The Historical Jesus vs. The Biblical Christ
The famous historian, Arnold Toynbee, predicted that the governments of the world would unite either by force or federation, but that the unity could not succeed without a universal religion. Christianity, he said, should be purged of its “sinful state of mind,” namely its exclusivism. The political/economic framework of world government would need to be supported by the unified spiritual dimension of humankind.
We are told that the only hope for peaceful co-existence in our country and the larger world is for the religions of the world to set aside their differences and rally around the common banner of love, acceptance, and service to our fellow man. After all, the various religions are but different expressions of the same ultimate, the same god (or gods).
The Bible, it is said, does not mean what most think it does; all that is required is to give up doctrines and then we will see that its metaphors will yield a deeper, hidden meaning.
Christianity, we’re told, has failed. Christianity talks of love and breeds hate; it speaks of one creator yet divides the creation with its narrow doctrines. The message is clear: It’s time to move on. Christianity is like a boat that has taken us across the river; now it’s time to abandon it for the exciting new future.
Obviously if the Bible is to harmonize with any number of religious viewpoints, it has to be reinterpreted, made to “fit,” if you please. The impression is given that the Bible can be easily stripped of its literal meaning and made compatible with any number of viewpoints.
Standing in the way of the Grand Plan for religious unity is the person of Christ. Historically, Christianity has held Him to be unique, the only special Son of God, the Lord, Saviour. But many Christians (or at least many of those who use the label) are beginning to think that we can no longer maintain exclusivity in the mist of the growing awareness of other faiths.
Here are three possible ways to relate Christ to the challenges of other religions.
First, there is pluralism – the direct assertion that we must accept all religions as equals. Christ is only a man, a prophet, one of a variety of options, and not necessarily a better option at that. We should not simply tolerate different religions; we should grant them the same respect we give our own. In this scenario Christ is variously interpreted, but always He is stripped of His deity. This pluralism affirms without qualification that no religion has the right to sit in judgment upon another. Superiority leads to the prejudice that must be exposed, despised, and eventually plucked up by the roots.
A second, more common, stance is inclusivism – an openness to other religions that began with the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Christ, in this view, may still be unique, but He does not have sole possession of the truth. Other religions are also an expression of the divine, though their form may be less clear than that given to us in the New Testament.
The World Council of Churches stresses that only through religious dialogue amid the diversity of the world’s religions is it possible to see the totality of God’s revelation. Since Vatican II, this march toward inclusivism has been seen in the Catholic Church too. Previously, it was fervently believed that salvation could come only through the church – that is, the Catholic Church. But now that Protestants are called “separated brethren,” one text of the Council says that the Roman Church must no longer be identified as the sole church of Jesus Christ and “that those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the Church in various ways.”
Third, there is exclusivism which maintains that God has revealed Himself only in Christ; all other religions are therefore incomplete, misleading, and false. Exclusivism does not conflict with freedom of religion. Freedom to adopt whatever religion one wishes should be a right in all countries, especially those that have been influenced by the Christian faith. Exclusivism means that, whereas we recognize and respect freedom of religion, we do not compromise our beliefs. We also do not combine them with other religions or philosophies. Since there is one true God, our options are limited.
Interest in Christ is on the rise. A recent article in U.S. News & World Report says that “the quest for the historical Jesus is getting a new surge of scholarly energy.” Every day – in churches, in self-help groups, in discussions at home and in the office – Christ is discussed. Christ is being refined to suit the syncretism of our times.
Since Christ said that the world hated him (John 7:7), we can be quite sure that when the world loves Him it is because they have made Him into something He is not. The Biblical Christ cannot be dismissed; He stands in our path forcing us to make a decision, either to the right or to the left. In His presence neutrality is impossible.
Christ must always stand alone; all attempts to unite Him with religions of the world are doomed to fail. Once we clarify His credentials and the gospel He brought us, we will realize that the Christian faith is exclusive and must logically be so. If there is any good news in the world, the followers of Christ will have to proclaim it. Other religions take bad men and try to make them better, only one (Christianity) is qualified to take dead men and make them alive. “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened [made alive] together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses (Colossians 2:13).