have shown) that the discontinuities (and even contradictions) are far greater than the parallels.

What is the potential of the LDS Church as a ‘new Islam’? I think it is evident that there is no hope for the LDS Church to become a new Islam. Islam was, from the very beginning to the current day, a drive for a unified expression of religion, politics, and society. Islam is a way of life which governs an entire society. Islam expanded its reach through military conquest. Mormonism has not done any of that, nor is there any hope or expectation of its doing so in the future. The LDS Church has grown in the 20th century and beyond through evangelistic means. The dream of a utopian Mormon society has been replaced by the drive for a sanctified Mormon community within society.

From that perspective, however, the potential of the LDS Church in the contemporary world is perhaps even greater than that of Islam (aside from the incredible inferiority of numbers). The LDS Church is well-suited to accommodate itself to the reigning political philosophy of the society in which it exists. The emerging patriotism and political activism of Mormons in America is astounding, especially in comparison to the anti-American rhetoric of Mormonism in its first 50 years. The LDS Church can exist contentedly as a distinct minority in whatever context, seeking to grow through persuasion and evangelism, and not expecting to take political control or power. It remains to be seen whether Islam can do the same.

Is Mormonism a new Islam? No. There are undeniable parallels; but the discontinuities far outweigh them.

World Religions Comprehensive Exam - Question #2

NOTE: This is another unedited reproduction of an essay answer given on my comprehensive exams last week. Essay answers were given in 80 minutes, with no resources at hand; that will show a times!

QUESTION B. Describe the rise of Islam in the Modern West and evaluate the potential of Islam as a major player in the religious life and thought of the West in the 21st century.

The relationship between Islam and the West has been marked by mutual misunderstanding, suspicion, and hostility. Nonetheless, the latter half of the 20th century saw an increasing presence of Islam in Western (Christian) nations, both in the form of individual Muslims and Islamic organizations.

Earlier this week, I received an email from my uncle, which contained a forwarded 9-minute video clip. I cannot remember the name of the organization which produced the video (except insofar as it was a Catholic organization), but the video expressed what has become a common theme (a common fear, perhaps) amongst Westerners – Islam is poised to become the dominant force in Western Europe and North America, and by 2100 the West will no longer be ‘Christian’, but rather ‘Islamic’. The video was accompanied by ominous music, and was narrated in somber, funeral-home tones. Yet the facts expressed therein were undeniably true. Islamic presence in the West is certainly growing, and if trends continued unabated, there will be more Muslims than Christians in many Western nations within 50 years.

In this essay, I will seek to uncover the complex relationship between Western Christianity and Islam through the pre-modern and modern periods. I will briefly discuss the place of Islam in pre-modern Western Christianity, focusing upon the origin and spread of Islam and the Christian ‘Crusades’. I will then examine the relationship between western nations and Islamic states from 1400-1900, focusing on the Ottoman Turks, the Spanish Moors, and European colonialism. I will look at the 20th-century changes wrought by immigration and reconstruction, and survey the contemporary place of Muslims and Islamic institutions in Europe and North America. Finally, I will turn to evaluate the potential of Islam as a religious player in the West in the 21st century. I will outline the positions of strength, as well as noting some areas of vulnerability and weakness. I will conclude that Islam is well-positioned to be a significant force in the west, but that there are a number of vital questions that must be answered first.

I. Pre-Modern History

Islam was embroiled in controversy with Christianity from its very beginnings. Mohammad was certainly familiar with at least some form of Christianity (although it seems to be a heterodox Christianity which worshiped a perverse trinity of God, Mary, and Jesus), and initially expected Christians (like Jews) to embrace his prophetic message and join the new Islamic umma.

As the Muslim community grew, it expanded northward out of Arabia, and entered into military contest with the Zoroastrian Persian Empire as well as the Christian (Greek Orthodox) Byzantine Empire. The Persians and Byzantines had been continually at war with one another for centuries, and had been exhausted by their struggles. Both were ripe for the picking, and the Muslim armies swept through them quite quickly. The ‘Holy Land’ was conquered by the Muslims, and Islamic empires advanced towards the city of Constantinople. Muslim armies also swept through North Africa, which had been a bastion of Christianity, and pushed up across the Mediterranean into Spain until Charlemagne turned them back. As Muslim armies advanced, and Christendom assumed a defensive posture, the western Christian attitude became one of fear, resentment, and hostility toward Islam.

The Crusaders were launched a few centuries later with the professed goal of recapturing the Holy Lands for Christ. The conduct of the Crusaders was, by most accounts, appalling (not universally, but generally). Treaties with Muslim rulers were broken, civilians were slaughtered, cities were pillaged. The legacy of the Crusades still sits bitterly in the Muslim mindset. Muslims perceived the Christian West with suspicion and hostility and resentment.

Thus, by the outset of the modern period (arbitrarily designated about 1400 herein), Muslims and Christians had embraced mutual hostility for one another. There was misunderstanding, fear, resentment, and mistrust from both sides toward one another. Indeed, the legacy of that mindset is still evident in many westerners and Muslims alike today.

II. 1400-1900

During the modern period, the interaction of Islamdom and Christendom increased exponentially, but the presence of Christians in Muslim territories and Muslims in the West remained insignificant.

The Ottoman Empire (Turkish) expanded through the Balkans and into Eastern Europe. Constantinople was sacked in 1452, marking the Ottoman entrance into Europe proper. Vienna was besieged. Muslims were on the very doorstep of Europe, instilling further fear into western Christian minds.

Meanwhile, the Moors in Spain (Spanish Muslims) had been present for hundreds of years, but were driven out when Ferdinand consolidated his position in the late 1400s. At the same time, Europe began to gain control of the world’s shipping lanes, and commercial power began to come into European (instead of Muslim) hands.
As European military and commercial power increased throughout the 15th through 19th centuries, the presence of European colonialism increase accordingly. Colonial powers made their presence felt in traditionally Islamic territories. Unchecked centuries of Muslim expansion and dominance came to a screeching halt. Western Christendom felt vindicated; Muslims felt humiliated. The balance of power had shifted. But the pre-modern mindsets remained entrenched. Westerners continued to fear and resent Islam and Muslims, though now they could look down upon them as well. Muslims continued to mistrust and resent western ‘Christians’, but now had to bemoan their subjugated status as well. European colonialism did increase the presence of westerners in Islamic territories, and the presence of Muslims in the West. Western rulers went to the territories they governed, and had to interact with the local Muslims accordingly.

III. The Twentieth Century: Increasing Intermingling

Immigration from Islamdom to the west became a significant trend in the 20th century. Prior to 1900, there had been small waves of immigration from Muslim territories to various western nations. But generally these were few in number and significance. That changed dramatically in the 1900s.

Prior to World War I, a wave of economic immigrants flowed to the United States, Britain, and France from various Muslim countries. While these immigrants generally retained their Muslim status and beliefs, they did not generally form vibrant and vigorous Muslim communities. A few mosques dotted the landscape, but the Muslim immigrants were generally content simply to be here and left relatively alone.

