The Gospel and modern pluralism: Revelation 2:18-19

In a broader sense, the principles of temptation to compromise here go beyond economic temptations, and many applications we note here continue the basic themes evident in the letter to the Pergamum Christians.  Rome was tolerant of religions as long as they did not make universal claims that might ultimately compete with loyalty to the state; but a universal religion was a threat to Rome, and “such a religion must conquer or die” (Martin Person Nilsson, Greek Piety).

A praiseworthy aspect of modern pluralism is that it provides more of a voice for minorities -whether for ethnic minorities, religious minorities like committed  Christians,  or others.

A danger of modern pluralism, however, like that in the Roman empire, is that it can inadvertently  appear to lend credibility to the claims of philosophic, moral, or religious relativism. Seventy-two percent of Americans in the 18-25 age bracket believe there is no such thing as absolute truth; this view appears to be shared by over half of those who claim to be born-again Christians.  Much of our society has absolutized relativism (how is that for oxymoronic  thinking?) as the only nonnegotiable  truth, in essence arguing that everyone  is right unless one claims to be.

One  commentator cautions, “For some people today tolerance is the only real virtue and intolerance  the only vice” (J.R. Michaels, Revelation); another  that “while the message to Ephesus warns the church about  the  dangers  of loveless orthodoxy, the message to Thyatira  warns against the dangers of a ‘soft’ love that tolerates all things and judges none” (González, Revelation).

Many non-Christians no longer deny the possibility of miracles or of Jesus being a way to God. But to them the Christian way is only one way among many; they bristle at the claim that Jesus is the only true way.

Yet the world is not alone in its excessive tolerance.  Like the Thyatiran Christians, we may tolerate some who falsely claim “deep” teachings  that directly undermine the gospel or Christian ethics. As noted above, few evangelicals today are tempted  to question  some cardinal  Christian teachings like Jesus’ deity or resurrection.  But because relativism has become increasingly popular in our culture, the absolute necessity of faith in Christ for salvation has become a more uncomfortable  position for many to hold. “Over nineteen  centuries  of Christian  missionary  activity hinged  on  this belief alone,” but studies reveal that this remains “the single most socially offensive aspect of Christian  theology,” and that  this has been  the most prominent impact of theological liberalism.

This trend toward accepting  relativism is likely to take its toll in evangelical circles and will probably  become  a primary battleground of early twenty-first  century  evangelicalism. Among students  at “elite” evangelical liberal arts colleges and seminaries, one third believe that other ways of salvation  may be possible for those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. Most will not go so far as a Hindu acquaintance of mine who acknowledged Jesus as a legitimate but not the only path of salvation; they simply claim that God may have a special plan for those who have never heard the gospel.

Yet even this more modest claim guts the very heart of the saving gospel. The standard Jesus-is-the-only-way texts aside (e.g., John  14:6; Acts 4:12), what kind of heavenly Father would send his own Son to the cross if the plan of salvation was actually multiple choice (Gal. 2:21)? The  New Testament presents the apostolic preaching of salvation from a variety of complementary angles: rebirth by the Spirit, justification by faith, passing from death to life or from darkness to light, and so forth.  Yet all these models share the common element that the criterion for transition from one state to another is dependence on Christ;  all humanity  remains alienated  from God  until saved through  this gospel John 3:17-18; Rom. 10:13-17). In practice, the apostolic gospel demands from us a nonnegotiable commitment to missions.

To suggest that God  has other  means of salvation in addition  to faith in the message about Christ,  then,  runs counter  to the center  of the Christian faith.  While Christians may divide from one another on many  issues (see comments on 2:4), some of us have proved too tolerant – or too lacking in backbone  (Prov. 25:26) – on matters that directly affect people’s salvation. Jews suffered in the Roman world for insisting that God  is one; Christians merely compounded the offense by insisting that even their fellow monotheists were unsaved if they did not come through Christ. The ancient  challenge of idolatry was a denial that God is one and demands correct worship; that  challenge  has appeared  in a new guise today, and Christians  must be ready to fight it even at the cost of our lives.

(Adapted from The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation, published by Zondervan. Buy the book here.)

 

Total
0
Shares
Previous Post

Because you are lukewarm I will spit you out — Revelation 3:15-18

Next Post

The Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to us: John 16

Related Posts