“You can’t claim your way is the right way! Do you have any idea how bigoted and offensive that is?”

Christianity is in an awkward spot with the rest of culture. At its center stands a man who claimed to be the only way to God. (John 14:6) Yet America is a melting pot/salad bowl/other food analogy, right? Pluralism and tolerance leads to life, and exclusivity and intolerance leads to death. Who could be more intolerant than a Lord who claims complete authority over your life, and claims to be the only authority worth following? What could be more offensive than the claim that some of the most cherished beliefs of people in our society are wrong?

In light of this tension, people often cherry pick the Bible. Jesus gets remade in our own cultural image; the sermon on the mount becomes evidence of religion’s positive force when Jesus is placed right alongside Buddha as a spiritual teacher. We’d like to see Jesus as a way, a truth, and a life. However, the Jesus of the New Testament is very offensive when we allow Him to speak on His own terms. He claimed to be God-incarnate; He is the truth, the way, and the life. With several sweeping claims, He does away with other religions and philosophies and sets Himself up as the only Lord.

Here’s the challenge, then, that every Christian of our day must face: is this bigoted? Is it bigoted to say that Jesus is the only path worth following, the only truth worth obeying, and the only life that leads to life?

If you’d like to see the answer to that question, scroll down to the header “Is Christianity Bigoted?” But to answer that question, I’d like to provide some context. How did we get to a spot where the idea of Jesus’ exclusivity is offensive?

Before the 20th Century

In one sense, Christians have always faced pluralistic culture. A second century critic of Christianity (named Celsus) criticized the religion on grounds of “atheism”; why couldn’t these Christians just accept everyone else’s gods? Why did they have to be so exclusivist? The charge is nothing new. What is new is the post-Christian setting we now find ourselves in.

For over a millennia, the West has had a largely Christian milieu. After Constantine legalized Christianity (note: he didn’t stomp out other religions nor did he invent the deity of Christ nor did he invent the canon as is often claimed), it wasn’t long before Christianity spread throughout the empire and became the official religion. This led to a radical shift in culture. Before, the world was believed to have been inhabited by gods and spirits; now the world was believed to be governed by a sovereign God. Don’t get me wrong; superstition still abounded. But Christianity paved the way for the scientific revolution.

Don’t believe me? The beliefs of Isaac Newton, for example, grounded his belief that the universe was an intelligible place which operates by logical laws. In fact, most scientists of the scientific revolution were believers in Jesus Christ. Christianity swept over the Western world and provided a framework under which scientific investigation could happen. If the world was ruled by a God of order, not by a capricious pantheon, then it would make sense that the world was orderly.

(See “God, Science, and Atheism”)

The scientific revolution paved the way for the Enlightenment. It is an undeniable fact that, while Christianity (I believe) provided a framework under which scientific investigation could happen, the scientific revolution challenged authority. Think of Galileo’s legendary stand against the Roman Catholic Church. Right after “recanting” his teaching that the earth goes around the sun, he quipped “and yet [the earth] moves”.

Enter the Enlightenment.

During the Enlightenment, the challenge to church authority was taken even further. In 1755 on All Saint’s Day, an earthquake at Lisbon devastated the kingdom of Portugal. The roof of church buildings collapsed on the heads of tens of thousands of people–the death toll is estimated anywhere between 10000 and 100000. The horrors of the earthquake sparked developments in religious philosophy. An age old question resurfaced: where is God in the face of tragedy?

This sparked the deistic beliefs characteristic of Enlightenment philosophers. If such horrors happen in the world, isn’t it far more plausible to believe that God created the world and lets us do our own thing? How could there be a loving God intimately involved with the world when stuff like this happens? If God exists, He must be far and away–removed from our world. Enter Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, etc.

It is not a massive step from “God set off the world and doesn’t intervene” to “why think God exists at all?” Enter David Hume. Hume, an atheist, thought that all the arguments for God’s existence were bunk (especially in light of the problem of evil). An empiricist–someone who believes that all knowledge must be verified through the information we acquire from the senses, or from logical necessity–he thought there to be no reason to think that God exists. Most philosophers, however, were theists because of the argument from design (though Kant had a moral argument of his own). How could life forms as diverse and wonderfully formed as ours just…happen?

Enter Darwin.

In the 19th century, Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. No doubt, this would upset many religious authorities and spark much of the modern conversation over whether faith and science are compatible. In it, he sets out his theory of evolution; new species form through the accumulation of changes over time, solidified in a genetic line via natural selection. Changes which are beneficial to survival are propagated through specimens lucky enough to have those changes (whether by mutation or by genetic drift). Species ill-adapted to Earth’s changing environment are wiped out, over time. If Earth is a few billion years old, then (it was thought) diverse species such as ours could emerge over time.

After Darwin put forth his theory, religion could be questioned freely and openly. The last “evidence” for faith was thought to be finally taken down. The authority of religion could fall to the ground–and man was liberated to determine his own destiny.

The Cosmic Orphan and the Bloodiest Century

That brings us to the fringes of the 20th century and a man named Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a German philosopher and a vocal atheist; he is thought to be responsible for proclaiming “the death of God”. In his view, the Enlightenment and Darwin had thoroughly “killed off” the idea of God. But where did that leave mankind?

According to Nietzsche, that left mankind in nihilism. Nihilism is the view that there are no moral values and no external purpose given to us. Morality is simply a social construct used to help us survive; it has no binding force or no objective authority behind it. To Nietzsche, in the absence of God, man was a kind of cosmic orphan. He has no Cosmic Parent to tell him what to do. There are no moral norms–hence, the only way forward was “the will to power”. Without on objective moral law giver, Might makes Right. And this, sadly, was the theme of the 20th century.

In WW1, it was the nation with the most bravado and firepower that won the day. The winners had the right to crush the weaker–and hence Germany was economically crushed by the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty was intended to ensure that Germany could never rise to power again; Might makes right, and in this case makes the right to crush the enemy’s Might.

A man by the name of Adolf Hitler saw a prime opportunity to unite the nation. He picked a scapegoat (the Jewish people) to blame the nation’s problems on; he then rallied his people around eliminating those deemed blameworthy and around the superiority of the Aryan race. German nationalism was fueled on identifying Jewish people and the Jewish religion as inferior to Nazi ideology. Without an objective moral law giver, who could stop Hitler? Might makes right, according to Nietzsche. And the might of the Nazi regime allowed those in power to define what was right. The result? Over 6 million Jewish people slaughtered mercilessly, as well as tens of millions more in the wars. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong–leaders who took up “Might Makes Right”, because there was no external authority that could tell them what to do. They were the authority.

But then…do authority figures really have that much power?

The Civil Rights movement was by no means a rebellion against authority. Martin Luther King Jr. was a deeply religious man; he believed that God’s creation of mankind in His own image grounded the equality of all persons. However, the Civil Rights movement also began a challenge to existing authorities. White supremacists only have power if they go unchallenged–the same is true with every single dictator. Authority only works if those in authority are sufficiently constrained. But what happens when authority figures can be opposed?

In fact…why should we listen to authority at all?

Given that authority figures in power could be challenged, Might makes Right if and only if “Might” has any might. The Sexual Revolution demonstrated that the prevailing moral authority of the day could indeed be challenged as well. Bikinis represent a throwing off of authorities that constrained women’s bodies to particular kinds of clothing. Free sex and free love represented a throwing off of the constraint of marriage. “Do what makes you happy” started to become a felt mantra by young people–and making love makes people happy!

And making love also makes people. But Roe v. Wade continued the trend; why should humans listen to “moral authority”? If God is dead (or at least, asleep in the public cultural consciousness), then don’t humans have the right to define morality for themselves? Free love comes with consequences only if you’re obligated to endure those consequences. But, I mean, “imagine no religion, there’s no hell below us, no heaven above–imagine all the people, living together as one.” The cultural conclusion of the bloodshed seems to be this: the source of the past conflict was authority’s club. The religious club of heaven and hell and the political club of propaganda and power were really both clubs of authority. If humans are the cosmic orphan, we can define morality, what it means to be human, and revolt against authorities contrary to our desires.

And of course, there’s some truth to this. Christianity makes claims counter to the secular humanism of our day or the Enlightenment deism of the past; this certainly sets people at odds with one another. It always has. And the beliefs of nihilists, white supremacists, Nazism, facism, and Christianity all share something in common: authority matters. So even though Christianity has always maintained that God is the moral authority, nihilism came along and relegated authority to those in power. So what if you empower everyone to wield the authority to define their own lives? Insofar as authority is identified with something external to “me”, it keeps me from being me.

But we live in the age of “you do you” and “let me be me” and “let me be authentic”. If we remove as many external constraints as possible from human existence, perhaps we can remove the conflict that has characterized a world under authority. Perhaps the world can be as one.

I have argued that in the absence of God, moral relativism inevitably follows. If I’m right, then the solution of “getting rid of external constraints” is a false one. If everyone defines their own path, and some of those paths put people in conflict, then we’ve returned to the problem of the 20th century. We haven’t escaped it. But the moment someone says “define your path insofar as that path doesn’t conflict with another person’s path”, then the problem of moral authority emerges once more. Such a person is assuming that one ought not define their path in such a way that it causes conflict or harm to another person’s path. But what gives them the authority to say such a thing? From where are they pulling this norm “you ought not harm others”–who or what says you ought not do such a thing?

In truth, external norms are necessary for the achievement of any functional society or personal goal. You can’t have a bunch of people killing each other, right? You can’t let people bully one another, defame one another’s character, so on and so forth, right? In other words, you ought not let such behavior pass, and you ought not engage in such behavior. Or suppose you want to learn how to play piano. In order to do so, you must place yourself under certain constraints; you must limit your time in some activities in order to do other activities. You must put yourself under the discipline of daily practice. Constraints are a necessary part of life.