Between the two World Wars, the flow of immigrants remained relatively light – particularly after the onset of the Great Depression in 1929. Again, immigration was primarily economic, with the added element of family reunification. Immigrants remained somewhat isolated, not forming strong distinct communities. The mindset of Muslim immigrants and their immigrant communities was affected by the geopolitical situation: Muslim territories around the world were being dominated by European (Christian) colonial masters, and the Muslim psyche was somewhat fragile and humiliated. Hence, Muslim communities in the West suffered from an inferiority complex of sorts. They were content to live and let live, and to quietly live Muslim lives amidst Christian majority populations.

After World War II, however, the trickle of immigrants became a flood. Western Europe had been devastated by the war, and significant reconstruction was necessary. With the death of a significant portion of their young adult population, however, manpower was lacking, and economic immigrants were actively recruited. Germany recruited large numbers of Turkish Muslims, North African Muslims flowed across the Mediterranean into France, while Indo-Pakistani Muslims were brought to Britain. Diverse groups of Muslims from those and other countries came to the United States and Canada to settle. The numbers of immigrants continued to increase as European colonialism came to an end and former colonies gained independence. Civil wars wracked many former colonial territories, resulting in a second wave of immigrants: refugees entering western Europe and North America.

IV. The Contemporary Situation

Today, Islam is the 2nd-largest religion in virtually every western nation – the only possible exception being the Jewish faith in America, which seemingly remains slightly larger than the Muslim population. Various aspects of the contemporary presence of Islam in the modern West need to be emphasized: (1) numbers; (2) institutions; (3) visibility; (4) confidence; and (5) public prominence.

First, numerically Islam in the west has grown to the 2nd or 3rd largest faith community in each country. Germany is home to more than 3 million Muslims; there are close to 6 million Muslims in America. The numbers are large, and growing through both biological reproduction and evangelistic expansion (da’wah).

Second, Islamic institutions have proliferated in the west. Prior to World War II, western nations may have had a handful of mosques; now, mosques are a fixture in every large city, many towns, and even the rural countryside. Indeed, Canada’s public television network sponsored a show called ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie,’ the pluralist Canadian version of the American classic. Besides mosques, organizations such as CARE promote Muslim interests in America. Muslim student ministries are active in every large university in Canada – Friday prayers are attended by hundreds of Muslim students at the University of Alberta, and even their noon-hour prayers during the rest of the week are strongly-attended. Paramosque organizations work diligently to spread the Muslim faith and strengthen the faith of the next generation of Muslims.

Third, Muslims are becoming ever more visible in western society. The wearing of the hijab (head-covering) by Muslim women has been an issue in many western nations (including Canada), but represents a greater willingness of Muslims to be publicly identifiable by their faith. One hundred years ago, Muslims in the west tended to want to blend in; now they desire to be known by their faith.

Fourth, Muslims are increasingly confident, both individually and corporately. Part of the newfound Muslim swagger is due to the demise of western colonialism and the perceived decay and decadence of many western nations. Britain and France are no longer perceived as superpowers; their hold over international affairs has ceased. Muslim confidence is also due to the rise of Islamic nations in power and prestige. Arab oil has had a large part to play, as Saudi Arabia and other countries exert greater influence over world affairs than they could under the colonial system.

But Muslim confidence also stems from changes within the immigrant Muslim community. Muslim families who have been here for multiple generations have become wealthy and influential. Many recent immigrants are well-educated professionals. No longer are Muslim immigrants happy just to be quietly unnoticed in their day-labor jobs. They are confident in their education, abilities, and faith alike.

Fifth, along with their increased confidence has come an increase in public prominence. Canada now has multiple Muslim Members of Parliament, as well as elected Muslim representatives at the provincial and municipal levels. Muslim individuals and communities are also increasingly outspoken is seeking public accommodation to the requirements of their faith – halal meats in schools and public cafeterias, allowances for noon prayers at work and in schools, segregated physical education for schoolchildren, etc. Three generations ago Muslim Americans would not have dreamed of agitating for such changes and accommodations; the Muslim community today has the confidence and institutional resources to engage in public appeals.

At the same time, as the video I received from my uncle demonstrates, there remains a great deal of Western fear and mistrust toward Islam and Muslims. Doubtless, the after-effects of 9/11 play an important role in contemporary fears. However, even before the attacks, there was widespread public fear of Islamic incursions into the west. Islam and Muslims remain misunderstood by most Westerners, and that misunderstanding easily generates fear and mistrust.

V. The Potential for Islam in the 21st-Century West

What, then, is the potential for Islam as a major player in the religious life and thought of the western world in the 21st century?

A. Positions of Strength

First, it needs to be noted that Islam is in a position of strength, and that strength is only increasing. Western Christianity continues its slow decline, rending the religious fabric of western culture. Islam is stepping into that confused religious climate as a self-confident, assertive faith, unhesitatingly promoting the need to submit to Allah. Muslims engage in avid evangelism, both through literature and personal contact. The growth of Islam in the west is not due, as the video I was sent suggests explicitly, solely to biological growth (large Islamic families are almost always mentioned as the driving force behind Muslim expansion) – evangelistic growth also figures prominently.

The influence of Islam within the African American community in the 20th century needs also to be noted. The Nation of Islam began as a heterodox semi-Islamic sect, but has moved toward the Islamic mainstream in the latter half of the century. African-American resentment toward white ‘Christian’ America remains strong, and that feeds the strength and vitality of many Muslims’ faith.

Second, western guilt over the injustices of the Crusades and colonialism has fostered an environment which is very positive for the growth and entrenchment of Islam in the West. Westerners are (rightfully) apologetic over past treatment of Muslim peoples and territories [although we wait in vain for Muslim apologies over the conquest of North Africa, Judea, Constantinople, etc.], and want to somehow ‘make amends’ with current generations of Muslims.

Third, the reigning religious pluralism and tolerance within western culture provides a friendly atmosphere in which Muslims can successfully agitate for cultural, social, and economic accommodations. Schools a hundred years ago, with a dominant Protestant mainstream, would never have even entertained a Muslim plea for special privileges; today, schools are eager to accommodate the special needs of other religious and cultural groups. I am certainly not saying this is a negative thing, and that schools ought not make such accommodations – I am merely pointing out that this is something new in the west; a situation newly amenable to the growing influence of Islam in the west.

Fourth, as Christianity declines in the West, the religious landscape cries out to be filled by something. Mankind is incurably and unquenchably religious. God has created us for intimate relationship with Himself, and we have a religious desire within us to know and be in relationship with the divine. When Christianity is not considered a viable option (as it is not for many people in Western culture today), something else will inevitably take the place of Jesus Christ as the object of our worship. Hence, Westerners are spiritually hungry, they are thirsting for spiritual communion. There is a spiritual void in the soul of many western nations; and Islam is ready and willing to step into that void.

Finally, from a pragmatic and political perspective, Islam is well positioned to ally with the ‘religious right’ in America (particularly) as a champion of ‘family values’ and conservative issues. While Christians and Muslims certainly do not agree on every theological issue, they share a repulsion at the moral degradation of Western society and culture. Thus, Islam is able to cooperate on many political issues with other religious conservatives, and to gain public prominence and acceptance on that score (not unlike has happened with Mormonism in some ways).

B. Vulnerabilities / Positions of Weakness

Nonetheless, Islam faces some distinct vulnerabilities in its desire to be a major player in the west in the 21st century.

First, there remains a deep mutual misunderstanding and mistrust between the west and Islam. For Muslims, the West is viewed as corrupt, degraded, decadent, untrustworthy. For Westerners, Islam is viewed as devaluing, violent, aggressive, and hateful. There is mutual antipathy and antagonism. Again, this is not universally true, but it is general and widespread. For Islam to become a major player in Western society, Western misunderstandings need to be appeased and resolved.

Second, media caricatures of Islam and Muslims remain predominantly negative. Notwithstanding the relatively unpopular Little Mosque on the Prairie’s positive depiction of Islam, most media representations are highly unflattering. Of course, evangelical Christians can make the same complaint!

Some of the antipathy from the West toward Islam does not stem from misunderstanding, but rather from an accurate understanding of Islamic precepts. This results in a series of questions that need to be asked of Islam, seeking to unveil whether or not Islam is capable of playing a major role in the 21st-century West.

(1) Can Islam embrace religious plurality and tolerance? The growing visibility and influence of Islam in the West is due largely to the religious tolerance which it has enjoyed in those nations. However, Islamic nations tend not to embrace such religious plurality. Rather, Islam itself understands that no rational person could deny the truth and power of Islam. Anyone who is not a sinner will embrace Islam. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, anyone who remains not a Muslim is either “ignorant, stupid, or wicked (but I’d rather not consider that).”

(2) Can Islam allow others the same right to evangelize that they demand and receive? Yvonne Haddad celebrates the religious tolerance of America, in permitting free practice of Islamic da’wah (evangelism). Carol Anway similarly shares stories of Muslim women who have come to faith through the active evangelistic efforts of American Muslims. However, Haddad also decries the attempts of evangelical Christians to convert Muslims away from Islam. I am not sure how that tension is resolved within her, as she seems entirely oblivious of the contradiction. However, it remains that, if Muslims desire to share their faith with others and see Americans convert to Islam; they must similarly be willing to allow Christians to share their faith with others, and see Muslims convert to Christ.

(3) Similarly: Can Muslims (sadly) recognize that some of their youth may convert away from the Islamic faith? I have two close friends who are active in ministry to Muslims in Canada. Both converted to Christ between the ages of 18 and 21. Both were disowned by their families. One had a bounty put on his head by his father, and had to flee for his life. Again, Carol Anway celebrates the stories of American women who convert to Islam, and sadly notes that many of their families have difficulty accepting their new faith. Christmas becomes awkward, family reunions are somewhat tense: but in no cases did she observe families disowning their children, or seeking to have them killed. Even within relatively modern American Muslims like Yvonne Haddad, there is a strident opposition to having children be converted away from Islam. However, if Islam desires to become a major player in the contemporary West, it will have to accept that this is going to happen.

(4) Can Muslims (sadly) acknowledge that denigration of the prophet and Qur’an are inevitable in a land with freedom of speech and expression? No one expects Muslims to celebrate when infidels revile Mohammad or mock the Qur’an – any more than I celebrate when people desecrate the name of my Savior and Lord in word and deed. However, the response to the Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons by Western Muslims was questionable. Muslims have to acknowledge that the freedoms they enjoy within the religiously tolerant west are the very same freedoms that allow people to insult their prophet. It would also help if they acknowledge that some of their beliefs about Christianity are somewhat insulting to committed Christians (Jesus is so much more than a prophet; and the Qur’anic suggestion that the Christian Trinity is Father, Consort, and Sexual Offspring is offensive).

(5) Finally, can Muslims eschew their historical commitment to the union of church and state? The Islamic ideal is a community, umma, which combines faith, economics, politics, and social structure in one. The hijra to Medina marked the beginning of the Muslim faith, because Mohammad had political power and influence there. Islam inherently seeks to unify faith with politics and sociology.

Ultimately, I suspect that the answers to many of those questions is no – particularly the last one. The situation of Muslim in the modern West is an anomaly in Islamic history. Never before have large numbers of Muslims willingly lived as a distinct minority under the rule of non-Muslims. It remains to be seen whether Muslims can moderate (change) their faith such that they are willing to be minorities, willing to allow others to evangelize their members, and willing to allow the separation of church and state.

World Religions Comprehensive Exam - Question #1

NOTE: Just a reminder of the nature of these posts. These are unedited, unaltered responses I gave in comprehensive exams last week. Each essay answer was written in 80 minutes, with no resources at hand. Thus, there are no citations, some figures will be imprecise, quotations are paraphrases, etc.

QUESTION A. As fully as you can, describe and explain the changing religious landscape of 20th century China. Consider the historical roots of that landscape and reflect on the potential of the Christian tradition for reshaping that landscape in the 21st century.

The rise and fall of Maoism (Chinese Communism) in the 20th century marked an incredible upheaval in the religious landscape of China. For nearly two millennia, the ‘Three Religions’ (Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism) had permeated the philosophical, cultural, religious, and social spheres of the Middle Kingdom; in 1949, the hold the Three Religions exerted was irrevocably shattered. Meanwhile, Christianity had been almost universally viewed as a ‘foreign’ religion, and was therefore deemed suspicious and inherently un-Chinese. Prior to the rise of Mao, Christianity struggled to make inroads into the Chinese religious landscape. The expulsion of Western missionaries in 1949, combined with a small and leadership-weak Chinese Church, led most Western scholars and observers to bemoan the ‘death’ of Christianity in China. As we will see, however, the rise of Maoism was an unexpected boon to the Christian Church in China, and the fall of Maoism revealed an explosively-growing indigenous Chinese Church.

In this essay, I will examine the historical roots of the Chinese religious landscape, exploring the Three Religions as well as the missionary efforts of Christians. I will then turn to the developments in the 20th century, and consider the radical upheavals wrought by rebellions and the rise of Communism. Finally, I will examine the contemporary status of the Christian Church in China, and explore the potential of Chinese Christianity to reshape the religious landscape of China, and the fabric of global Christianity as well.

I. Historical Context – the Three Religions in China

For centuries, Chinese thought and religious practice was dominated by the three ways – Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. While Western missionaries found it entirely incomprehensible, the common Chinese person regularly embraced all three traditions. Indeed, the three traditions fed into and off of one another, such that Confucius was found amongst the pantheon of gods and bodhisattvas, and the same idols could be found in Taoist and Buddhist temples.

A. Taoism – Philosophical and Religious

The historical roots of Taoism are shrouded in the mists of time and myth. Legend has it that Lao-Tzu (6th century B.C.) wrote the Tao te Ching, the foundational text of Taoism, upon leaving a decadent imperial court in disgust. As he was riding off into the sunset, a gate guard beseeched him to leave behind his wisdom for future generations. Lao-Tzu consented, leaving behind a pearl of wisdom treasured by Chinese for millennia to come.

The philosophical wisdom of the Tao te Ching focuses on three notions. First, the notion of the Tao – the nameless, shapeless energy source which governs and runs the world. The Tao is certainly not ‘God’, and is definitely impersonal. Beyond that, the Tao is difficult to define; indeed, its essence is indefinability. Nonetheless, the concept is that the Tao is essential unity or oneness between all things and all people. The Tao is effectually empowering through the twin poles of yin and yang, which represent several dualities at once – creation and decay, male and female, active and receptive, aggressive and passive. History is a continual cycle, sometimes yin predominating, sometimes yang. As things are, things once were, and once again will be – the cycle of history is unending and cyclically repetitive.

Second, the responsibility of persons is to be at one with the Tao, to keep from impeding the flow and harmony of nature which the Tao governs. Hence, the chief ethical notion in Taoism is wu-wei, which kind of means ‘do-nothing-ness’; although it is not a lazy or passive response to fatalism, but rather an active attempt to contribute to the harmonious flow of the Tao.

Third, philosophical Taoism generally eschews political involvement. Lao-Tzu was disillusioned with the royal court, as the legend goes, and thus leaves altogether – a pattern which is imitated by future generations of Taoists. This becomes important in regards to compatibility with Confucianism, which is inherently active and political in nature.

Finally, the role of religious Taoism needs to be mentioned. Philosophical Taoism was an inherently elitist pursuit. There was great emphasis upon pursuing meditative and ascetic enlightenment in order to achieve oneness with the Tao; this was not something that everybody could do. The techniques of meditation were extremely demanding in both time and concentration. Working peasants were not suitable candidates for the regimen! Philosophical Taoism also emphasized strict diets and bodily discipline. Yet the tenets of Taoism appealed to the common person, and a religious superstructure developed around the foundations of philosophical Taoism. The religious structures adopted the practices of Chinese folk religion, including many of the local geographical deities. This became important when Buddhism was important into China, as popular Buddhism pursued the same practice of syncretism.

B. Confucianism – the Practical and Ethical System

Taoism governed the philosophical and religious mindset of pre-A.D. China. Confucianism governed China’s praxis. Confucianism, while not atheistic in form, was methodologically agnostic in practice. There was a strict separation of ‘church and state’, or personal religious practice and public political or ethical behavior – something which contributed to the simultaneous adherence to both Taoism and Confucianism amongst most Chinese. Confucianism governed the political practice, ethical standards, and social structures of China.

Confucius founded a system which was intended to direct the paths of enlightened rulers. The Confucian political system emphasized three roles of government: (a) to provide a sufficiently strong military to defend the empire; (b) to ensure sufficient material goods for the well-being of the populace; and (c) to maintain the good-will of the people through benevolent rule. The ideal Confucian government was a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ – an emperor with absolute power, but who ruled in the interests of his people.

The ethical standards of Confucianism emphasized two sides: (a) the inherent goodness and perfectibility of man; and (b) the need for right conduct and living. On the one hand, Confucius (and most of his disciples and successors) believed that mankind was fundamentally and inherently good. There was certainly a need for discipline, to shape and perfect the human person; but the raw material was good. On the other hand, Confucius outlined the ‘five noble virtues’ which guided right conduct and behavior. There was a strong emphasis on righteousness, right ritual, humaneness (or self-less-ness).

Finally, Confucianism directed the social structures of imperial China. The focus on filial piety – or loyalty to family and elders above all else – was central. Hence Confucianism did not object to (but even encouraged) the practice of ancestor reverence or worship which Taoism and folk religion also embraced. The Confucian educational system acknowledged all students as capable of entering into advanced education and becoming part of the civil service (imperial bureaucracy). History holds that Confucius was willing to accept students even if they were unable to pay tuition – so long as they were willing and able to learn.

C. The Introduction of Buddhism

Buddhism, though a ‘foreign’ religion, and thereby suspicious to the inherently protective and xenophobic Chinese mind, managed to permeate Chinese culture by co-opting Taoist and Confucian terminology when translating sacred Buddhist texts into traditional Chinese script.

The Buddhist notion of nirvana became the Tao; the Taoism notion of wu-wei was adopted as the equivalent of the Buddhist desire for self-emptying of desire. The Buddhist “Eightfold Noble Path” became the Confucian ‘five noble virtues’. With the exception of filial piety, the ethical standards of Buddhism were perfectly compatible with those of Confucianism. Finally, popular Chinese Buddhism adopted the pantheon of Taoist gods and immortals, thus ingratiating itself to the popular mindset. Taoism and Confucianism had provided a rational, logical path for Buddhism to enter into the Middle Kingdom.

D. Christian Missions Prior to the 20th Century

The history of Christianity in China prior to the 20th century is varied and checkered. The earliest Christian missionaries to China were Nestorian Christians from Persia. They established monasteries and churches, and gathered numerous local communities of believers. However, oppression eventually dwindled their numbers, and the Nestorian Christian communities died out.

Matteo Ricci and the Jesuits made strong attempts to contextualize Christianity in the 14th (?) century – Ricci was even accused of promoting a ‘Christianized Confucianism’. Their attempts were focused upon Chinese elites, and lack of success at that level meant there was no strong lasting impact from their efforts.
Later Christian missions in China were closely connected (in the Chinese mind, at least) with ‘gunboat diplomacy’. As European powers exerted military influence (threats) over imperial China, they gained ‘free ports’. Based in those free ports, Christian missionaries would establish a bridgehead, and launch missionary efforts outward from there. Some missionaries (e.g. Hudson Taylor) contextualized their mission, adopting Chinese dress and customs to the greatest extent they could; others remained Western in form, dress, and custom. Hence, most Christian missionaries were viewed with suspicion – they were outsiders, foreigners, guay-lo.

II. The Twentieth-Century Upheavals

A. From Imperial China to 1949

The first half of the 20th century saw considerable upheaval in its own right, much of which had grave implications for Western Christianity. The Boxer Rebellion vented considerable frustration (violently) upon foreign missionaries. The May 4 student rebellion was also aimed at foreign missionaries, who were perceived as corrupting the Chinese spirit and culture.

The short-lived republic of Sun Yat-Sen and Chiang Kai-Shek was viewed by western Christians very favorably, as both men professed a Christian faith. Within China, however, the republic foundered, as Maoist Communism gained support.

B. The Rise of Maoism

After the Second World War, the civil war between Chiang’s Nationalists and Mao’s Communists engulfed the country, leading in 1949 to the withdrawal of the Nationalists to the island of Formosa (Taiwan, very close in pronunciation to Tawa). Maoism was victorious within China. The effects of Communism were significant for the religious landscape of China.

First, all foreign missionaries were expelled. The thousands of westerners who had gone to China to bring the Gospel to the Middle Kingdom found themselves unwanted and forcibly deported. From a western perspective, it seemed that the Chinese Church had been killed in infancy. From all accounts, the native leadership within the Chinese Church was weak in both numbers and spiritual maturity. With the official atheism which now governed China with a perceived iron fist, the prospects for Christianity seemed incredibly bleak.

Second, Christian churches were closed throughout the country. What few believers there were, were driven underground, at least in the short term. Around 1958 (I forget the exact date), the Communists permitted the re-opening of a few churches under the auspices of the TSPM (Three-Self Patriotic Movement) Church – a Christian church which acknowledged the supremacy and benevolence of the Communist rulers, and agreed to heed government practice and regulation.

Third, Christianity was not the only religious suppressed by the Communist authorities. Taoist temples were closed, Buddhist monasteries were confiscated and turned into state museums. The official religion of China became atheism. There is no God, no gods, no bodhisattvas, no immortals, no local deities, no supernatural powers to be appeased – the Communists turned upon not only the foreign Christian religion, but also upon the native traditions which had nurtured Chinese culture and imagination for 2000 years.

Fourth, Confucianism was repudiated. Communists agreed that mankind was fundamentally good; but that was as far as its agreement with Confucian political ethics went. Family was not all-important (though it did matter) – if parents were closet Christians, they were to be betrayed by their children. Deceased ancestors did not require sacrifices or offerings or reverent remembering – they were dead and gone. The elitism of Confucian benevolent dictatorship was a bourgeois myth intended to perpetuate the subjugation of the peasantry. Only rule by the proletariat could be for the proletariat.

Thus, Communism sought to wipe clean the religious landscape of China – replacing the Three Religions with a new brand of atheistic communism. China’s soul was denied, rejected, repudiated.

During the ten-year Cultural Revolution, the aggressive stance of Communism deepened, and turned upon intellectualism and scholarship within China. The intellectual classes were arrested and forced into ‘re-education’ through intensive manual labor. While later released and permitted to resume ‘normal’ activities, many scholars lost the most productive years of their adult life; many others lost their health, some even their very lives.

In sum, the religious upheaval prompted by the rise of Maoism was not akin to a thunderstorm that wreaks havoc upon the landscape, uprooting some trees, causing localized flash flooding; rather, it was more like a magnitude-10 earthquake, which flattens every building, demolishes every home, overturns the very soil itself, leaving a landscape of nothing but rubble, dust, and hopelessness in its wake. The religious landscape of China was not merely revolutionized; it was pulverized.

C. The Death of Mao(ism)

With the fall of the Gang of Four, and the death of Mao Zedong, conditions in China began to change. The extremism of the Cultural Revolution was past; Deng Xiaoping began to institute slight liberalizations in policy – both economically and religiously. To be sure, China remained an officially atheist country; one could not be a member of the ruling Communist Party and also be a believing Christian or Buddhist or Taoist. However, the stranglehold over the beliefs of the common people was loosened.

In 1978, the Chinese Communists began allowing the re-opening of churches, temples, and monasteries. Some confiscated property was returned. By the mid-80s, it became clear that religion had ‘returned’ to China. What emerged stunned observers – in the West and in China alike.

Christianity had not been extinguished in Communist China. Rather, an underground church of primarily house-church networks had literally exploded in growth. The church in 1949 comprised approximately one million native Chinese (Catholic and Protestant combined). By 1978, the official number of Chinese Christians was around 12 million; by 2000, the official government numbers of TSPM Christians was over 20 million. Unofficial estimates, which include not only TSPM Churches but also unregistered churches, range between 50-100 million. Christianity is approaching 5 to 10% of the Chinese population.

The fall of Maoism also opened the door for the revitalization of the Three Religions which traditionally had governed China. And they certainly did emerge. Taoist rituals were once again openly celebrated; Buddhist monasteries reopened. Even Confucian rituals were practiced openly. But things are not the same as they once were.

One primary change within the Chinese psyche has been an irrevocable loss of the Confucian ideal of the inherently good, perfectible man. The horrors perpetrated upon the Chinese people, by the Chinese government, served as existential disconfirmation of the truth of Confucian anthropology. Remember, Confucian government had three purposes: (a) military defense; (b) material provision; and (c) the goodwill of the people. Under Communism, millions of peasants starved to death, primarily due to misguided Communist policies, and the increasing corruption and hypocrisy of the Communist oligarchy was acknowledged and reviled by all. The only success, by Confucian standards, was the strong military put in place by the Communists (although even there, Formosa remained a thorn in their side). That a Chinese government could so systematically and completely fail its people, and govern in its own interests even while professing to be in power for the good of the proletariat, was a shock to the Chinese system. In such a context, the Christian doctrine of original sin and total depravity gained newfound credibility.

D. The Emerging Chinese Christian Church

The church which emerged from the rubble of Chinese Communism was not at all what western scholars expected. There are several noteworthy traits.

(1) Indigenous. Foreign missionaries were expelled in 1949. Contact between Chinese Christians and foreign Christians was forbidden and nearly impossible. The growth of the Chinese Church under Communist rule was therefore led by fully native Chinese leaders. This had significant impact in two ways. First, it meant that Christianity could no longer be perceived within China as a purely foreign intrusion. The suspicion that attached to Christianity during the imperial age was lessened. Second, it meant that Christianity was fully contextualized. Certainly there were elements within Christian worship that were adopted and maintained from previous European missionary efforts. But even these elements were Sinocized. Christianity in China became fully Chinese. While the expulsion of foreign missionaries in 1949 seemed to be a regrettable and devastating blow to the kingdom of God; it turned out, on the contrary, to be the means which God used to bring about massive growth within His kingdom.

(2) Holistic. Western Christianity is sometimes accused of tending towards one of two extremes: a dry rationalistic faith; or a contentless emotivism. Chinese Christianity seems to embrace the whole person. It is deeply rational and full of content; but at the same time Chinese worship is passionate and emotional.

(3) Socially Concerned. Christianity gained credibility under Communist rule partly due to its social concern. When the Communist authorities neglected the physical and emotional needs of the population, the Church did all it could to step into the void and provide for the poor and the downtrodden. There are numerous testimonies of conversions that came about through relationships formed when local Christians provided for the needs of a local family.

(4) Theologically Conservative. Chinese Christianity, particularly in the unregistered church, in unapologetically conservative and biblical. There has been a strong and conscious rejection of western liberal biblical scholarship, and an adherence to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and authority. While there are still elements of liberalism within the TSPM churches and associated seminaries, even there, there has been a substantial return to orthodox evangelicalism.

III. The Prospects For the 21st Century

What does the future hold for China? It is always dangerous to prognosticate, as we do not know the sovereign intentions of God. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, and I certainly cannot claim to know what the Church will look like in China in 100 years. Nonetheless, it is the place of scholars and observers to make ‘educated guesses’, hoping that the emphasis falls more upon educated than guesses.

First, it seems clear that the Chinese Church is poised to become the largest body of evangelical believers in the world within the next generation. Indeed, some argue that there are already more evangelical Christians in China than there are in America. Thus, the impact of Chinese Christianity upon global Christianity needs to be evaluated and assessed. This is not the time or place for such assessment, but it is an item of pressing interest.

Second, Christianity is approaching a type of ‘critical mass’ within China. If estimates are correct, there are close to 100 million Christians in China, a little less than 10% of the population. The church has grown at least 50-fold, and perhaps 100-fold, in only sixty years. It is clear that God has been doing a great work within China since the rise of Maoism. What implications does this critical mass have for the landscape of 21st-century China?

Third, Christianity is now viewed very differently by the educated elite in China than it was 60 years ago. Prior to Communism, Christianity was feared, viewed with suspicion. It was a foreign religion, unsuitable to China. Christianity was inextricably associated with gunboat diplomacy. Missionaries were suspected as potential ‘foreign spies’. All that has changed. Indigenous leadership now leads an indigenous church which is authentically Chinese. Furthermore, the demise of Confucian ideals has opened the door to a culturally-elite acceptance and respect for Christianity.

Indeed, an item of significance for the future of Christianity has been the rise of ‘cultural Christianity’ in China. In North America, ‘cultural Christianity’ carries with it the negative connotation of someone who professes to be Christian because of their familial or cultural heritage – a cultural Christian in America is someone who claims Christianity on their census form but carries no sincere or authentic Christian belief. Chinese ‘cultural Christianity’ is completely different. The term is applied by Chinese ‘cultural Christians’ themselves, and carries with it the notion that Christianity is culturally advantageous, and would be beneficial for China to adopt as its official religion. Scholars and other cultural observers within China acknowledge the cultural (and political and economic) benefits which have accrued to nations with a strong Christian heritage; they also observe the lack of similar benefits which have come to nations embracing Islam or atheism (Communism). Hence, they draw the conclusion that there is something about Christianity that works for the benefit of the people within that nation. As a result, these ‘cultural Christian’ trumpet the benefits of Christianity, even if they themselves are not avowed evangelical Christians. Many ‘cultural Christians’ are also members of registered or unregistered churches; but others are not. What is absolutely stunning, however, is the radical change in perspective within China’s elites in the space of a few generations. Christianity has gone from being a despised foreign religion, to being snuffed out as an ‘opiate of the masses’, to being now acknowledged as the greatest thing that could happen to China. This reflects not only a changing perspective on Christianity, but also disillusionment with the three native traditions which previously held Chinese elites in sway.

Despite these positive signs which indicate a powerful future for Christianity in China, there are a few areas of concern. First, Chinese Christianity is predominantly rural. The church has made less evangelistic headway in the major cities, particularly Beijing. In some ways, this makes sense, as the major cities are centers of Communist influence and power, and one still needs to be a professing atheist in order to be a party cadre. In other ways, however, this is a worrisome trend which bodes ill for the future of the church in China. Urbanization shows no signs of slowing; a church which fails to reach the cities will fail to reach the future of China.

Second, there are concerns amongst observers regarding the transmission of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the younger generation. From a western perspective, Sunday school programs and other children’s ministries are very weak (often nonexistent) in China. The concern is that youth are not being discipled – hence, they may not emerge as authentic believers. The lack of children’s ministry in China may be a relic of the church under communist reign, when teaching children about Jesus was a capital offense. Regardless, there does need to be a focus upon equipping the younger generation for faith and ministry.

What are the ultimate prospects of the Christian church in shaping the 21st-century religious landscape of China? Only God knows. However, it seems clear that Christianity is here to stay. The church is in no dangers of dying. If the explosive growth of the past 60 years continues unabated (which I doubt it can, just given the rapid scope of past growth), Christians will represent a distinct majority of the Chinese population by 2050. Christianity has already radically altered the post-Communist landscape of China. Emerging from the rubble created by the Maoist earthquake is rising, not the three-headed dragon of Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, but rather the Cross of Christ and the Triune God of Christianity.

Do All Religious Roads Lead to Heaven? The Question of Religious Pluralism

Introduction

Is there a God? If there is a God, can we know anything about God? Is God an impersonal, indistinct force in the universe? Or is God a personal transcendent being? What is the nature of humanity? What is wrong with the world? What is wrong with us as human beings? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Do ethics matter? What is the nature of salvation, or enlightenment, or liberation? What is the path to “heaven” or “nirvana”? How are we saved? What is the relationship between belief and reality, faith and reason?

These are all core religious questions. Some of them are more important than others. Broadly speaking, one could narrow down the key religious questions to three: a) what is the nature of ultimate reality (i.e. God); b) what is the nature of humanity; and c) what is the nature of salvation. More crassly, we could pose them thus: a) where did I come from?, and b) where am I going? How these questions are answered is vitally important – indeed, I would argue that these are the most important questions that someone can contemplate. Ideally, such contemplation leads one into a relationship with Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

Different religious traditions answer these core questions differently (as we are going to see in more detail shortly). But does that matter? Can the different religious answers to those questions be harmonized, so that we understand religions to be fundamentally alike? That is the central issue which we will address tonight. First, let’s take a look at the Christian answer.

I. Orthodox Christianity

In John 14:6, Jesus declares: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. This is the quintessential Christian claim to being the one true religion. But there are others like it. Acts 4:8-12 reads:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is "the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.” Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Catch that – salvation is found in no one else. If we are to be saved – whatever that means – we are going to be saved by Jesus. Nothing and no one else. This is the traditional orthodox biblical Christian claim. Notice also that Peter is not expressing some relativistic version of salvation by Jesus. He’s not saying that salvation is found in no one else “for us as Christians,” the way that some reinterpreters like to argue. Rather, he is speaking to the Jewish Sanhedrin, and is insisting that “for you as for you, salvation is found in no one else.”
Historically, the Christian claim is that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that salvation is found in no other place. In a nutshell, the claim is that “salvation is by grace through faith in Christ”. The key words there are: a) salvation, implying that we have a need to be saved (from sin); b) grace, demonstrating God’s initiative and work, not our own; c) faith, as the instrument of God’s grace; and d) Christ, as the object of faith. This Christian exlusivism (or particularism), broadly speaking, has three fundamental principles.

a) The Bible is God’s authoritative self-revelation; therefore, where Scripture is incompatible with the teaching of other faiths, other faiths are to be rejected.

b) Jesus is the unique incarnation of God – fully God and fully man – and only through the person and work of Christ is there the possibility of salvation.

c) God’s saving grace is not mediated through the teachings, practices, or institutions of other religions.

It is important to note that exclusivism does not necessarily imply that those outside of the Christian Church will all go to hell – it may imply that, but it does not in and of itself do so. This is not, however, a discussion that we will pursue here – unless there’s time at the end and you want to go down that road! Basically, the historical Christian claim is that Jesus is the way to salvation, and that Christianity represents the one religious road to a true knowledge of God.

II. Religious Pluralism

Religious pluralism disputes these exclusive claims of orthodox Christianity. What is religious pluralism? In its weakest sense, religious pluralism is simply a true observation about the state of religious affairs around the world. In other words, pluralism simply states that people do embrace different religious perspectives.
However, that is not the way in which religious pluralism is generally used. Instead, it is usually used in its prescriptive or normative sense – as Harold Netland defines, “an egalitarian and democratized perspective holding that there is rough parity among religions concerning truth and soteriological effectiveness.” (Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, 12) In other words, different religions are equally true, and equally able to save us (from whatever it is that we need to be saved from).

Pluralism, then, holds that salvation (or enlightenment or liberation) should be acknowledged as present and effective in its own way in each religion. No single religion can claim to be somehow normative and superior to all others, for all religions are in their own way complex historically and culturally conditioned human responses to the one divine reality. Thus, although Christians can claim that Jesus is unique and normative for them, they cannot claim that Jesus is unique or normative in an objective or universal sense. (Netland, 53)

Let’s take a deeper look at religious pluralism. My desire is that through this study, you will come to know with certainty and be able to show with confidence that there are three fatal flaws in religious pluralism, and that all religious roads do not lead to heaven.

Please note: this will NOT be an in-depth study of various religions, nor an aggressive presentation of Christianity's truth over and above other religions, nor a discussion of the nature and degree of God’s truth evident in other religious traditions, nor a critique of other religious practices which Christians might seek to incorporate into their spirituality. My purpose is more modest - simply to show that religious pluralism does not work, that the major world religions cannot all be legitimate paths to salvation – that they cannot be realistically harmonized without maiming them beyond recognition.

III. Fatal Flaw #1 – Rejection of Orthodox Christianity

The first fatal flaw of religious pluralism has already been hinted at in our brief discussion of orthodox Christianity. Namely, believing that all religions (or at least the major world religions) are all equally legitimate human responses to the “Divine Reality,” and each lead to “salvation,” requires one to reject orthodox biblical Christianity. The orthodox Christian faith, based on God’s self-revelation in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, holds firmly and unapologetically to the belief that salvation is found exclusively in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Religious pluralism, again, holds that all religions are legitimate paths to salvation, and that Jesus Christ is merely one of many ways to touch the Divine Reality. Thus, religious pluralism, of necessity, represents a rejection of the historic, orthodox, biblical Christian faith.

While this fatal flaw may not bother too many religious pluralists (for reasons we will see later), it ought to be decisive for followers of Jesus Christ. Colossians 2:6-8 reads:

So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

We are not to be mesmerized by teachings and philosophies which are derived from human reason but contradict biblical revelation. Rather, as 2 Corinthians 10:5 encourages us, We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. As Christians, this fatal flaw is enough to doom the false teaching of religious pluralism. But it is not the only one.

IV. Fatal Flaw #2 – Logical Incoherence, Irrationality & Inconsistency

While the first fatal flaw of religious pluralism is only of consequences to those of us who are biblical Christians, the other two apply to all people. That is, the remaining fatal flaws are recognizable by all people (Christian or non-Christian), and provide sufficient reason for us to conclude that religious pluralism is necessarily false, and that all religious roads cannot possibly lead to a saving knowledge of the Divine Reality.

The second fatal flaw of religious pluralism is its logical incoherence, irrationality, and inconsistency. This is a large charge—after all, religious pluralism is a perspective held by millions of people around the world, including some incredibly brilliant and well-educated people, like John Hick, John Dominic Crossan, and the Dalai Lama. Thus, I cannot simply state that religious pluralism is logically incoherent—I need to demonstrate it.

Surprisingly, it is disturbingly easy to demonstrate the incoherence of religious pluralism. Let’s James Sire’s classic book, The Universe Next Door, considers fundamental beliefs within six basic worldviews. Sire examines these religious worldviews according to how they respond to seven fundamental religious questions: a) the nature & character of ultimate reality; b) the nature of the universe; c) the nature of humanity; d) the question of what happens to a person after death; e) the basis of human knowing; f) the basis of ethics; and g) the meaning of history.

Glancing briefly at the way different religions respond to these fundamental questions will quickly uncover the incoherence of the claim that all religions are just different responses to the same “ultimate reality.” For example – what is the nature & character of that ultimate reality? Naturalism (or atheism, or secular humanism) says that there is no such thing! There is no ultimate reality – only the matter, the physical substances, within the universe. As Carl Sagan would say, “The Cosmos is all that is, all that was, and all that ever will be.” New Age spirituality teaches that the self is the prime reality – that we are each, individually, God in the flesh. Most forms of Hinduism and Buddhism teach that ultimate reality is an impersonal, infinite reality. Christianity (along with Judaism and Islam), by contrast, says that there is a supernatural being, transcendent to the physical universe, who is the Creator of all that exists. Can these different conceptions of the “ultimate reality” be harmonized?

What is the nature of the physical universe? Is naturalism right, that it is all there is? Is the universe the ex nihilo creation of a transcendent God? Is physical appearance real, as Christianity and naturalism hold, or illusory, as Buddhism and Hinduism insist? Can these different conceptions of the nature of reality be harmonized? Can they all be true?

What is man? Is man fallen and sinful? Or is man basically good? Or is man, as New Age spirituality insists, essentially divine? Is personality essential to what it means to be human, or are Buddhists right that the purpose of man is to lose his personality and be incorporated into the impersonality of nirvana?
What happens to us after we die? Atheists and secular humanists agree that this physical life is all that there is; we die and that’s it. Christians, Muslims, and Jews agree that we have one physical life, but after that face the judgment seat of God and are raised either to eternal life or to eternal punishment. Buddhists and Hindus agree that the soul can go through an infinite number of reincarnations, with karma determining the status of our new lives. Can all of these perspectives be true reflections of the Divine Reality?

Epistemology is the study of human knowledge, particularly answering the questions: a) what can we know; and b) how can we know it. Can we trust our senses and intellect? Is there such a thing as “truth”? Or does reality transcend human categories as Buddhists and Hindus insist?

What is the basis of human ethics and morality? Has God revealed what is right and wrong, as all theists agree? Or are good and evil illusory, meaningless categories, as eastern religions argue? Or are ethical standards real but relative, as naturalists and postmoderns insist? Or, perhaps, do we create morality for ourselves as inherently divine creatures?

What is the nature and purpose of time and history? Is time linear, or cyclical? Is there purpose in historical events? Or is history a random hodgepodge of events that cannot be called “progress” in any meaningful way?

Who is Jesus? Is Jesus just a man (naturalism)? Is He a prophet (Islam)? Is He God incarnate (Christianity)? Is Jesus an example of a self-enlightened guru (Buddhism/Hinduism)? Or is Jesus a bright guy who recognized His own inherent divinity (New Age)?

Did Jesus die on the cross? Muslims say no, Christians say yes. Can we both be right? That’s kind of a ridiculous thought. One of the fundamental rules of logic is the law of non-contradiction – one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time (Aristotle). Avicenna, a medieval philosopher, humorously noted: Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. Either Jesus died on the cross, or He did not. It cannot be both – and yet this is what religious pluralism has to allow. If Jesus died, was His death necessary for the forgiveness of human sin? Either it was, or it wasn’t. Christians make a propositional truth-claim that we are fallen creatures, marred by sin, and in need of redemption. This is a proposition denied by several other religious worldviews. Can we all be right about this? Either we need atonement, or we don’t. It can’t be both.

What I trust comes through loud and clear is that in respect to each of these seven key religious questions, the different religious worldviews provide vastly different answers which are mutually exclusive and contradictory. The fatal flaw of religious pluralism is that it is forced to insist that different religious answers to the fundamental questions of worldview can be reconciled and harmonized with one another—that they are all legitimate but different human responses to the Divine Reality.

What you can see, quite clearly, is that the various religious answers to these questions could all be FALSE, but the one thing they cannot be is all TRUE. That is, it is logically impossible for all the major religions to be true, since they have contradictory answers to the most important religious worldview questions. Either God is, or God is not. The physical world is either real or illusory.

V. Fatal Flaw #3 – Redefining Religions: The Intolerance of Pluralism

Recognition of the second fatal flaw of religious pluralism generally leads pluralists to commit the third fatal flaw—the flaw of redefining major world religions out of existence. I like to call this flaw “the sin of intolerance and exclusivity.” When pluralists acknowledge the importance of logical coherence, they are forced to cook the religious books to suit their thesis. What makes this ironic is that religious pluralism presents itself as being, and truly believes itself to be, a tolerant view, which accepts all religions as equally valid paths to the Divine Reality. Ultimately, however, pluralism denies various religions the right to “be themselves” within a religiously pluralistic view of the world.

Explicitly, religious pluralists put forth three assumptions which underlie their perspective. First, there exists an ultimate reality (i.e. God in Christianity, Brahman in Hinduism) to which different religions are legitimate responses. Second, all religions are historically and culturally conditioned interpretations of this ultimate reality. Third, soteriological transformation (i.e. change leading towards salvation/enlightenment/liberty) occurs equally in various religions. So far, everything appears very tolerant and accepting. Unfortunately, as we saw with our brief overview of different religions’ mutually exclusive responses to key religious issues, this pluralistic view is incoherent and irrational.

An additional severe problem with this representation of religious pluralism is that it is forced to endorse and condone aberrant religions. Satanism is thus an acceptable and legitimate response to ultimate reality. Aztec spirituality, leading though it does to human sacrifice, is nonetheless a legitimate response which results in soteriological transformation. The Branch Davidians (David Koresh in Waco, Texas), wherein Koresh proclaimed himself the second coming of Christ and demanded the right to copulate with all females within the cult, is a similarly legitimate response. Same with the Heavens Gate cult, in which 38 members were convinced to commit suicide in 1997 in order to have their souls hitch a cosmic ride on the Hale-Bopp comet. Naturally, religious pluralists do not want to condone such groups, but I’m not sure on what grounds they can claim that they are illegitimate religious expressions. It is easy for a Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Naturalist, to condemn evil cults; but upon what foundation does a true religious pluralist do so? In order to do so, we have to have some type of objective standard which serves as the barometer of the legitimacy of different religions. Yet this is what religious pluralism, at least on the outside, claims does not exist.

In practice, however, religious pluralists do operate by such a standard. Indeed, so strongly so that there is a fourth assumption which governs pluralism in practice. In Netland’s words: “At least some of the basic beliefs of each of the major religions, as these are understood by orthodox adherents of the religions themselves, cannot be accepted as true; they must be reinterpreted mythologically when understood in relation to The Real.” (234) Religious pluralists freely reinterpret troublesome doctrines so as to accommodate them within a broadly pluralistic framework. Thus, with Christianity, Jesus becomes just an enlightened man. All notions of His divinity are mythologically reinterpreted. The result is that faithful Christians no longer find themselves described within the Christianity which pluralism accepts. In other words, orthodox Christianity is explicitly claimed to be “untrue”, and in need of radical reinterpretation. The same happens with Islam. Islam is not the “straight path” for all peoples—it is the straight path, the road to Allah’s mercy, for those who choose to follow Islam, and perhaps particularly for the Arab people. But certainly Islam is not true to the exclusion of all other religions. Rather than “infidels,” Muslims must look at Hindus as “brothers in the Ultimate Reality.” Rather than persecuting and subjugating Christians and Jews, Muslims must acknowledge them as parallel paths to heaven.

And this is where the intolerance of religious pluralism becomes exposed. Christianity is indeed a legitimate response to the ultimate reality, but only insofar as it has been reduced to an unorthodox, unhistorical caricature. The same thing happens to other religious traditions, but our primary concern for today is how Christianity has to be reinterpreted beyond recognition in order for pluralists to make it harmonizable with other religious traditions.

Thus, the end result of religious pluralism is the opposite of what it claims to be. While pluralism is put forward to “avoid the implication of particularism … namely that large numbers of morally good, sincere, intelligent people are simply wrong in their basic religious beliefs”, it ends up insulting the basic beliefs of people even more strongly. “The clear implication of pluralism is that [all religious people] are all wrong in their basic beliefs. To be sure, the pluralist is quick to add that, despite their mistaken beliefs, they are all in some way responding appropriately to the religious ultimate; it is just that they are not doing so in the manner in which the believers themselves think they are. But it is hard to see why this way of rejecting their beliefs as mistakes is … tolerant.” (Netland, 246) Pluralists accuse Christians of being narrow-minded in their religious views, believing that Christianity is the truth and that all other religions are, to a greater or lesser degree, false. Yet religious pluralism ultimately accuses all religions, including Christianity, of being fundamentally false! In the end, religious pluralism is the only true religion. A pluralist might argue that their perspective at least acknowledges every human religion as containing a semblance of truth, and being a legitimate response to the Divine Reality. However, Christianity also acknowledges that every other human religion contains a semblance of truth—some religions contain relatively more truth, some comparatively less, but all contain at least some truth. And we must also insist that religious pluralism does not, in the end, acknowledge all religions as being “legitimate” responses to Divine Reality—indeed, all religions are in need of radical reconstruction. The enlightened religious pluralist is fortunately on hand to do the job for us.

All of this leads to an inevitable conclusion: religious pluralism is not an acceptance of all of the world’s religions as legitimate paths to salvation at all. Rather, pluralism represents the creation of a new religion which believes the following core doctrines. First, all human religions have some truth in them. Second, all human religions have some myths within them which must be reinterpreted or deconstructed in order to come to a knowledge of the truth. Third, pluralism contains the truth about the Divine Reality. Fourth, we can accept some tenets of each religion, but must reject others. This does not represent a tolerance of all religions. On the one hand, pluralism is the creation of an entirely new religion. And on the other hand, pluralism represents the height of religious arrogance and intolerance. For the pluralist does not just believe that “all religions except Christianity” are fundamentally false—rather, the pluralist believes that “all other religions including Christianity” are false and need to be reinterpreted.

Postscript

A closing note is important to emphasize. The issue of religious pluralism is one which is necessary to address within the Church of Jesus Christ, and more so than it is for many other religious traditions. In Hinduism and Buddhism, this life is not all that there is. If we do not discover the religious truth in this lifetime, we will be reincarnated as many times as it takes for us to get it. Our soul is indestructible, and until we achieve enlightenment, we will continue to be reborn. Thus, someone dying without embracing the truth of Hinduism or Buddhism is not a tremendous tragedy.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that this physical life is the only one which we have. The religious choices we make in this mortal life determine our eternal destiny. Thus, if someone dies without Christ, embracing the false worldview proposed by Islam or Hinduism or Naturalism, then this is something which has eternal consequences for them. This is a risk which we simply cannot be willing to take! This is the reason why Christians (at least orthodox, biblical Christians) respond so strongly in the face of religious pluralism. Pluralism is much more than a passing fad to be laughed at. It is a dangerous doctrine which may be costing the souls of millions of people. We cannot sit idly by and allow the precepts of pluralism to infiltrate culture and society.

Of course, this reality is also the driving force behind Christian missions. Why do we take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to people in cultures that have not heard of Him? Why do we seek to transform non-Christians into disciples of Jesus? Why are we so insistent that folks need to come to God, turning away from their sins, and accept the salvation that comes solely through faith in Jesus Christ? Because of our love for people, and our concern for their eternal destiny. Religious pluralism paves the road to hell for too many people, and we cannot sit by and allow that to happen. If we love our neighbour, we will seek to share Christ with them – not out of disrespect for their religious tradition, not out of our own arrogance, and not because we want to be brash, arrogant twits; but because sharing the Gospel with someone who does not know Jesus as Saviour and Lord is the most loving, most compassionate thing that we can do for them.