As I noted in my previous post, pluralism is not a new challenge for Christianity.  Early Christianity addressed, and in large part, emerged victorious in the pluralistic age into which it was born.  It is helpful to note the similarities as well as the the differences between the first century pluralism and today’s pluralism.  Through recognizing and addressing these similarities and differences, I believe we can establish a paradigm for speaking truth into our culture (ironically, absolute truth is not a popular topic in today’s world.  We’ll be dealing with the subjects of absolute truth, interpretation, and communication as it relates to our faith and contemporary society in the coming posts).

We will note the similarities between both instances of pluralism first.  Both the first century culture and contemporary Western society are products of religious and philosophical pluralism.  Both instances value highly the prevalence of a multitude of religious and philosophical views possible.  Both instances emphasize religious tolerance.  And both instances balk at the preaching of an exclusive faith.

Now, we’ll explore the differences between these two instances of pluralism.  First century pluralism was intensely practical.  In other words, religious practices and rituals were many and varied.  Mystery cults, the Greek and Roman pantheon of gods, and emperor worship were common.  Any and all were acceptable because ritual (or religious practice) was preferred and faith (belief within the religious system) was neglected or rendered unnecessary.  Contemporary pluralism is more ideological in nature.  Rather than rendering the beliefs within different faiths unnecessary, contemporary pluralism preaches tolerance and personalizes with intensity one’s religious beliefs.  In other words, belief in this model becomes relative and not absolute.

In next week’s post, we will begin addressing the relativization of religious belief. We will briefly trace this process of relativizing (personalizing) religious belief through history (with roots in the Middle Ages, exponential development in the Enlightenment, and general acceptance in contemporary postmodernism).

For today, it is important to recognize that the ultimate solution to both expressions of pluralism is essentially the same–Christians must preach the exclusive historical message of the gospel to the world around them.  The early church preached the scandalous message of the gospel, not because of its popularity, but because of the genuineness of their faith in the Christ of the message.  The church’s hope for successfully addressing pluralism today is the same.  We must genuinely believe in the exclusive truth of the gospel message and preach it with conviction and clarity to the world around us.  Understanding our culture will help us engage people at the spiritual and ideological barriers that hinder their response to the gospel.

My hope for these posts and lessons in the Link Class is that we will more deeply appreciate the depth and veracity of our faith.  I also hope that we will more clearly see the hindrances (personal, religious, ideological, intellectual) that inhibit people from responding positively to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I’m planning to start a new teaching series in my Sunday School class this week.  The broad topic of my series will be “Why We Think the Way We Do and Why it Matters.”  Specifically, I will be addressing some of the reasons why Christianity has been minimized in contemporary culture and how we can/must respond.  One influential topic that has both biblical and contemporary significance is religious pluralism which is at the least illustrated by the coexist symbol.  By way of introduction, if coexist means that we have the religious freedom to express a variety of viewpoints, then I can go along with it.  I can also go along with it if it is simply the observation that contemporary society contains a variety of religious expressions.  However, if coexist implies that there is truth in each of the above religious or philosophic expressions, then I must respectfully disagree.

Ironically, part of the problem with the previous paragraph of discussion is the variety of opinions and/or perspectives on the meaning of the coexist symbol. (I’ll address this specially in a future post).  Who gets to say what it means?  Maybe it’s the originator of the symbol?  Or maybe it’s the one who sells it as a bumper sticker?  Or maybe it’s the person who chooses to express it on their car?  Or maybe you get to decide?

Over the next few weeks, I’m going to write and teach on the topics of Religious Pluralism and the Exclusive Gospel.  We certainly do live in a culture that can be accurately described as pluralistic. The many faiths, opinions, and philosophies expressed in our free nation are a testimony to the freedoms of religion and free speech that highlight one of many great things about the United States.  However, our nation is not unique in it’s pluralism of ideas.  The ancient Greco-Roman world into which the first Christians lived and preached was intensely pluralistic.  For example, see Paul in Acts 17 as he visited and preached in Athens (the centerpiece of Greek philosophy and seat of worship for a multitude of idols).

What I cannot accept (and what we as Christians must not accept) is the premise that saving truth and saving faith exists in different religions.  What vexed the apostle Paul (Acts 17:16) was that the sincerely held rituals of religion and the passionate appeals to philosophy expressed in Athens would end up in the same place—a place of separation from the One true Creator, Savior, Lord of the Universe—the God of the Bible.  I love the paradox of the apostle Paul in this passage.  While he was “provoked” concerning the false religions and philosophies, he nevertheless was complimentary to his audience even though he would preach that Christ, and Christ alone is the Savior of men.

While we’ll address this topic in detail in the next post, allow me to conclude with this observation.  Understanding the culture of pluralism that Paul faced in Athens helped him communicate the gospel effectively.  I believe understanding the culture of pluralism facing us today will aid us in two important ways.  First, by developing a framework for how our thinking (both consciously and unconsciously) has been shaped by the context of religious pluralism in our culture, we can better understand and defend our Christian faith.  Second, through recognizing the context of religious pluralism around us, we can more clearly articulate the gospel effectively to those around us who are steeped in false religions and ideologies.  After all, God is going to “judge the world in righteousness” through Jesus Christ (Acts 17:31).  If we’re not willing to warn them about this judgment, who will?