Commonly, the world of religions is misunderstood. Most religions, especially those based in their own sacred writings, believe that they are exclusive. All others are presumed, perhaps even declared, to be lacking in some way. That lack may be so great as to leave out all others than the faithful to this religion for any divine approval. Theologians tend to accept the concepts of exclusiveness because of logical orientations, based on one-God supremacy, in the sophisticated religions. There is presupposition of hope that whatever is true will gain ultimate approval. That which is false will not, and God, properly jealous of his identity, will reject falsehood and reward truth. If my faith is not the approved one in my mind, then I should move over to the approved one. This feeling of exclusiveness is especially demonstrated forcefully, even physically, in the Islamic community, and during by-gone eras has been accented in the Christian community, justifying even torture and death to gain the conversion of the pagan or backslider, for the presumed benefit of the tortured and defense of orthodoxy. This violent reaction is, at this writing, continuing in some Islamic communities. Even an Islamic judge stated that: If I had a knife now I would kill you” – in the denial of a person of her former Islamic faith. (C.T. – 04/09, p.15) The judge, like many of his fellows in that faith, would feel obligated to preserve orthodoxy in any way presumed necessary, even the murder of the person making public rejection. The concept held for centuries that the end justified the means. Modern thought strongly rejects the presupposition, but cultural change does not dictate theory. Many Islamists would not accept belligerency.
If God is primary in the universe, he presumably can’t approve the idolatry of any rival religion, no matter how beautiful and moral its teachings. God has no substitute. There are no demigods holding ultimate power. Ancient religions that advanced panoplies of gods were not stable, and were unable to hold position in history. Their gods were sometimes bizarre. Many writers of the ancient world either stated or implied their doubts. Mythologies grew to serve the benefit of some of the better parts of pagan religions. Human beings (like Caesar) were declared to be gods.
In our time the leading religions are the variant forms/sects of Christianity and Islam, but also large followings of Hinduism and Buddhism. Christian theologians do not tend to believe the god of Islam is the god of Christians and vice versa. The popular belief that all roads lead to Rome for any sincere religionist is not the theological order of devout persons who have given the greatest attention and study to religion. Muslims are willing to take their exclusive faith, and Christians are willing to take theirs. It is an issue of faith and tolerance. The Christian has moved away from the medieval position: exclusiveness as a human matter which justified any retaliation to threatened orthodoxy. It is the biblical position that all individuals are accepted as potentials for the Christian faith, therefore a personal, not corporate matter. It ought to be the hope of the Christian that loving toleration, noted in the Scripture, will be the general view in the world. This toleration does not take away the exclusiveness taught by Christ and the apostles, that there is no salvation in any other name than Christ’s. The concepts of all peoples ought to be that there is separation of religion (church/mosque) and state so to define and separate the birthright of the individual and social duty to society, so that no person needs to be tortured or murdered in God’s behalf; and, that the Christian message offers reconciliation to all persons through Jesus Christ. In nature, if there were only one religion, freedom factors might be diluted. Perhaps with only one faith offered we would assume too much and flounder with truth. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020