Ravi Zacharias is a contemporary apologist whose Indian background makes him especially suitable for dealing with certain subjects. Christian apologists run into many worldview challenges, among which lies Religious Pluralism. This essay will serve to examine how Ravi Zacharias deals specifically with religious pluralism in his apologetic endeavors.
Ravi's background
Ravi grew up in India surrounded by a prevailing sense of religious pluralism. Though he was raised in the Church, he still questioned fundamental Christian claims. He wrestled with verses like John 14:6 which say that Jesus is the only way to the Father, because "every word of that statement challenged the fundamental beliefs of the Indian culture from which" he came.
Ravi wrestled himself into an inner turmoil of which "no one who knew [him] would have ever suspected the depths of emptiness within... [he] did not know if answers to [his] deepest hungers actually even existed." He wondered how he "would ever break free to breathe the fresh air of a life unshackled."
Ravi did not encounter Jesus until the age of seventeen after an attempted suicide, and consequently made a commitment to serve Him. "How that happened in a culture that is rigorously pantheistic and (at least on paper) religiously all-encompassing is a miracle in itself."
As Ravi grew in his understanding of Christianity and his relationship with the Lord, "the very pursuits that at one time brought so much inner heartache" became now for him the transcending delight of his heart. He is now "determined to help others make that same discovery," because as he found, "outside of God, life is utterly meaningless."
Ravi recognized the key role that apologetics plays in evangelizing and explaining the truth claims of Christianity. He also recognized that "he sharp difference between Western creeds such as Christianity and Islam, which tend to be exclusive [is that] Eastern religions that stress pluralism" and that in light of this, "some eastern religions, such as Hinduism, view proselytizing [as] a form of oppression."
He has been able to compassionately engage with others in a way that does not even hint at oppression, and has therefore served as an exemplary model for engaging with and evangelizing people of a pluralistic persuasion.
"Christian apologetics is the task of presenting a defense of the person and the message of Jesus Christ." He understood and embraced apologetics as a way to start with where the audience is," and therefore mimic what Paul in his desire to "become all things to all people so that by all possible means [he] might save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22).
Along with Paul's writings, he was also convicted by Peter's writing to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). In his endeavors to respond to Peter's teaching, he was shocked to receive attacks from Christian fideists for what he was doing. "What I did not anticipate was having to give a defense of why I was defending the faith." He did not give up, but rather discovered that "apologetics is a subject that ends up defending itself," and thus he continued in his apologetic efforts. "We are fashioned by God to be thinking and emotional creatures. The emotions should follow reason, and not the other way around."
He was convicted that "apologetics is seen before it is heard," and saw the necessity to live out the truth claims we as Christians are preaching. He saw the danger of letting our efforts become more about our success and that we can become "so eager to pull in the net that we have failed to understand why we are pulling it and for whom!"
We must never lose sight of the bigger picture: that these are kingdom endeavors for God, and not for our own selfish desires to be right. Christians should be experiencing inner true spirituality, which will naturally have external results. This must be first and foremost before their witness will be accepted by others.
He has been able to compassionately engage with others in a way that does not even hint at oppression, and has therefore served as an exemplary model for engaging with and evangelizing people of a pluralistic persuasion.
"Christian apologetics is the task of presenting a defense of the person and the message of Jesus Christ." He understood and embraced apologetics as a way to start with where the audience is," and therefore mimic what Paul in his desire to "become all things to all people so that by all possible means [he] might save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22).
Along with Paul's writings, he was also convicted by Peter's writing to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). In his endeavors to respond to Peter's teaching, he was shocked to receive attacks from Christian fideists for what he was doing. "What I did not anticipate was having to give a defense of why I was defending the faith." He did not give up, but rather discovered that "apologetics is a subject that ends up defending itself," and thus he continued in his apologetic efforts. "We are fashioned by God to be thinking and emotional creatures. The emotions should follow reason, and not the other way around."
