Christians claim that the only way to restore our relationship with God is through Jesus Christ. This is an exclusive claim: there is only one way to God. But why would God be so narrow? Isn’t it arrogant for Christians to say Christianity is superior to other religions or worldviews?[i] Isn’t inclusivism a better way than exclusivism?

As one bumper sticker and meme says: “God is too big to fit into any one religion.”[ii]

This is the inclusivist or pluralist perspective. It’s the big tent perspective, where all roads lead to ultimate truth and no one way leads to that ultimate reality. You can get there by walking any path you’re on.

Two commonly used analogies give us a sense of what is intended. The first likens truth to a hub on a wheel, with all various religions and perspectives envisioned as spokes on a wheel, meeting at the hub. Whatever spoke you might be doesn’t matter so much. What matters is that we all will ultimately meet at the hub together.

The second analogy likens ultimate reality to the top of a mountain. Many paths might lead up a peak from all sides, but they all meet at the peak. Only there can one have the vantage point to look out and see how these paths could meet up at the same destination.

This inclusivist position resonates with our cultural moment and impulses.

Listen to these three proponents of inclusivism.

Inclusivist Mahatma Gandhi says, “My position is that all great religions are fundamentally equal.”[iii] Gandhi puts forward the inclusivist position that nothing essentially differentiates religions and worldviews.

Inclusivist Oprah Winfrey endorses this critique of exclusivism, “One of the biggest mistakes humans make is to believe there’s only one way. Actually, there are many diverse paths leading to God.”[iv] Is Winfrey right that all paths lead to the top of the mountain? Do all spokes lead to the hub?

Inclusivist Rabbi Shmuley Boteach says, “I am absolutely against any religion that says one faith is superior to another. I don’t see how that is anything different than spiritual racism.”[v] Rabbi Shmuley Boteach levels the assertion against exclusivists that to believe there is only one way is to be a spiritual racist. Are exclusivists the religious equivalent of racists?

The inclusive perspective is persuasive for at least two reasons. First, it takes the heat off figuring out which religion or worldview is correct. There is no need to expend emotional and intellectual energy exploring and discerning what path you ought to take. All will be right in the end. The other reason inclusivism is persuasive is because it feels a lot more polite, a lot more respectful, and a lot more humble than exclusivism.

The inclusivist position has a problem with exclusivism, the idea there is only one true religion or worldview. Inclusivism rejects any worldview or religion that says it is the only way.

I understand this impulse. Exclusivists say, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” That just feels rude and arrogant.

Over the next three posts leading up to Easter I want to explore how to respond to this inclusivist position, a position that has gained significant traction. In this post, allow me begin with the response, not of Christians, but of other religions and worldviews to inclusivism. In the next post, I will explore the Christian response, and then we will conclude with how Jesus would respond to inclusivism.

Let’s consider how other religions would respond to the claims of inclusivism.

Islam: Muslims are exclusive in their claim that there is one God and Muhammed is his prophet. Inclusivism rejects this central claim.

Judaism: Jews are also exclusive in their belief that there is one God who has revealed himself in his covenants to his people and that we are to worship him alone. Inclusivism rejects these central claims.

Buddhism: Buddhists likewise are exclusive in their belief that the physical world is impermanent, and we must liberate ourselves from it to attain enlightenment. Inclusivism rejects this central claim.

Atheism: Atheism is exclusive in its belief that all religions are false and there is no God or gods. Inclusivism rejects this central claim.

Pluralism: Finally, and ironically, inclusivists (also known as pluralists) are exclusive in their claim that all religions are true.[vi] The pluralist belief sounds generous, but it is exclusive. The inclusivist creates categories of belief that deny the core claims of the religions they are trying to affirm. For inclusivists to be correct that all religions are true, the religions themselves have to be false. Inclusivists aren’t actually inclusive. They are exclusive.

The inclusivist rejects what each worldview says about itself and claims they are compatible against all the evidence every religion has declared about itself. If the inclusivist is correct, then every religion is wrong. That isn’t so inclusive, then, is it?

There is no inclusive option. There are just different exclusive options. Every option precludes every other option. Do you believe in God? Yes or no? If not, then is the physical world all there is, as atheists claim, or is the spiritual world all there is, as Buddhists claim? These are mutually exclusive options. If you believe in God, is there one God or many? Has God revealed himself in a book? Which book? What kind of relationship are you supposed to have with God? How do you enter into that relationship? Every religion has a different answer to that. Do you not believe in God?

While inclusivism appears to be a generous and humble escape hatch from religious squabbles, it is as exclusive as any other option. Inclusivism does not build any more bridges than any other exclusive claim. The claim that “all roads lead to God” does not bring about any more harmony between the Muslim, Jew, atheist, Hindu, and Christian, than do the claims of any of those individual worldviews.

In the next post we will consider what a Christian response to inclusivism is.

[i] The additional question that is often asked here is, “Hasn’t the narrowmindedness of religions been the very thing that has caused hatred, violence, and wars?” As John Lennon famously sang in his song, “Imagine,” “Imagine there’s no countries; it isn’t hard to do; nothing to kill or die for; and no religion, too; imagine all the people; living life in peace…” There isn’t enough room to answer this question here, but I would point the reader to Rebecca McLaughlin Confronting Christianity for an excellent response to this question. In short, the historic data does not support this conclusion. While there has certainly been violence and wars that can be attributed to religion, one can easily make the argument that atheism has caused more violence than religion has (see China and the Soviet Union for two examples). It is, of course, sadly ironic that John Lennon couldn’t live out his own yearning for peace. His own non-religious path toward peace was filled with broken relationships, drug abuse, and ultimately his own untimely death.

[ii] Rebecca McLaughlin, Confronting Christianity, 48.

[iii] Mark Clark, The Problem of God, 205.