I was re-reading Case for Christ by Lee Strobel last week, and the following quote jumped out at me. Here, Gregory A. Boyd, near the end of the chapter where he has commented on and dismantled the assumptions of the ultra skeptical “Jesus Seminar”, Boyd moves on to comment on the nature of faith and evidence:

“Let me get this straight,” [Strobel] said. “Your Jesus -the Jesus you relate to- is both a Jesus of history and a Jesus of faith.”

Boyd clenched his fist for emphasis, as if I’d just scored a touch-down. “Yes, that’s it exactly, Lee!” he exclaimed. Moving to the very edge of his chair, he spelled out precisely what his scholarship -and his heart- have brought him to believe.

“It’s like this: if you love a person, your love goes beyond the facts of that person, but it’s rooted in the facts about that person. For example, you love your wife because she’s gorgeous, she’s nice, she’s sweet, she’s kind. All these things are facts about your wife, and therefore you love her.”

“But your love goes beyond that. You can know all these things about your wife and not be in love with her and put your trust in her, but you do. So the decision goes beyond the evidence, yet it is there also on the basis of the evidence.”

“So it is with falling in love with Jesus. To have a relationship with Jesus Christ goes beyond just knowing the historical facts about him, yet it’s rooted in the historical facts about him. I believe in Jesus on the basis of the historical evidence, but my relationship with Jesus goes way beyond the evidence. I have to put my trust in him and walk with him on a daily basis.” (Case for Christ, 125-126)

Although Boyd is a somewhat controversial figure in certain evangelical circles, I find him to be right-on in his commentary here.

Please see the “Links” area in the sidebar to the right for further resources on this topic and related areas of inquiry.

I do believe that in the other world there are neither Hindus, nor Christians nor Mussalmans. They all are judged not according to their labels, or professions, but according to their actions, irrespective of their professions. (Mahatma Gandhi, source)

Do Christians believe they have a monopoly on religious truth? They shouldn’t. Truth should be accepted wherever it is found; be it in the Bible, the Qur’an, or in secular writings. That’s why on the About this Site page of WhyFaith.com I state that “I will search for and accept truth wherever it is found”. I think that Mahatma Gandhi was in many ways a wise man, and we could learn much from him.

However, note carefully that I’m not in any way implying that all religions are equally true. Since they teach very different things, the claim that “there are neither Hindus, nor Christians nor Mussalmans” is insulting to Hindus, Christians, and Mussalmans. This view seems tolerant, but actually is quite intolerant to these groups. What if the same rule was applied to political groups? What if we were to say “there are neither Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, or Communists”? The absolute view of religious inclusively necessarily excludes the exclusitivists (that is, the vast majority of people around the world). It may be easier to wave a dismissive hand at religions and say they are all basically the same, but that is, IMHO, lazy and inaccurate.

Note too that Gandhi has, perhaps due to his desire for religious harmony, apparently misunderstood or has mistakenly stated Christian belief. Unlike other faiths, Christians do not believe “They all are judged … according to their actions”, at least not how Gandhi seems to mean it. The Christian concept of grace says that we cannot save ourselves, but rather God has taken the initiative to save us, if only we will accept His offer: “God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners” (Romans 5:8) The Four Spiritual Laws do a good job of explaining God’s grace in a very succinct fashion. Gandhi’s quote makes it seem like we are saved by our own actions in a sort of spiritual bank account, which is not the Christian belief.

I don’t know if this one particular quote reflects Gandhi’s beliefs accurately, but this attitude is prevalent in western society nonetheless. And I do know that if you, like millions (billions?) of people around the world are relying on being “good enough”, hoping (but never quite sure, honestly) if you’re meeting your own standard of goodness (let alone God’s!) that perhaps there’s another way … (see the resources below for more on this topic)

Related reading:

• Do Good People Go to Heaven? - The Christian answer might surprise you.
• For students: How “good” do you have to be … ?
• How good is “good enough”?

I have unfortunately lost the source of these quotes. I saved them in a text file to reply to later on this blog, but the quote does not appear (anymore?) on the url I saved with it. (The quote was likely from a review of another book on Amazon.) Regardless, here are the comments and my replies.

One never has a “moral obligation” to impose beliefs that are not solidly backed up with proof. In fact, doing so is an insult and an offense to the person whose beliefs you attack with the well-intended suggestion that yours are better.

I agree, although I would substitute the word “evidence” for where he/she has written “proof”, thus Paul says “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15,16)

Think about it. Where did your beliefs come from? Someone told you to believe, and probably told you you would go to hell for not believing. Am I right?

Actually, no. I grew up in an atheist/agnostic home and came to my own conclusions based on my personal investigation (and, I believe, God’s grace). Many people are Christians because they were brought up Christians; but that proves nothing about whether the Christianity is true. (See: Genetic fallacy.)

Don’t arrogantly foist your belief system on people who have their own. Be a little meek and humble, the way the Bible tells you to be. Leave people to believe the way they choose to.

I certainly don’t support “arrogantly foisting” things on anyone. Evangelism is about sharing the good news, not forcing anyone to do anything. But note that the implication here is quite stunning. Here’s what is basically seems to be suggested: “If you believe all of those people are headed for eternal torment/destruction, just leave them alone. Don’t try to help them. Don’t even mention this to them, even though they may not be aware of it.” If you believed someone was putting his life in danger, wouldn’t you want to help them? Christians don’t share their faith because it’s always a fun time for them. It’s often a frustrating and thankless endeavor. Christians share their faith (at least, in theory) because of their concern for others.

And respect that maybe - just maybe - what you think and believe doesn’t matter one whit. Maybe it’s just how we behave, and how well we follow the Golden Rule that counts.

Here we come to the crux of the issue. If “how we behave, and how well we follow the Golden Rule” are really what counts, then this author is right, we should stop all of this religious talk and just get on with being as “good” as possible. This is indeed what most religions believe, albeit they have different ideas about what being “good” means. But, unlike all other faiths, this is NOT what Christians believe. Christians do not believe what saves us is being good. What separates Christianity from other faiths is grace.

The question is: How good is good enough? Are you “good enough”? I mean, you’re probably a pretty swell guy/girl. Compared to the jerk down the street who runs his lawnmower early Sunday mornings, or that “bad” uncle no one talks about, or … well what about, Adolf Hitler? Compared to them, you’re a saint. But where, exactly, is the ‘line’ that determines goodness? 50% goodness? That seems a little low. What about 90% goodness? Remember now, if God exists, He is 100% holy, righteous, and “good” in every sense of the word.

It’s something to think about. How good is good enough? This is not a rhetorical question … it has eternal consequences! The fact is that the common assumption (often not thought about and hardly ever challenged) that “good people to to heaven” is wrong.

Go deeper:

• Jesus: Fact or Fiction? - God’s grace: A nice idea, but is it true? Only if Jesus is real …
• How Good is Good Enough? - Short, easy to read book, highly recommended

The full article appears in the Calgary Sun:

Maybe if Artur Pawlowski had been holding a flag of the outlawed terrorist organization Hezbollah, Calgary Police would have left him alone … Pawlowski, 33, who has been helping the homeless for years, gave up his lucrative home-building business last year to start up The Street Church full-time … Because Pawlowski has been threatened so often by drug dealers angry their clients often turn away from drugs as a result of his message of hope and help, he started videotaping every outing. Wednesday’s was no different … On Monday, Pawlowski and his brother went to the park, talked with tarot card readers and other practisers of “sorcery” to tell them the Bible condemns such practices. Video shows they remained calm but the vendors became agitated. Event organizers called police and Pawlowski and his brother David were asked not to talk to the vendors again. They agreed and left. On Wednesday, when they returned to pray, they stayed far away from the vendors. Organizers called police anyway. The video shows Pawlowski standing on the public sidewalk with his hands in his pockets. He asks a burly police officer in a calm voice, “Why are you harassing me? What did I do wrong?” The police officer responds with: “I’m going to arrest you for obstruction.” At that, Pawlowski is handcuffed and made to walk backwards to the police cruiser where he was frisked … He was also charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace. He spent one night in jail and is to appear in court on Sept. 7 … The video clearly shows six police officers attending to the calm Pawlowski. (Licia Corbella, Calgary Sun)

Seems excessive, don’t you think? Had they not been videotaping that day, things might’ve gone even worse for him.