One Way, many “paths”

In thinking through issues related to a Christian worldview and the way it might unfold, a number of thoughts come to mind. One of these is that the Christian’s truth claims are tied to the combination of at least two ideas: (1) Jesus is the one and only way to God, and yet (2) there might also be a number of legitimate forms this one way could take. In saying this, however, a number of thoughts are in order.

Regarding “paths”:

First, there are not an infinite number of paths to God. That is, we are not free to create out of whole cloth whatever our hearts desire. Though Christian truth claims are broad in one sense, highlighting the fact that all who want God may have him, these claims must still be conceived or understood within certain, shall we say, Scripturally-driven One Way parameters.

Second, in saying that there are many paths, we mustn’t think that there are various available Saviors from which we might choose. Whatever good things different religious leaders have accomplished, and however admirable and helpful their respective views, Jesus alone is the world’s one true Savior. In saying this, there is no intent to discriminate or to create a party spirit. Rather, the goal is to declare, as Christians have done historically, that Jesus was unique and his words and deeds unmatched.

Third, in saying there are many paths, we are not to embrace some sort of naive soteriology, thinking that just about anything is acceptable in God’s sight. Though the ways God operates in the lives of people is far beyond our ability to grasp, and while we must never think that we can comprehend very much about these matters, the fact remains that some paths cannot be made to fit within the framework of Christianity.

Fourth, there are normative paths and non-normative ones. By this I mean that there are more common ways of coming to faith, and there are also uncommon pathways. A common way would be through the agency of an evangelistic encounter or some such thing. An uncommon one would be if God were to intervene in the life of a person who had never heard the gospel but who nevertheless cried out to the ever-present One. Only God knows what actually transpires in any of these situations, uncommon or common.

Regarding One Way:

First, we intend that the true God is accessible through his Son alone.

Second, we mean that only the Son has the qualifications of Savior and has indeed accomplished what is necessary for our salvation

Third, he is the only Savior because God has so declared this to be the case, not because we have.

Fourth, we do not own or possess the only Savior. Rather, he owns us.

Fifth, the fact that there is one way (through Jesus) does not mean that we know exactly how a person comes into a genuine relationship with him. Even knowing about him is not exactly the same as actually knowing him.

Sixth, as mentioned above, facts about him are sufficiently clear but are never exhaustive. Thus, we know (or can know) enough about him, but we never know everything about him and his ways.

Seventh, this “One Way” about which I speak is a way and not merely an end. The point is not that there are many religions that lead to God (e.g., one person takes Buddha, another seeks to merit God’s favor through philanthropy). Rather, what I mean is that there is one way as in one direction that (obviously) leads to a final telos or goal. This is not to necessarily discount what God might do in the hearts and lives of those who embrace other religions. One might imagine him coming up alongside of someone who is choosing an outwardly wrong and intellectually indefensible approach. Yet, still, God might–in theory, at least–somehow utilize this false or incomplete path in such a way that its adherent actually makes his way onto a legitimate path, moving in the right direction, and coming into a genuine connection with the One Way.

At the end of the day, there are some basic reasons why this One-Many approach makes sense.

The many “paths” idea makes sense because people . . .

- have different psychological makeups

- have different habits

- have different backgrounds

- have different environments

- have different life-experiences

- have different attitudes

- have different hangups

- have different . . . whatever . . .

• Thus, God has different ways to intervene and link up with his needy people. Take a look at the NT, and I think you’ll see a number of these.

On the other hand, the One Way idea also makes sense because . . .

- God is One of a kind

- God is unique

- God is not willing/able to change his character/nature to accommodate literally any “path.”

- God is uncompromisingly who and what he is.

- God is the One depicted in Scripture and seen most profoundly in Jesus.

- God has explicitly told us as much in the Old and New Testaments.

- God, through his one-and-only Son, is actually the only One equipped, able, and willing to actually rescue us from the predicament we find ourselves in.

- God's exclusive, one-of-a-kindness is the avenue by which we are fulfilled and the Source through which genuine love is accessed.

For these and other reasons, he is the One, the Only One, the One who lovingly, patiently, kindly, fairly, creatively, personally, and wisely leads countless people (“more than anyone can number,”according to the book of Revelation) down many “paths” so long as those “paths” are on the/in the direction of/leading to/acceptable to . . . the One Way, who is Jesus.

Note: This is not . . .

An effort to promote universalism, which–while a comforting thought–does not match up to the teachings of Scripture.

An attempt to promote some extreme version of religious pluralism, which wrongly identifies all paths as equally valid ways to God.

Agnosticism, which wrongly assumes that we can know almost nothing with some measure of confidence.

Note: This is . . .

An effort to do justice to the rich biblical data, including the exclusive parts and the inclusive aspects.

An effort to be honest and open yet also committed and willing to bend to the truth, wherever it leads.

An effort to be honest with human experience within the framework of Scripture, and with Scripture in light of human experience.