Do all roads lead to God?

Question:

With all the billions of people of other faiths in the world, it just seems to me that claiming Christianity is the only way is intolerant in the extreme. It seems to me a more enlightened view is that all faiths lead to the same God. Given all the different beliefs in the world, isn't it arrogant to claim that you guys have the only way to heaven?

Answer:

That depends on whether or not we are correct. Just because someone claims there is only one path to a certain destination or one answer to a specific question does not automatically mean they are narrow minded, arrogant, or intolerant. Because . . . what if they are right?

Oh, and by the way, we don't actually claim that "Christianity" is the only way to salvation, we claim that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The two are not the same. In other words, it is not the commands, traditions, trappings, doctrines, teachings or good works of Christianity that bring salvation: it is faith in the God of Christianity that brings salvation. This is the ultimate example of, "it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know."

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Joh 14:6 NIV)

To know if we are correct, we need to explore three questions:

1) What does it take to be saved (or qualify for heaven)?
2) What is the problem facing mankind that might keep them from salvation?
3) What is the solution to that problem?

Almost every faith on the planet has the same basic answer to the question of what does it take to be saved (or make it to paradise, or reach nirvana, or escape the cycle of reincarnation): your good must outweigh your bad. And the vast majority of all their various teachings center on telling us what we have to do, or how we have to live, in order for that to be true in our life.

Christianity, however, has a completely different answer. The Bible teaches us that being more good than bad is simply not good enough. God's standard is much, much higher than that.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:48 NIV)

So in Christianity, the only way to be saved is to be perfect.

You see, where most other religions view the requirements for salvation as a kind of test where you need to get a certain score to pass, Christianity views it as a judgement in a criminal trial. Each person will be on trial for crimes committed against God, and the "good things" we have done will have no bearing on determining our guilt.

For example, if I am on trial for murder, no amount of good deeds that I have done will have any bearing on whether or not I am found guilty. They might effect my sentence, but they will have no effect on my guilt. Being nice to my wife, and giving money to charity has nothing to do with the question, "Did I commit murder?" Likewise, the Bible teaches that our guilt or innocence is based on one question: have I sinned? No amount of "good deeds" have any impact on this question.

Further, sin is not defined as "evil." Sin produces evil, leads to evil, can make us evil, but strictly speaking, sin is not "evil." The Geek word for sin is ἁμαρτία, and this word does not mean, "bad" or "evil," it means, "to miss the mark, to fail, to be less than morally perfect." Because "sin" is a failure to be morally perfect, it is completely legitimate to refer to an evil act as a "sin."

So the question we will all face at our trial is this: Have you been less than morally perfect? If we have committed any sins (moral failures), we will be found guilty.

In line with this, the Bible clearly teaches that the problem facing mankind is sin, and each and every one of us is afflicted by this disease.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:22b-23 NIV)

Does this mean each of us are inherently evil, and if given half a chance, we will all become little Hitlers? Being thoroughly sinful does not automatically mean we are thoroughly evil, it means we are thoroughly imperfect. Thoroughly imperfect people can do good things, and can even resist doing evil things. So the problem of sin is not that it will inevitably turn us all into serial killers, the problem is that it keeps us from being perfect. And because of this inborn imperfection, we ALL will eventually do something that is a moral failure, we will do something wrong, and at that moment, we are condemned. We now fail to qualify for heaven.

No heaping of good deeds on top of our sins can make up for that crime. Thus, we all, each and every one of us, are doomed to be found guilty, and forbidden to enter heaven.

This is where Jesus comes in. The REASON He is the only way to salvation is that His death and resurrection are the only means to wash us clean of our imperfect behavior, and make us morally perfect in the eyes of God. Paul explains how it works this way:

But here is how God has shown his love for us. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. The blood of Christ has made us right with God. So we are even more sure that Jesus will save us from God's anger. Once we were God's enemies. But we have been brought back to him because his Son has died for us. Now that God has brought us back, we are even more secure. We know that we will be saved because Christ lives. (Rom 5:8-10)

Because Jesus died for us, we are forgiven and made clean, and because He rose from the grave, and now lives, we are given new life and saved.

And what does it take to get in on this awesome deal?

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame." (Rom 10:9-11)

Just a quick note: biblical faith is not only something we say, most importantly, it is something we do. In the same way that real love is demonstrated by what we do, real faith in Jesus is demonstrated by our actions, by how we live from this day forward, NOT by simply saying a prayer. In other words, if our faith is real, salvation is instantaneous, and the proof of that is that our lives are forever changed.

So here is the bottom line. If the Bible is right about how to get to heaven (be perfect), about what our problem is (we cannot be perfect) and about how that problem is solved (faith in Jesus makes us perfect), then all faiths do NOT lead to God. Only one road leads to God, and that road is called Jesus. Furthermore, if the Bible is right, there is nothing intolerant or arrogant about this claim at all.

On the contrary, we have an obligation to get this message out to as many people as we possibly can.

Can Women Be Pastors? Part Two.

Question:

How can a woman be a pastor if women are explicitly forbidden to speak in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

Answer:

As with the 1 Timothy passage, the translation on this one is usually flawed just enough to make it seem absolute, when Paul had no intention of making it as extreme as our translations often imply. Again, I will bold the translation problems. For the sake of context, I have includee verse 33 as well.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This passage has very similar translational issues as the 1 Timothy passage, so some of this has already been addressed.

The first thing we should note is that this passage is set in the context of verse 33, which shows that the issue facing the churches was of disorder and chaos during the meetings. Apparently, some of the women were causing some disruption in the service, and the issue had to be addressed.

As with “teaching” in the 1 Timothy passage above, "speaking" here means “continuously speaking.” It is not a prohibition against ever speaking, but against disruptive, continuous speaking. Further, the Greek word translated “speak” (λαλεω – laleo) is more accurately “converse, discuss, extended conversation.” What is disgraceful is for the wives to be disrupting the services by constantly asking their husbands questions, and engaging in ongoing conversations when they should be paying attention to the service. Again, the construction here indicates that women did speak in church, but they were not supposed to abuse that to the point of becoming a disruption. 

I have already addressed the translation issue with "submission," and the context here is the same. Women need to be respectful and reverent in a church service, which is a fairly obvious issue. 

Further, no denomination in any century has ever taught that women must literally remain silent in Church, as that would prohibit them from singing, prophesying or praying, which is something they clearly did. In fact, Paul gives instructions, in this very same letter, that in a Greek culture, the married women needed to cover their heads when they spoke out in a church service (Jewish culture was the exact opposite, with the men covering their heads during religious ceremonies, and the women leaving their heads uncovered, showing that the whole "head covering" issue is cultural). 

Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head, and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having her head shaved. (1Co 11:4-5)

Now clearly, if women were not allowed to pray or prophesy in church, there would be no need for a rule about keeping their heads covered while they spoke out in a church service. No such instructions would be necessary if women literally kept silent in church. 

Further, if we take this literally, it also means it only applies to married women, as single women had no husbands to ask questions of at home.

Occasionally paraphrase translations, because they can be freer in their phraseology, manage to capture the force of the Greek passage even better than word for word translations. This is one of those verses where a popular paraphrase, The Message, catches the force of this paragraph in 1 Corinthians 14 as concisely as I have seen anywhere.

Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.

All difficult passages in scripture should always be interpreted in light of clearer verses elsewhere in the Bible. It is my contention that we should likewise do the same with the these passages, particularly since so much of the New Testament indicates that women were NOT silent in Church, and that they did hold positions of authority (I will address this in Part Three).

These passages should not be taken as absolute warnings about how women are prone to abuse their authority, but should be understood as what they are: isolated circumstances addressing unique problems within a specific cultural setting. The real principle at work here is that, just as Priscila and Aquila operated as a team in ministry (and jointly taught Apollos about Christianity, Acts chapter 18), so husbands and wives should work together in harmony within the body of Christ.

When judging how God views the issue of women in ministry, or in positions of authority within the church, we should always keep this verse in mind: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

When Paul wrote these words to the Galatians, this was the very first time any person in human history made this statement, in ANY context, claiming all people were equal, regardless of ethnicity, status or sex. Paul, and Christianity, were on the cutting edge of human rights in the first century, and unfortunately, the church lost most of that momentum in later centuries.

The bottom-line is that in Christianity, all sincere believers are given equal access to the gospel, to ministry, and to any position of authority. Many believers in the 1850's used Galatians 3:28, among others, in stating that all believers, of all races, whether black or white, slave or free, are equal in the eyes of God. Just as so many of them had the courage to stand up to slavery when it was the law of the land, many of them eventually embraced the whole verse when they granted women the right to be ordained as pastors. Despite how controversial this issue seems to be, the vast majority of protestant denominations now ordain women, as illustrated in this Wikipedia article (it's a long list, but not complete, as the Free Methodist Church, which is where I serve as pastor, ordains women and is not listed):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_churches

In America, the average person no longer has a problem with a woman holding a position of authority in the government, yet many believers would forbid a sincere, Christian woman who had just proven her leadership ability as the President of the United States or the Governor of a state from serving as the pastor of a church. This disconnect should not be. Long before any society granted full and complete equal rights to all people, regardless of race, economic status or sex, Christianity was on the cutting edge of civilization by doing exactly that. Our Lord and Savior makes no distinction between races, economic status or sexes, and neither should we.

Can Women be Pastors? Part One

Question:

I'm so tired of American Christians just ignoring the Bible when it suits their needs. Take your church [Free Methodist] for example. You ordain women; isn't this a clear violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where Paul clearly says that women cannot teach or have authority over men?

Answer:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

This is the over-riding principle that should be used when trying to understand how Christ views believers. This verse makes it clear there are no boundaries or restrictions based on race, culture, economic status or sex when it comes to serving Christ. Most believers have no problem accepting this verse, right up until we get to the part about there being neither male nor female in Christ. They, as you, believe this principle is restricted by two passages in the New Testament which appear to prohibit women from being in positions of authority in the church, and they cannot understand how those verses can be interpreted any other way. These two verses are 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

In Part One of my answer, I shall address 1 Timothy; in Part Two I shall address 1 Corinthians; and in Part Three I shall examine the full biblical picture of women in authority.

I propose that, due to mistranslation and misapplication, these two verses have been applied improperly, and that once they are understood properly, we see that not only is there no scriptural barrier to women in authority, but when understood correctly, they actually assume women will be in authority, and provide careful warnings to make sure that wives in authority within the church do not abuse that authority with respect to their husbands.

A womanA should learn in quietness and full submissionE. I do not permit a womanA to teachB or to assume authorityC over a manA; she must be silentD. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the womanA who was deceived and became a sinner. But womenA will be saved through childbearing--if theyA continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15 NIV)

There are five problems with the way this verse is usually translated, which I have bolded and marked. 

A) To whom is this passage addressed?

B) Does this passage really forbid women from teaching men?

C) Does this passage really forbid women from having authority over men?

D) Does this passage really demand that women be completely silent in church?

E) Does this passage really demand "full submission" of women to men?

So the first translational problem is, "To whom is this passage addressed?"

In Greek, there is no separate word for husband and wife: ανηρ (aner - “man, husband”) and γυνη (gune - “woman, wife”) are used for both, and the exact meaning must be determined from context. For example, just fourteen verses further down in 1 Timothy 3:14 we find this verse: “A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well,” where ανηρ and γυνη are translated “husband” and “wife” respectively.  

So what does the context tell us?

First, Paul compares them to the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve. Granted, this alone would not be enough to know for sure (as they are BOTH the first man and woman AND the first husband and wife), but there are more clues.

Second, Paul speaks of these "women" that he is addressing as giving birth to children. In other words, these are not women in general, but clearly, married women (Paul would never assume that single Christian women would be giving birth). 

Third, in verse 14, the Greek does not include the word "woman," but uses pronouns, and literally says, “SHE [singular] will be saved through childbearing if THEY [plural] continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 

Since Paul is clearly addressing each woman individually with the singular in the first part, the plural in the second part cannot be a reference to women in general. That would literally mean that each woman will be kept safe if, and only if, ALL women continued in faith, love and holiness. It should be obvious that Paul did not intend that meaning, so the only plural reference that makes sense here is “she and her husband.”

Given this context, it is far more likely that Paul was intending this to be about how wives should treat their husbands when the wives are in positions of authority (which is a much more likely scenario of abuse), not about men and women in general. 

So with this first translational error corrected, the passage now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to teach or to assume authority over her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 

(1Ti 2:11-15 NIV)

So the first thing that should be noted here is that context strongly suggests this passage is not about a general rule concerning all women, but is addressed specifically to husbands and wives, and specifically how wives in authority should treat their husbands.

The next translational problem is Does this passage really forbid women from teaching men?

When a prohibition is absolute (“do not do this, ever”), Greek uses the Aorist tense.[1] 

For example, in James 2:11 we read:

For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Adultery and murder are never allowed, under any circumstances, and James reflects this absolute prohibition by placing the commands “do not commit adultery” and “do not murder” in the Aorist tense.

If Paul had intended this prohibition against wives teaching to be absolute, he would have used the Aorist, as James did concerning adultery and murder. However, Paul used the Present tense, which places this command in a completely different light. The tense he chose is best translated, “I do not allow wives to teach husbands continuously.” By choosing this construction, Paul is actually stating that some wives did teach their husbands, it is just that they should not be doing it constantly, which is what he advises for all believers in his letter to the Corinthians: 

For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. (1 Corinthians 14:31)

Adding this correction to our passage, it now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or to assume authority over her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The third translational problem Does this passage really forbid women from having authority over men?

The word for “authority” in the New Testament is εξουσια (exousia). There are three Greek words that can be considered synonyms of this word (addressed in footnote [2] below), but the Greek word used in this passage in Timothy is not one of them. εξουσια is used of all levels of authority, including soldiers in the military (Matthew 8:9), the civil authority of human leaders (Luke 20:20), the spiritual authority of church leaders (2 Corinthians 13:10), the authority of Jesus over all of creation (Matthew 28:18), and when the Bible says that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1). 

However, Paul does not use εξουσια (or any of the synonyms of εξουσια) in this verse. In fact, the Bible does not forbid women from exercising authority (εξουσια) over men! Not even once! Let me state that again: No where in the Bible are women forbidden from exorcising εξουσια over men. No where.

So what does this passage forbid? Believe it or not, it forbids women who have authority from being abusive towards their husbands. In this passage, Paul does not use εξουσια, or one of its synonyms, but a completely different word that only appears ONCE in the entire New Testament: αυθεντεω. When a word only appears once in the New Testament (which happens over 2200 times), scholars must go to other Greek texts, both religious and secular, outside the Bible, to find out for sure what the word means.

An examination of the evidence reveals something shocking: it does not mean “usurp authority” as it is rendered in the KJV, nor is it “authority” as in most modern translations. So what does it mean? An examination of every occurrence of the noun form of this word (the verb is exceedingly rare) in every available Greek manuscript from 200 years prior to Paul to 100 years after Paul yields an astonishing discovery: it is used almost exclusively of murder, suicide, or abusive or violent action against one’s self (suicide) or against a family member or relative.[3] This meaning fits perfectly with the context of this verse being about unacceptable behavior within a family unit: how a wife should treat her husband. Which is why the ISV translates this verse: “Moreover, in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate violence towards a man. Instead, she is to remain calm.”

So why is it usually translated "authority"? Because usage gradually changed its meaning over time, and almost 500 years after Paul wrote his letter it came to mean "autonomous, illegitimate authority." During the time when Paul used this word, however, that is NOT what it meant.

This is important to understand: by using this word, Paul is not really saying anything about authority, he is simply admonishing wives to refrain from any actions that could be abusive toward their own husbands. If Paul had meant women had no authority over men at all, he would have used εξουσια.

Adding this new information, this passage now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or to be abusive in any way toward her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The fourth translational problem is Does this passage really demand that women be completely silent in church?

The Greek word translated "quietness" in verse eleven and “silence” in verse twelve is ͑ησυχια (hesuchia), and primarily means "quiet tranquility," not literal silence. Although it can indicate being vocally quiet, even then it primarily references the state of the spirit, not the mouth.

For example, note how it is used in this passage:

For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12)

Here, ͑ησυχια is translated “quiet fashion.” This was not a command to maintain silence when you work, but to be a productive person who refrained from causing trouble. We should be a source of strength, not discord, to those around us. One of the best ways to tell how Paul intends it to be understood is by checking how he uses ησυχια earlier in the same letter.

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. (I Timothy 2:1-2)

A mere ten verses before making his statement about wives being silent, Paul uses the same word. No one would make the argument that Paul was telling Timothy that a truly godly life was one where we never spoke, but rather, he was encouraging us to live lives in which we are not a source of strife and conflict with others. As these verses show, Paul's primary point is that women, and the rest of us for that matter, should not allow ourselves to become a source of discord and conflict within the church, but rather, examples of quiet strength and humility. This is also one of the reasons that the more recent edition of the NIV changed their translation of this word in verse 12 from "silent" (in the 1984 edition) to "quiet" (in the 2011 edition).

With this in mind, this passage should now read:

A wife should learn calmly and in full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or being abusive in any way toward her husband; she must not be a source of strife. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The fifth translational problem is Does this passage really demand "full submission" of women to men?

Every language has words whose concepts are unique to that language or culture, and for which no other language has exact equivalents. The word translated “full submission” in 2 Timothy 2:11 is one such word. There is no exact English equivalent for ͑υποτασσω (hupotasso), so it is always a struggle to translate it correctly.

Although there is an underlying idea of submitting to the will of another, this word reflects a voluntary submission that arises from the tremendous respect and admiration because of that person's wisdom and leadership, not because they are a ruler over you. The over-riding concept is not about obeying someone, deferring to their decisions or will, or even letting them make the decisions. The strongest underlying idea is actually one of tremendous respect that is shown by supporting, encouraging, or even holding someone up so that they don't collapse. It is mostly about an attitude of respect, honor and support, not about decision-making or obedience or even deference to the decisions of someone else.

One of the best scriptures for illustrating the real meaning of this word is Ephesians 5:21: "Submit yourselves to one another in the fear of God."

Clearly, this cannot be about obeying, being superior, or having authority over someone, as this is something that we are supposed do to each other. What we can do is hold one other in such high regard that we are constantly treating each other with respect and honor while encouraging, supporting and lifting each other up. This is something that clergy and leaders can and should do to those placed under their authority.

A more accurate translation for this word, particularly in this context, would be "respect," not "full submission."

Thus, it is my opinion that a more accurate translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would be:

A wife should learn calmly and respectfully. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or being abusive in any way toward her husband; she must not be a source of strife. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. So she will be kept safe through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

Far from forbidding women to have authority, this passage is about women who do have authority, but are commanded not to abuse that authority within the confines of their own families, particularly with their husbands. If a woman is in authority within the church, that does not change the simple fact that her husband is still the head of the house.

Footnotes:
___________________________________

[1] Prohibitions occur in the Subjunctive or Infinitive (i.e. Matthew 5:34, 36, 42; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 2:22; James 2:11), and the Future Indicative (i.e. Matthew 4:7; 5:21, 27, 33; 19:18; Romans 7:7; 13:9). The difference between them is subtle. The Aorist Subjunctive or Aorist Infinitive place a little more emphasis on the prohibition itself, and tend to be very specific. A prohibition against adultery using the Aorist Subjunctive could be translated “do not commit adultery - ever!” The Future Indicative places more emphasis on how one should live from this day forward, as a normal part of our daily life, and tends to be more general. The corresponding command in the Future Indicative could be translated (over emphasizing the effect), “you shall not, from this day forward, commit adultery.” So the Future indicative would be more in line with "Go and sin no more," while the Aorist is more in line with, "Do not sin!"

[2] There are a few synonyms with similar meanings: κυριότης is a derivative of the Greek word meaning "Lord," and strictly speaking, means "Lordship, dominion, rule." This is used almost exclusively of the spiritual authority of God, demons or angels, and appears in Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; 2 Peter 2:10; and Jude 1:8. ἐπιταγή is the issuing of commands, and is not authority itself, but is something that someone who has authority is allowed to do. This word appears in Romans 16:26; 1 Corinthians 7:6, 25; 2 Corinthians 8:8; 1 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:3; 2:15. ὑπερέχω means "to be superior in rank, class or attitude," or "to govern" and appears in Romans 13:1 (where it is connected to εξουσια to produce "governing authorities"); Philippians 2:3; 3:8; 4:7; 1 Peter 2:13.

[3] See Betty Talbert’s thesis (for her Master’s degree in Apologetics) “The Meaning of Authenteo and its Implication in Translating I Timothy 2:12” She examines every occurrence of the noun form of this word (the verb is exceedingly rare), from 200 years before and 100 years after Paul wrote, tracing it's gradual change from "kinsmen murder" or "suicide" 200 years before Paul to something closer to "familial violence or abuse" by Paul's time.

How Do I Choose a Church?

Question:

They [denominations] all believe something different. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists . . . How do I know which one is right?

Answer:

Well, for one thing, I think you might be asking the wrong question. You seem to be focusing exclusively on "Truth," which is very important, but it is not even remotely the only issue, nor is it one that you and I can most effectively employ (at least not with completely certainty) when evaluating various churches. In fact, once we get past a few central doctrines, it is not even the best means of evaluating a church.

Within Christianity, as you have noted, there are quite a few "doctrinal" divisions. Most notable is the Catholic/Protestant split. Then there is the Calvinist/Arminian split. The orthodox/liberal split. The traditional/contemporary split. The immersion/sprinkling split. And on and on and on.

And when it comes to the question of who has "The Truth," the answer is . . . all of them. And none of them.

Let me explain.

Not all doctrine is of equal importance. Paul was by far the most theologically complex writer in the New Testament, yet even he broke it all down to one central, critical Truth:

This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he? You weren't baptized in Paul's name, were you? . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, so the cross of Christ won't be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved. . . . Jews ask for signs, and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified. He is a stumbling block to Jews and nonsense to gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom. . . . For while I was with you I resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1Corinthians 1:12-13; 17-18; 22-24; 2:2)

You see, despite all those splits, there is one set of central doctrines, in fact, THE central doctrines, upon which all of Christianity agrees: Jesus' identity as the Son of God, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. If we confess openly that He is our Lord, and believe with all our heart that He died on the cross to pay for our sins, and rose from the grave to secure our salvation, we will be saved.

Upon these core doctrines of the faith virtually all of Christianity is in agreement. As for the rest, I have very strong views on what is or is not correct. On baptism, I hold to believer baptism and immersion. On worship, I am very contemporary. On basic theology, I am very orthodox. On soteriology, I am very Arminian. On the church and the Bible, I am very Protestant.

But these positions are mitigated by three critical observations.

First, I have a strong and abiding confidence in man's inability to be perfect, either spiritually, physically, morally, doctrinally, or any other way. And that includes myself. I simply do not believe that ANY of us can claim perfection in our doctrine or theology. What this means is that once we get past the core doctrinal issues of Jesus, His death and resurrection that are critical to even BEING a Christian, I will not say that other believers are "wrong," but rather, that I DISAGREE with them. And this is NOT a semantics issue for me.

Second, it is absolutely undeniable that God uses believers who have strong disagreements with me on doctrinal and theologcial issues to further the kingdom of God and bring people to salvation. I am a staunch Arminian, yet some of the teachers and pastors I admire most, whose ministries are undeniably producing massive fruit for God, are Calvinist. I strongly disagree with many Catholic doctrines, yet I am deeply moved and inspired by Pope Francis, and will freely admit that I have much to learn from him about showing God's grace on a day to day basis. God does not require that our theology be perfect in order to use us in His kingdom. All He really requires is that we know His Son, and follow Him with all our heart.

Because of these first two observations, I harbor very little hostility toward most denominations, even those with whom I have my strongest theological disagreements. For example, I am thoroughly Protestant, but I also understand the foundational disagreement between the Protestants and Catholics (is the Church equal to or subordinate to the Bible?). This central difference means that the Catholic Church only requires that a particular doctrine not be contrary to scripture, where most protestants, particularly those of a more fundamentalist persuation, require that each doctrine be explicitly supported in scripture. While I simply cannot bring myself to embrace a doctrine that is not supported in scripture, because I understand why the Catholics can and do, it allows me to treat them with much more grace, and much less judgment. Even more than that, it allows me to embrace them without reservation as my brothers and sisters.

The third observation is that, while Jesus was the complete embodiment of Truth, beyond the central doctrines relating to salvation (mentioned above), He did not present Truth as the ultimate arbitrator of who was or was not a true believer.

Even the most cursory reading of the gospels will reveal that Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees, and as clash after clash reveals, they might have been His stuanches opponents, if not out right enemies. Yet, did you know that Jesus had almost zero doctrinal disagreements with the Pharisees? In fact, not only is He never recorded explicitly refuting a Pharisitical doctrine, on several occasions He thoroughly confirmed first century Pharisee doctrine. For example, Jesus parable of Lazarus and the rich man confirms the Pharisee doctrine that (at that time) both the righteous and the wicked descended into the earth at death, where the righteous were comforted, the wicked punished, and the two could see each other across an impassable gulf.

So what was the basis for the hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees? Not what they believed, but how they lived. Despite their doctrinal accuracy, they were corrupt, hypocritical, judgmental, harsh, power hungry, impure, intollerant, self-righteous phoneys. They elevated their traditions for the express purpose of avoiding the command of God, specifically, "love your neighbor as yourself." They did not actually CARE about their fellow men. They had no qualms whatsoever about destroying lives to elevate their social, political or religious standing. Jesus had MUCH stronger condemnations for them than He ever did for those with whom He had clear doctrinal differences (such as the Samaritans) . . . and let's be clear here; if you have a doctrinal disagreement with Jesus, YOU'RE WRONG!

So how do you choose the best church?

First, make sure they really do hold to the central tenets of Christianity (Jesus is God, died on a cross, rose from the grave, is the sole source of salvation). Beyond this, make sure that you will feel doctrinally comfortable there (which probably will NOT mean you agree with 100% of what they teach). I am a pastor in the Free Methodist Church, and while I am very comfortable here theologically, I do have a few very minor doctrinal disagreements with official Free Methodist theology. Find a church where you have no major disagreements, but do NOT use doctrinal perfection as your ultimate measuring rod.

Second, make sure they are unwavering in their belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Undermining this critical foundation will open the flood gates to any and all ideas that happen to float by, and will give you no measuring stick against which to judge anything anyone ever teaches, preaches or endorses. It has been my experience that undermining this foundation almost always eventually leads to watering down the central, critical doctrines of Christianity, that being Jesus and salvation.

Third, make sure they LIVE what they believe! Specifically, that they are motivated to get out of their pews (or chairs, or homes) and go LOVE people. Despite what some seem to preach, we believers are not supposed to be known by what we are against, nor even really by how accurate our doctrine may be, but by how effectively we LOVE OTHERS!

Our command is to go tell people about Jesus, and love them.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  (Matthew 28:19-20)

I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)

And this is his commandment: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus the Messiah, and to love one another as he commanded us. (1John 3:23)

Do not owe anyone anything—except to love one another. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the Law. For the commandments, "You must not commit adultery; you must not murder; you must not steal; you must not covet," and every other commandment are summed up in this statement: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the Law. (Romans 13:8-10)