He was convicted that "apologetics is seen before it is heard," and saw the necessity to live out the truth claims we as Christians are preaching. He saw the danger of letting our efforts become more about our success and that we can become "so eager to pull in the net that we have failed to understand why we are pulling it and for whom!"
We must never lose sight of the bigger picture: that these are kingdom endeavors for God, and not for our own selfish desires to be right. Christians should be experiencing inner true spirituality, which will naturally have external results. This must be first and foremost before their witness will be accepted by others.
Religious pluralism
Religious pluralism is a concept which can potentially pose as a stumbling block for understanding and accepting the Christian worldview. It can be used and understood in a philosophical sense or simply as a description of an overarching culture, both of which serve as "distortions hindering the hearing of the gospel."
Philosophically, religious pluralism entails pantheism, which implies that all religions are one and that they eventually lead to the same place.Francis Schaeffer has wittingly called pantheism, "paneverythingism," because the suffix theism is misleading in light of what pantheism actually entails.
Descriptively, religious pluralism can simply connote a postmodern culture, where many religions, though conflicting and contradictory, can all be accepted at the same time on the basis of relative truth.
Ravi deals with both pantheism and postmodernism, showing that the claims of theism are both strong and valid for the mind to espouse and the life to embrace. "While man may own religion at the level of meaning [through forms of religious pluralism], he often disavows it at the level or reasoning." Both pantheism and postmodernism will be examined separately.
Pantheism
"The dizzying plethora of religious pluralism has led many to believe that no religion can claim to be the only way of salvation." Thirty-six percent of born-again teenagers believe, "Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and all other people pray to the same God, even though they use different names for their God," and another thirty percent agree, "it does not matter what religious faith you follow because all faiths teach similar lessons."
Pantheism has clearly become the worldview from which the Christian faith is being viewed for these teens. Should the Christian faith not necessarily entail a Christian worldview as well? Ravi is convicted that it should, and this has led part of his motivation for taking on pantheism.
A common pantheistic metaphor refers to 3 blind men examining an elephant. One examines the tail, one examines the trunk, and one examines the leg. They all come to different conclusions as to what the whole object is based on the particular part they are examining. Pantheism applies this conclusion to religion, stating that we can each only know part of what is true. Ravi insightfully tears this metaphor apart by showing that there is, in fact, an elephant. He shows that the idea of stating that we cannot know the truth, is implying that someone does in fact know what it is and that we have not got it right yet. Each conclusion of the blind men, that they are feeling a rope, a snake, or a tree trunk, is in fact false. They are not each partially true as the pantheist would have one believe.
Truth
The heart of postmodernism rest on a misunderstood concept of truth, and this specific concept must be initially examined before postmodernism can be properly understood. "Truth by definition excludes." It rests on a notion of antithesis. Truth is defined by what corresponds to reality. There is not absolute or objective truth as opposed to simply truth. Truth entails both absoluteness and objectivity. Ravi has eloquently quipped that "if truth were all-inclusive, nothing would be false. And if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of true?"
Though Ravi does a good job at articulating his reflections on truth, both cases for the essence of truth and against the idea of relative truth, people today accept a short-sighted version of relativity which accommodates religious pluralism, and produces a postmodern society.
Postmodernism
Postmodernism states that truth is simply relative, and to each his own. However, as shown above, the idea of relativity contradicts the concept of truth, being defined as what corresponds to reality. Relative truth would then necessarily imply more than one reality. Ravi recognizes that "our openness, particularly to any ideology or belief system, may be our undoing."
His job, and every believer;, is cut out for him due to people like Richard Rorty who utter such statements as "for the pragmatist [postmodernist], true sentences are not true because they correspond to reality." However, Ravi states that "truth cannot be sacrificed at the altar of a pretended tolerance. All religions, plainly and simply, cannot be true." This is because, "every religion, without exception, has some foundational beliefs that are categorically non-negotiable and exclude everything to the contrary." They all entail "an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life's purpose; every religion at its core is exclusive."
Though "people are equal, ideas are unequal. Let ideas be pit against each other." Each idea or truth claim must be examined in light of correspondence to reality, and cohesion, that is whether or not it can be lived out consistently. As Ravi says, "one had better take his or her belief system to the scrutiny of truth."
Christianity corresponds to reality, and is the only cohesive belief system which can be lived our consistently. The doctrinal claims of Christianity, all of which as absolute and exclusive, will be examined next.
Absolute claims of Christianity
In light of the reigning overtones of religious pluralism in our culture, "the Christian faith is portrayed as some kind of...hate filled, judgmental, exclusionary and ideationally unfit dinosaur for or pluralistic times." In light of what has been shown above, that every religion is in fact exclusive, why is it that Christianity is the only faith portrayed this way?
This is nothing new. "The apostles asserted that Christ alone is the truth in the midst of a world that is more religiously diverse than any we have known in the West until recently." Ravi has said that to bring "the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ into this mix was [and is] to put oil into water." However, we must remain intentional to not blend, for if the essence of the message changes it can be compromised, and when we give up all substance of the Gospel to win people over, we must ask ourselves what we are winning them over, to?
Ravi says that "if one can show that it is not one culture against another but one will against God, the truth sinks in deeply." I think this is a necessary mindset to engage with the pluralistic society in which we live in for the purposes of evangelism. We must acknowledge that it cannot be the intolerant nature of Christianity which is hindering people from accepting Christ, because as shown above this is intrinsic to any religious claim. Rather, we must realize there is spiritual battle which hinders some people from thinking clearly and recognizing the God of the Bible for who He is and what He's done.
Conclusion
"For communication to be effective, especially in matters as life-defining as the gospel message, truth and relevance are the two indispensable winds on which is it borne."
"Conveying the gospel in such settings demands protracted commitment of time and willingness to even to round in circles till the Holy Spirit lifts the veil and the light shines into darkness." After all, "only the power of the Holy Spirit can take truth and gently reveal the error of an ingrained way of thinking."
As Douglas Groothuis has stated, "evangelize people as soon as possible but no sooner," implying that there must be a proper framework in place before the gospel can be accepted for what it is. "When Christians as well as others adopt the view that religion in general is good and no one religion should claim that it alone offers truth and salvation, then the biblical worldview will not be taken seriously." "Even Jesus waited for the appropriate time before getting to the demands of the gospel message. The truth is that many a heart needs this preparatory time before the seed is planted." Without this preparatory time, even the most powerful apologetic for Christianity will be ignored by anyone who simply accepts all religions as equally spiritual.
We must remember that even within the church, "there are silent doubters in our midst." We must not reserve combatting religious pluralism for our interactions with the secular world. Rather, let us present within our church how biblical claims are incompatible with any form of religious pluralism and joyfully proclaim how wonderful it is to have found the truth and express thanksgiving that with it brings an all fulfilling personal relationship with the revealer of truth. We can then confidently engage with the religious pluralist, knowing that all truth is God's truth, and that the very concept of truth itself is a great place to start the conversation.
Bibliography
Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002.
Zacharias, Ravi. Beyond Opinion. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.
Zacharias, Ravi. To Everyone an Answer: A Case of the Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Schaeffer, Francis. The God Who Is There. 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.
Barna, George. Generation Next: What You Should Know About Today's Youth. Ventura: Regal, 1995.
Zacharias, Ravi. Is Your Church Ready?: Motivating Leaders to Live an Apologetic life. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Rorty, Richard. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1982.
Zacharias, Ravi. Is America Abandoning God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOEAdROFUY&feature=player_embedded.
Wells, David. No Place for Truth, Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1993
Groothuis, Douglas. Class Lecture, Denver Seminary, January 1, 2013.
Zacharias, Ravi. A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism. Brentwood: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2011.
“Jesus Among Other Gods.” Review of Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias. Publishers Weekly, July 10, 2000.
Jones, Timothy. “Reaching the ‘Happy Pagans’: Interview with Apologist Ravi Zacharias, Christianity Today. November 14, 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment