Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Subject: non-Christian religions Approved: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu Yesterday I commented on an article that asked about the claim that Islam is Satanic. The author thought that was a bit odd, given that all of the Moslems he knew seemed likely reasonable enough people. I pointed out that this probably wasn't intended as a judgement on Islam in particular, but was simply a consequence of a more general belief that all non-Christian religions are fakes created by Satan. As I pointed out, this need not mean that there's no truth to them. Satan could very well create a religion that is very fine in every way, except that it does not include crucial information about Christ. (This is probably an odd citation, but I'm reminded of Blish's science fiction novel "A Case of Conscience." The protagonist runs across a non-human race that is a paragon of ethical and humane living. But the final conclusion is that it's a Satanic plot to convince humans that God is not necessary.) That comment was done as moderator. While I included a brief disclaimer, I have decided that I had better clarify my own reactions to it. Otherwise those who have read my views in the past are likely to think that I've gone off the deep end. It's clear that increased contact with non-Christian religions has caused great soul-searching for Christians in the last century or so. Previous to that, it had been widely believed (at least among Protestants -- I think the Jesuits had more sophisticated ideas) that Christianity was the only true religion, and that all other religions worshipped false gods. As I pointed out in my earlier posting, this need not mean that everyone else was visibly Satanic. But at a minimum it meant that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, and no other religion encourages a saving faith in Christ. Yet Christians knew enough about other religions to know that there was a good deal of overlap with Christianity in basic ethics and even religious values. How could religions that are ultimately not true have so much truth? One early suggestion was that Satan was responsible for this -- he created the other religions as traps for the unwary. In order to be effective, the traps would have to be attractive. Thus they had much real wisdom. All that had to be missing for Satan's purpose was the information needed to create a saving faith in Christ. For one reason or another, most Christians in the 20th Cent. find this explanation implausible. The most direct indication of this I have is in Barna's "What Americans Believe". He posed the proposition "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others all pray to the same God, even though they use different names for that God." Here are some of the results, combining agree strongly with agree somewhat, and disagree strongly with disagree somewhat: yes no don't know total: 64 27 10 born again: 48 41 12 evangelical: 46 42 13 Catholic: 83 10 6 mainline: 70 22 8 Born again is a classification Barna made based on answers to a few basic doctrinal questions. It is not limited to the traditional Protestant "born again" people. The last three categories are based on the church people reported attending. "mainline" is basically liberal Protestant. Note that even among the most conservative Christian groups, a plurality believe that non-Christians pray to the same God. Note also the higher level of "don't know" among conservatives. It's as if they know they're supposed to answer "no", but don't quite believe it. This doesn't say explicitly that non-Christians can be saved (and Barna doesn't report the results on any question like that), but I think that's a likely implication (and Barna refers to the position as "universalist"). It is certainly a repudiation of the traditional belief that non-Christians worship demons and idols. Based on postings here and other evidence, it's clear that many Christians find it hard to believe that God will damn people who are basically nice guys, and are doing the best with what they know. This is quite a contrast to the Reformers' views that being a nice guy isn't the issue, because nobody can be nice enough. Only Christ can save us, and that requires faith and repentance. Similarly, traditional Catholic views say that salvation is a supernatural thing, i.e. something that is not possible to anyone on the human level. It can come only from God. My suspicion is that this change is a result of greater exposure to non-Christians. Many Christians admire Gandhi, and have at least a vague feeling that Buddha and Mohammed were probably inspired by God in some way. I have very mixed feelings about these changes, which is the reason that I write more approvingly about the traditional view than some might expect. In fact I do believe that non-Christians can be saved. I think Paul suggests that in Romans 1 - 2. I believe that when non-Christians are saved, it is by Christ, even if they don't know him by that name. (Thus my position is similar to the current Catholic one, which calls such people "anonymous Christians.") However I am bothered by many of the changes that seem to be associated with today's universalism. 1) For many people, these ideas seem to be associated with a sort of vaguely kind grandfather model of God, who isn't likely to condemn anyone except maybe Satan himself or a Hitler. This seems to miss the strong demand for righteousness that is present throughout the NT and traditional Christianity, as well as Jesus' frequent references to hell. I realize that there are controversies about exactly what he meant. I find the idea of God eternally torturing people hard to take, and am rather inclined to think of the damned as being extinguished, but one way or the other, the NT is clear about judgement. 2) The Reformers would clearly diagnose the current beliefs as a form of "works righteousness". Like Erasmus and others who they battled in the 16th Cent., the current common view does not take seriously either the radical nature of our need for God, nor the crucial work of Christ in redemption. It assumes that a sort of general good will is enough. Traditional Protestant thought judges that behind that nice front that people put on for each other lies a basic corruption. While most people don't turn into murderers or any other dramatic offenders, they still have basic flaws which result in everything from problems living together in families to the wars and other armed conflicts that seem to be sweeping the world currently. And whatever results do or do not show up in this life, the sort of common good will does not suit us to the supernatural life that God has in mind for us in eternity. Only God's grace, through Jesus Christ, can do that. 3) Finally, it is clear that most people find it difficult to take the idea of Satanic plots seriously. One of the reasons people no longer find it plausible that Satan is going around inventing fake religions is that they no longer believe in Satan. Going back to the same Barna survey, they proposed the idea that "The devil, or Satan, is not a living being but is a symbol of evil." yes no don't know total: 60 35 6 born again: 43 52 5 evangelical: 47 49 4 Catholic: 69 26 6 mainline: 65 27 8 Even those groups that agreed with this traditional concept of Satan did so only by a narrow margin. While I admit that Satan is not currently visible in a very direct way to most of us, I am more and more coming to see the concept of spiritual warfare as being the best explanation for much of what is going on in the world. I do not go so far as to say that all of the founders of non-Christian religions were seeing Satan rather than God. It is possible that some of them really did see God, even if at a distance. I believe that God can use any religion as a vehicle for salvation in some cases. But from a broader viewpoint, I do see many religions as pointing to something like a "works righteousness". This may do some short-run good, but also tends to make it less likely that the people will be open to hearing the Gospel. It's probably a mistake to say that major religions like Islam are Satanic, because this statement is too likely to be misunderstood. However I believe that they can be used by Satan to keep people in darkness. (Unfortunately, this is not a unique property of non-Christian religions: it's fairly clear to me that even Christianity can be twisted in a way that makes it keep people from Christ. We will hope that this is a rare situation.)