The solution to the problems of the past century does not lie in throwing off as many constraints as we possibly can. The solution is not to make man and woman the authorities of their own life (for we will always find a higher authority circumscribing our authority–do not kill, or don’t be a jerk, for example). The conflicts of the past were not bred because of the existence of authority itself. Rather, conflicts happen when people obey differing authorities–or when some are obeying the wrong authority. (The Nazis obeying Hitler, White Supremacists obeying KKK leaders, etc)

The solution is to find the right authority.

Is Christianity Bigoted?

That brings us to the present question. Is it bigoted to claim that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life? Is setting up Jesus as the sole Lord (over and against everyone else) a false start for humanity? Is it just another power ploy? Can’t we all just get along?

The claim of Jesus’ unique Lordship is only detrimental to human flourishing if Jesus is just another false authority. Galileo locked arms with the Roman Catholic Church not because authority itself was the issue, but rather because the Catholic Church is a false authority when it comes to heliocentric vs geocentric views of the universe. Conflict is bred between competing authorities because some of those authorities are tyrannical, false, useless, or all of the above or some of the above.

But the truth is that we all make exclusive truth claims. There is no such thing as true inclusivity. The one who says “you should tolerate my beliefs!” is also saying “intolerance is wrong”. In other words, intolerance is to be excluded from society. Moreover, the one who says “there are many paths to God” exclude the beliefs of people who say “there’s only one path to God: Jesus Christ.” The truth claim that “Jesus is the Risen Lord” is exclusive, but it is no more exclusive than any other truth claim. Unless you throw out truth altogether (and I mean you can’t…to say “all truth is relative” is to make an absolute truth claim about all truth…which would mean that not all truth is relative), you can’t help but make truth claims that exclude other people’s beliefs.

Now, one could always object: even if Jesus is the Risen Lord, why should I obey Him?

Jesus and the Path to your Happiness

Do what makes you happy is a powerful sentiment of our day. If something doesn’t make you happy, scrap it.

Now, some Christians want to do away with this mantra. Hence, you get phrases like “love isn’t a feeling, it’s a choice. It’s a duty. Do your flippin duty.” But I don’t quite think that’s the Biblical approach.

According to Jesus in John 15:11, all of His commands are given that our joy might be full.

Under what conditions do we rebel against authority? We tend to reject tyrannical authorities (or decide that they are indeed tyrannical) on the basis of whether they have our best interests in mind. What does that mean? I think it means that authorities stand or fall on whether they are out to enable our happiness. Hence, part and parcel of the US Declaration of Independence is “the pursuit of happiness”. The US rejected British authority because of perceived constraints on this pursuit.

But what if Jesus is out for your joy? What if His authority isn’t a club by which He hovers over mankind, but is a Fountain for thirsty souls? Obeying His authority would no longer about surrendering the pursuit of happiness. In fact, it would be the pursuit of everlasting happiness. Unlike the dictators of the past, the Lord Jesus does not claim that those who follow Him are superior to anyone in value. In fact, He claims that those who follow Him recognize that they’re messed up and in need of a Savior. They’ve tried to run their lives and they’ve failed. They realize that authority to define human existence was never theirs in the first place.

Nor do they want it to be! For in Jesus, you find everything you want. His commands are not some tyrant’s attempt to rip happiness from us and exploit us. They are the path of true, lasting life.

Apart from God, man is the cosmic orphan. “Do what you want” can only breed conflict if there is no “do what you ought”. But in Jesus, paradoxes meet. Might and weakness, Majesty and Humility, Sovereignty and service, heaven and earth meet in His life, death and Resurrection. In Jesus, what you ought to do is joined with do what you (really) want to; duty and joy are married and become one.

Jesus is no tyrant. If He is God, then He is the lovely King beckoning you to drink. He is the Fountainhead of all Beauty, and all good in the world is meant to lead you to Him. He is the One for whom you were made. Ignoring Him means ignoring the Fountainhead of all Beauty and good. His authority is no club; it is the soul’s true food. Turning from Him means to turn from The Good behind all true good. It means refusing to eat the only actual food the universe can grow. And therefore, it means eternally starving. It is either Jesus or nothing. It can be no other way…

That is, IF Jesus has risen from the dead. If Jesus is alive, then that changes everything. You cannot view ethics, purpose, history, or human existence the same way ever again. Your story gains meaning from the lens of His. And if that’s really true, then that means that true joy is to be seen by seeing through His eyes.

Jesus ought not be rejected because He makes exclusive truth claims. Nor should He be rejected because He sets Himself up as the joyful authority of our lives. No. The claims of Jesus as the risen Lord out for your joy stand or fall on whether He’s risen.

And that’s something I’m more than willing to explore with you, my reader, if you’re willing to contact me. I’d love to get coffee with you, video chat with you, or whatever–I really think Jesus Christ is the One for whom you were made. I really do believe that His authority is sweet, and His commands are life. And I’d love to be a resource as you test the claims of Jesus and ask if He is really the One you’re searching for.

Do what makes you happy. If Jesus is your Lord and my Lord, then communing with Him and relating to Him is what will make you and I eternally happy. Ask Him for Him. Taste and see, and read the Gospel accounts for yourself. See if this Authority really is THE Authority. I believe that you will find that the Lord is the Good you were seeking all along.