For those who are unfamiliar with Crusade Watch, it is a website with multiple contributors who all write with the express purpose of denouncing evangelism and missions as an evil act that must be banned and legislated against. Of course, the vast majority of the articles published on this website have no real intellectual merit; being comprised primarily of shoddy logic, unwarranted assumptions and undocumented assertion after undocumented assertion. One of the recurring themes among the writers, though, is the idea of pluralism; the ideology that all paths to God are equally valid, and that none of them can assert itself to be correct over and against any other path. In particular, it will be well worth documenting the claims of one Balgrim Ragoonanan, an author from Trinidad and Tobago who strongly favours Hindu ideas of plurality over and against religious exclusivity. The rest of this will be dealing with his article entitled, Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity.[1] We will begin by examining the author’s thesis, which appears in the first few paragraphs of his article:

This presentation may also reflect an aspect of the narrow and restrictive pathway offered for salvation by the Christians versus the broad and expansive pathway of the Hindus, although it is not the gist of the paper.

This paper is to be taken only as a working framework for further discussion against religious proselytizing and the Christian one way doctrine to salvation.

Those who do not support religious proselytizing can find the appropriate lawyers to develop a case against religious proselytizing as an abuse of human rights versus the freedom of speech and the freedom to practice a religion in peace without intrusions.

The freedom of speech argument is a false one when it comes to religious proselytizing and must be debunked at the onset. We know that although freedom of speech is sacred to many, it is still over-ruled under certain conditions that incite violence and family and community disturbances.

Note that the author makes two main assertions: The first assertion is that the Hindu concept of pluralism is superior to the biblical Christian doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ alone. The second assertion is that evangelism is an immoral action that should be legislated against as a form of human rights violation.

From the very outset, the logical incoherence of the Mr. Ragoonanan’s position should already be apparent. The first assertion is flawed because Hinduism asserts the equal validity of all religious viewpoints, and yet it condemns the Christian message because it does not have the same message of plurality that Hinduism has. The Hindu ideology of pluralism thus exposes itself as being internally inconsistent. Aside from being internally inconsistent, this view of pluralism also ignores some very basic laws of logic. In particular, it ignores the law of the excluded middle, which states that “every proposition is either true or not true.”[2] This law by its very definition refutes the idea that more than one religion can be simultaneously true.

The second assertion is also flawed because the author praises freedom of speech and religion yet calls for the silencing of Christian missionaries’ freedom to proclaim their faith to others (which is an essential aspect of the Christian faith, cf. Matthew 28:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:16). Also, by what moral standard can evangelism be regarded as “an abuse of human rights” that “that incite violence and family and community disturbances?” We are not told; we are simply asked to assume that it is so. It may very well be true that freedom of speech should be overruled when it causes the kinds of abuses and disturbances that have just been mentioned, but unless the author can demonstrate that evangelism is inextricably linked to these things (which has not and cannot be proven), then this accusation is totally baseless.

This is the least I can do to help in the struggle against aggressive religious proselytizing and the belief in a doctrine that speaks of a single pathway to salvation which is the backbone of religious proselytizing. For me, my writings are “seva”, or a service to man as a service to God. It is not about persecuting/prosecuting anyone, but to highlight the problems involved, and trying to put a stop to aggressive religious proselytizing and the false doctrine of an only one way to salvation.

Not all religious proselytizing may be wrong, I must agree, like reaching out to those who do not already have a religion and those who are seeking information for more information about God, etc. When religious proselytizing is presented as an only way for salvation, then it becomes dangerous for the goal of unity and harmony of any nation. Harmony and unity are the bed rock and foundation of any society or nation and are among the highest goals of all and when observed well. It ensures social harmony at other levels everywhere around the world.

Mr. Ragoonanan apparently believes that he is serving God and man by writing this tirade against Christian missionary efforts. This is rather ironic given the fact that those missionaries who proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ believe that they are doing that very same thing (and, from a Christian perspective, are right to do so). Also, note that exclusivism is regarded by the author as a “false doctrine,” yet how can this be the case if all religious viewpoints are equally valid? This glaring inconsistency should stick out like a sore thumb to anybody who is thinking these things over logically.

The author then asserts that not all forms of proselytizing are wrong, and that it is only a problem if the message is one that presents itself as the only way to God. Once again, we find more inconsistency: Why on earth would any given group even want to proselytize unless they regarded their viewpoint as being correct over and against other viewpoints? Also, why arbitrarily draw the line between those who don’t already have a religion and those who do, and saying that it is okay to proselytize to the former but not the latter? This arbitrary distinction assumes that those who have a religion are in a better off state than those who do not, yet this once again contradicts the very message which the author wishes to convey, which is pluralism. After all, if all viewpoints are equal, then the viewpoint of the one who has no religion is just as good as the viewpoint of the one who has.

Finally, Mr. Ragoonanan’s assertion that such evangelistic work is “dangerous for the goal of unity and harmony of any nation” is simply unfounded. Now, it is true that some missionaries have caused damage in the past, but is such damage rooted in the Christian Gospel itself, or is it caused by other motives that the missionaries held which were completely unrelated to the actual content of the Gospel. For example, anti-missionary writers often quote Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya’s first elected Prime Minister (1963-1964) and President (1964-1978), as saying, “When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.” In fact, this quote is featured prominently within the Crusade Watch website itself.[3] And yet, the question is never asked whether these heinous crimes (and Christians and non-Christians do need to agree that stealing other people’s land is a heinous crime) are necessitated by Biblical Christianity, or are committed in spite of what the Bible teaches against stealing and oppressing the poor. After all, this is the same Bible which says “do not defraud your neighbor or rob him.” (Leviticus 19:13) and “he who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker” (Proverbs 14:31). Jesus would undoubtedly have rebuked such men as hypocrites, but this does not invalidate Jesus’ command to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations.

Bhagawan Shri Sathya Sai Baba is a spiritual teacher and a mystic of the highest order, and I and many more put our full faith in his teachings. He rejects any claim of a single pathway to God and encourages all to follow their own chosen pathway very closely and deeply, and incorporate his teachings in as they apply. He has never yet told anyone to leave any religion and follow him. He repeatedly says that he did not come to found any new religion, but to teach man the power of self confidence in his own divinity. It speaks to the truth that not every religion has the whole truth, but only some of the truth. I knew this fact in my heart even before I ever came to know about Sathya Sai Baba.

Mr. Ragoonanan does not seem to realize that promoting Sai Baba’s view of spirituality is actually an attack upon Christianity (not to mention Judaism and Islam) on at least two fronts: First, he is claiming that Sai Baba’s viewpoint is more “enlightened” than the traditional understanding of religious faiths (sound familiar?). Does the author not realize that it is deeply offensive to any serious religionist to have his firm adherence to the truth brushed aside by somebody who says, “No, your way is just as good as anybody else’s” to them? Second, by promoting the idea of “teach[ing] man the power of self confidence in his own divinity,” he is rejecting the distinction between the Creator and His creation; a distinction which is fundamental to the Biblical worldview. The author does not seem to realize that by promoting this kind of teaching, he is already engaging in the very thing which he condemns, because he is encouraging others to accept his view of divinity (which is grounded in Hindu pantheism, and is thus antithetical to Judaism, Christianity and Islam) rather than the view that God is a distinct being from His creatures.

Also, think about this for a moment: Different religions have different truth claims that are mutually exclusive. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is the eternal word of God, that He died on the cross and was raised from the grave after three days. Islam denies all of this, and teaches that Jesus Christ is an ordinary messenger of God who was miraculously prevented from dying on the cross (either by substitution or by swooning, depending on which particular Muslim you ask). According to the law of non-contradiction, these two claims cannot both be true. Someone has to be right; either Jesus is who Christians say He is or He isn’t. Now, the Hindu pluralist’s may say that these claims are true for the Christian but not for the Muslim, but this does not hold water because both Christians and Muslims would claim that Jesus did definitely teach one way or another. The Hindu may again respond by denying that Jesus had a definite teaching on this topic. Alternatively, the Hindu may argue that Jesus’ message was misunderstood by both Christians and Muslims (and in fact, many writers who are influenced by Hindu concepts would argue just that). However, both of these options refute the Hindu’s own view of religious pluralism by asserting that the Christians and Muslims have it wrong, and he has it right.

At this point, the Hindu may then concede that not all religious claims are equally true, but they are still equally valid as pathways to God. The inconsistency of this position is quite glaring; Who on earth would want to follow a falsehood, even if it’ll lead to God? In fact, why would God accept a pathway that is based on falsehood? It could be argued that God will still accept them on the basis of their sincerity, but think about this for a moment: Suppose you wanted to catch a plane flight from New York to London, but you accidentally board a plane headed for Moscow instead. Unaware of this, you sleep throughout the whole length of the flight, and are astonished when you wake up to find that your plane has landed in Moscow. You may then say, “But I sincerely believed that my plane is headed for London!” However, does the sincerity of that belief change the fact that your plane flight did not take you where you wanted to go? Of course not.

I struggled for years for the real answers as to why religious proselytizing on the basis of salvation in Jesus alone is wrong. This struggle may have resonated in other peoples’ hearts, as I shared my feelings about Jesus and Christianity with them. I was never convinced that I had the answers to advance a good argument against religious proselytizing and Jesus as the only way.

I felt deeply confused that some would believe that God did not have other human manifestations over the ages before the advent of Jesus, and would consider one human manifestation of God, as Jesus, to be the only way to salvation. I felt that such a doctrine was only an interpretation that was used by many Christians to manipulate a monopoly on God.

I felt that it was wrong not to believe that God had previous human incarnations, and how could anyone prove that it was not so, especially when what Jesus is presumed to have said about salvation in Him alone was also said in a variety of ways by other incarnations of the same principle of God as man.

For me, God manifests as a teacher of the Supreme Eternal Principle, only one person at a time, as per history according to Hinduism. It would be logical for each incarnation of the God principle to advise all followers to take refuge in Him alone among other teachers of spirituality and religions of the time.

I strongly object when Christians say that the body of Jesus points the only way to salvation. That may be true for many, but it does not negate what others may have said earlier along the same line about taking refuge in them alone, especially when many believe that God manifests as a teacher from time to time to restore dharma when it is on the extreme decline.

Note the strong emphasis Mr. Ragoonanan places upon emotionalism here. There is a lot of talk about what “resonated in other peoples’ hearts.” Also, notice that the Pluralistic “true for you but not for me” attitude emerges once again here. Yet the author employs it inconsistently, because he has to presuppose that the Christian doctrine of God is wrong and that his view of Hindu pantheism is right. This is the only way he can substantiate his claim that Jesus is just one of many “incarnations of the principle of God as man” who came to “restore dharma when it is on the extreme decline.” Has it never occurred to the author that these concepts are completely foreign to anything Jesus ever taught about Himself? Why on earth would a first century Palestinian Jew be teaching eastern philosophy? Anybody who is thinking about these things clearly and has not been indoctrinated into the philosophies of this age will realize how utterly fallacious inserting these concepts into the mind of Christ are, since the Hindu pantheist’s worldview is completely antithetical to the worldview which Christ proclaimed to His followers.

Also, he never really offers any evidence for the claim that previous religious figures have pointed to themselves as the only way to God. The reason for this should be very obvious: When Jesus said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) He is not just proclaiming a message like a prophet, saying “I have a message from God; follow it!” This is one of those famous “I am” statements. Jesus is pointing to Himself and the work that He is about to do. By pointing to Himself, He is saying that His atoning death on the cross is the only way by which estranged sinners may be forgiven of their sins and reconciled to an all-Holy God, and His resurrection from the grave is the only way by which our own eternal life may be secured. It is for this reason that the apostle Peter proclaimed, “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). This flies totally in the face of everything Hindu philosophy teaches concerning God and His relationship with man.[4]

Who is not confused when the highest authority in Christendom says Jesus is the only way for hundreds of years and then turns around later and says not so. “Even Pope John Paul II has said that “salvation is not denied to non-Christians”

Can it just be another example of how theologians and even the representative of Jesus on earth interpret the word of God to suit the needs of the time?

It may constitute a clear case for debunking forever the Church doctrine of aggressive proselytizing and a one only religion for salvation.

When the Pope is reported to have used the word “not denied,” the immediate question is by whom? Then he is clearly speaking about the God of all to confirm that all pathways lead to the same God.

At the very outset, the bible-believing Evangelical Christian ought to protest against the characterization of the Pope in Rome as “the highest authority in Christendom.” The Christian’s final authority is God’s infallible Word. To it shall the Christian submit, not to a man who proclaims himself to be the “vicar of Christ.”[5] That being said, Mr. Ragoonanan has still not provided any kind of meaningful response to the Lord Jesus’ clear teaching that the only way to be saved and be reconciled to God is through “[His] blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). This teaching is offensive to many, no doubt. But the truth of the Gospel does not depend on whether or not fallible human beings find it to be palatable to their tastes. After all, the apostle Paul taught us:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment.
(1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14-15)

This ought to be sufficient to refute Mr. Ragoonanan’s tirade on “Religious bigotry and exclusivity.” Lord willing, we shall examine the rest of his writings to refute his attempts to argue against the propagation of the Christian Gospel and twist its contents to fit in with his view of pantheistic Hinduism.

End Notes

  1. Ragoonanan, Balgrim. Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity. Crusade Watch. <http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1057&Itemid=128>.
  2. Law of Excluded Middle. Philosophy Professor. <http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/excluded-middle-law.php>.
  3. Why People Oppose Evangelism? Crusade Watch. <http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=22&Itemid=57>.
  4. In fact, Hinduism denies the very notion that man is a sinner who needs to be reconciled to God. Consider, for example, the words of Swami Vivekananda in his lecture before the Parliament of religions in Chicago in 1893: “The Hindu refuses to call you sinners. Ye are the children of God; the sharers of immortal bliss, holy and perfect beings. Ye divinities on earth, sinners? It is a sin to call a man a sinner. It is a standing libel on human nature” (Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. pp. 161-162.). Contrast this with the biblical view of man: “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:22-24).
  5. For more information, see Adam Morgan’s article entitled, Was Peter the First Pope?: <http://aristophrenium.com/adam/was-peter-the-first-pope>.

(Continue to part two)

Other related Aristophrenium articles: