Question 160, from Huw, United Kingdom

Is there only one ‘true’ religion?

The points of view about whether Christianity is ‘true’ in comparison to ‘truth’ found in other religions can be thought of as a spectrum. This ranges from those who would insist that Christianity is exclusively true and all other religions are in error, through to those who would quite happily view other religions as having an equal and valid view of God, and to be a means to salvation for some. (This is often referred to as pluralism.)
(more…)

Question from JF, USA

If you had a vision of Krishna that said you were going to be reincarnated would you believe it to be real or hallucination? If you had a vision of God where he told you that you were definitely destined to go to Hell would you believe it to be real or hallucination? If you had a vision of God where he tells you that Jesus is the true saviour and to put your faith in Christ would you believe it to be real or hallucination? How can someone differentiate between which religious visions are real, and which are hallucinations?

A ‘religious experience’, by virtue of its very nature, remains subjective. Without going into too much detail, there are some obvious tests relating to a person’s psychological state, whether the experience matches up to previous claimed phenomena and enquiries from an objective point of view.

If a person claimed to have had all three experiences listed in the question, or similarly a series of experiences that contradicted each other, then it would be legitimate to critique the experiences and the individual claiming them. Simple questioning would uncover whether the individual was telling the truth, in that they had really experienced something they believed to be true, or whether the person was psychologically unbalanced.

In terms of Christian theology, several ‘supernatural’ phenomenon are recorded in the Bible and Christian history. These include encounters with God (theophany), visions, interpretation of visions, prophecy, fore-knowledge or revelatory knowledge with no other means of verification, manifestations of God’s power (revivalism), personality changes, instantaneous transportation, healing through prayer, coincidental occurrences, the resurrection of dead people and changes in the physical world and the nature of things. The disturbing thing for some Christians is that most, if not all, these phenomena have been recorded in other religious systems as well. It seems arrogant, and a touch disingenuous, to dismiss the things experienced in other religions as being false, while ‘Christian’ experiences are true.

It is common now, within Christian theology, for many of these things to be explained in a scientific manner. Frequently the stories found in the Bible, or early Christian literature, are regarded as parabolic stories. So, for example, when Jesus heals a man who was blind from birth in John chapter 9, the author deliberately contrasts the restoration of physical sight with the ‘spiritual blindness’ of the religious leaders of the day (verse 30). Most of the miraculous stories found in the Bible may have this intent of revealing a certain truth and can be interpreted this way.

However, it must be noted that this modern way of interpreting supernatural phenomena is a product of the Enlightenment scientific rationale and deciding to interpret religious experiences using that outlook is a value judgment made by the individual. But the advantage of doing this is that it discounts phenomena experienced in all religions, leaving Christians arguing for the truth of their worldview on the basis of reason and historical accuracy. The only question that then remains is how true can a religion be, if it relies on manufactured stories of miracles to convey truth?

Accepting that religious experiences may happen, it is worth analysing those experiences from a critical standpoint. It is a noted fact that those undergoing ‘religious’ experiences are usually people who go looking for them. To illustrate this, the likelihood of a person ‘speaking in tongues’ (glossolalia) increases greatly if they belong to a church that actively encourages it, perhaps even claiming that it is a hallmark of genuine salvation. Precedent causes phenomena – whether that is visions of the Blessed Virgin at a Catholic shrine, or people falling down under the influence of ‘the Spirit’ in a Bible-belt tent meeting. Even people who would claim that they were not looking for a religious experience, may have been subconsciously desiring one. Unfortunately there is no way of analysing those subconscious desires after the event, because they will have been met and eradicated through the experience, so the thesis that there is a subconscious desire can never be proved.

Real problems start when individuals believe that they have received ‘new’ revelations about the nature of God. It is hard to contradict somebody who believes that God has ‘told’ them something – it is self-authoritisation of the worst kind. Perhaps the solution to the problem is to recognise that ‘religious’ experiences are valid, because the person who experienced them believes they had a religious experience. As it is a totally subjective event, it leaves other people free to accept or reject it, based on any means of judgement they choose. The safeguards for Christians remain 1) weighing experiences against Biblical accounts, 2) Christian precedent and 3) God-given reason.

Assessing experiences has been a problem for Christians since the earliest Christian communities formed (see Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, chapter 5, verses 19-21 and the first epistle of John, chapter 4, verse 1) and, in all honesty, as long as there are people looking for a religious experience, this will probably always be a problematic area for the Christian community.

Thanks for your question, JF.

Freelance theology is dedicated to answering every theological query, but obviously some of the answers encourage further questions. Here is one such dialogue between Jon the freelance theologian and MM, United Kingdom.

MM wrote
I have just read your response to the question posted about the ‘eternal gulf’, as experienced by CM in relation to their Muslim friend. It was good to read an independent and serious Christian opinion on this, but I feel you have made one crucial mistake. Referring to the Incarnation of Jesus, you describe the claims surrounding it as ‘incredible’; whilst this may be understood as an expression of awe, in literal terms the word chosen means ‘not able to be believed’. As you have explained the root of the word ‘creed[s]‘ in your response to the question ‘What does the Bible say about the Trinity?’, it seems a shame to use the word in a way that could trip up a pedantic reader, or one who does not accept the truth of the Incarnation.

Jon the freelance theologian responded
There is a reference within the context of the article (‘Uncommon Ground’) to how the Islamic comprehension of God allows no possibility for the Incarnation: “The claim that Jesus is the “Son of God” is nonsensical to a Muslim, because the Qur’anic view of God is absolutely monotheistic.” In this sense, something that Christians take for granted is ‘beyond belief’ for a Muslim.

Even within Christianity, the Incarnation remains a difficult concept to grasp, involving as it does various paradoxical statements. Most theologians would eventually admit that a certain amount of faith comes into play once the spheres of reasoned argument and historical study come to an end. Technically, ‘incredible’ means ‘hard to believe or imagine’, and can be used informally to mean ‘marvellous or amazing’ (Collins English Dictionary). All of those definitions can be applied to the Incarnation.

Original questions or comments on previous posts are welcomed – just write to freelance theology.

Question from CM, United Kingdom

I have a friend who is a Muslim. He prays more often than I do and we agree on a lot of topics such as the state of the world, the insanity of terrorism, the depravity of modern culture etc. We can even both talk about Jesus in a positive way except that obviously Mohammed is held in higher regard. With so much in common, why do I feel such an eternal gulf between us and yet feel unable to criticise a faith, which is so similar on many levels and yet fundamentally will lead this friend into damnation?

In this post-modern world, it is very unfashionable to refer to the truth-claims of the different religions and yet those truth-claims are often a large factor in making a belief system. So, for example, without a claim to be God’s chosen people, Judaism becomes an interesting moral code. Without the superiority of the ‘ultimate revelation’ that is Qur’an, Islam becomes a hybrid development of primitive Christianity and Jewish legalism. Without the incredible claims surrounding the Incarnation, Christianity becomes the example of a moral teacher.

The main difference between Islam and Christianity is found in the peculiarly Christian concept of the Trinitarian God. The claim that Jesus is the “Son of God” is nonsensical to a Muslim, because the Qur’anic view of God is absolutely monotheistic. Allah is the one God, above everything, source of everything else that exists. The Christian conception of God is markedly different. For a start there is the paradoxical statement ‘one God in three persons’ and the essential Unity of the Triune Godhead is a theological enigma that has yet to be satisfactorily defined despite two thousand years spent trying.

But it is in this understanding of God that Christians and Muslims differ. ‘Islam’ means ‘submission’ – to submit to the will of Allah is thus the only moral claim on a human being’s life. There is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ except for doing the will of God as revealed through the Qur’an and later interpretations of it. [This of course leads to the extremist tendency, which justifies terrorism as the ‘will of Allah’ and therefore ‘good’.] Salvation thus comes through submitting to the will of God and relying solely on God’s mercy to allow the individual into paradise.

In contrast, the Trinitarian view reveals God as relational. The ‘coinherence’ (in Greek ‘perichoresis’) of the three persons, shows God, not as a distant, unknowable God, but as one who knows and can be known. God is thus interested in saving humanity for a purpose – to have a relationship with human beings. God enters human history as a ‘Father’ sending his ‘Son’ in the power of the ‘Spirit’. Thus all three persons are involved in the Incarnation and the very nature of God is revealed through the human life of Jesus Christ. Those who are saved are promised eternal life in true relationship with God as opposed to the Muslim promise of immortal life in a pleasure-filled version of earth.

In many respects, given this crucial divergence in view, it is no wonder there is an ‘eternal gulf’ between Christians and Muslims. However, we must hold onto the hope that the God who seeks a restored relationship with all human beings will look favourably on those who try to live their lives in submission to him.

Thanks for your question, CM. .