This was supposed to be further reflections on my conversations with Clayton, but in the process of writing I ended up focusing primarily on the topic of salvation. (You may want to familiarize yourself with the terms inclusivist and exclusivist if you haven't already.)
Salvation
Clayton told me he's "no longer an inclusivist." Immediately I thought of Aristotle and Plato standing in the middle of Raphael's "School of Athens" in which Plato is pointing upward while Aristotle, once a student of Plato, is gesturing downward, indicative of the differences between each philosopher's view of reality. This is a weighty statement from Clayton, the Aristotle to my Plato, given that this indicates his most dramatic divergence from the views I held when I was his teacher.
His decision is based on his own study of what the Bible says concerning salvation. According to Clayton, the Bible reflects an exclusivist soteriology, but leaves open the possibility that god could step outside the established rules when god decides. "God, being the bigger party in the agreement, can work outside the boundaries when he sees fit," Clayton claims.
"If that's what you think, then you still sound like an inclusivist," I replied. This led Clayton to qualify his statement by explaining that he's a "functional exclusivist" now.
I struggled with the "good news" of salvation when I was a Christian, and exclusivism in particular. Nothing about the exclusivist position made sense to me, yet that seemed to be the most accurate interpretation of the Bible. My shift to inclusivism came early in my Christian walk, and while there are a number of Bible passages utilized by inclusivist theologians to support their view, I always took a more philosophical approach to defending that view rather than relying on proof-texting.
Since I gave up the Christian walk, I can now read the Bible objectively, without worrying that I'll find god's plan abhorrent or illogical. What such an objective study of the Bible shows me is that Clayton is correct: exclusivism is the "most obvious" understanding of biblical soteriology. I could never justify exclusivism rationally, and hated the possibility that it might actually be what the Bible teaches. The only thing I feared and despised more as a Christian was Calvinism, which depicts god as an absolute monster.
If there is a god, and that god is both all-loving and all-knowing, then exclusivism falls apart, given how much of a role geography plays in determining which religion a person will likely choose (to offer but one example). If exclusivism is correct, then the Christian god must not give a damn about (or really want to damn) people in, say, Saudi Arabia. And forget about indigenous tribes in Africa or Australia. They're completely screwed.
I can hear the Christians objecting: "But Bud, that's why we need to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20." Yeah, the all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful and all-loving god of the universe has left the responsibility of saving everybody in the hands of a small group of people who sure as hell can't get to everybody before it's "too late" (i.e., death), and can't communicate the gospel message perfectly, and certainly cannot communicate and convince and convict the "unsaved" nearly as well as an all-knowing, all-powerful, ubiquitous god. But god apparently isn't all that concerned about saving folks, and since god has determined that it's "too late" after you die, that means most people won't be saved (according to exclusivist soteriology anyway).
Hey, it wouldn't be "heaven" if it were overcrowded, right? Christians should thank god for keeping the place roomy.
Exclusivism makes even less sense when applied to Christianity. According to the "good news" of Christian salvation, we go to hell because we are sinners and our sin is so bad that we deserve nothing better than damnation to hell unless god steps in and does something, which he did (according to the story): "For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." Would god do the whole "let's crucify Jesus" thing and then let people fall through the cracks just because they didn't get the memo? Does that really sound like something a god who "so loved the world" would do?
Clayton's "functional" exclusivism doesn't necessarily discount everyone in the world who has never heard of or accepted Jesus. I'm not sure how much that differs from his prior inclusivist understanding, which doesn't necessarily discount everyone in the world who has never heard of or accepted Jesus, but I suppose ministers have to be functional exclusivists for job security if nothing else. For Clayton, one must assume exclusivism in practice because one shouldn't assume a non-Christian isn't saved. He is, after all, trying to fulfill the Great Commission.
This to me seems like the entire problem with religion. One group assumes they're the "saved" ones and not only is everyone else "unsaved," but in desperate need to have the saved ones interfere in everyone else's life. This mentality at best has led to minor annoyances like evangelists knocking on our doors, Chick Tracts and people annoying the hell out of you by trying to be a "Contagious Christian"; at worst this way of thinking has brought bloodshed, war and death, with believers on each side of the conflict convinced that their cause is holy and pure, reinforced by the belief that their actions are the will of their god - the "One True God" who validates whatever hideous actions the believers deem to be the will of this god.
While I'm sure Clayton will never commit acts of violence in the name of god, not everyone is as mentally sound. When people become convinced that they are the "righteous" or the "chosen" - and this belief is bolstered by the repetition of prayers and songs along with the emotional synergy that comes from regular group meetings which foster a mob mentality - believers becoming elitist and judgmental is not merely a possibility, but for many an unavoidable reality. When this happens, "I'll pray for you" is just another way of saying, "I wish you were as good as I am. Maybe some day you will be."
Add to this the common assumption among believers that correct belief is equivalent to proper moral conduct - which implies that incorrect belief is equivalent to immorality - and now the "righteous" have moral impetus to try to convert the non-believers, or even coerce them into belief, or as history has shown, purge the wickedness of unbelief with whips and chains, or destroy it altogether with sword and spear.
Add to all of this the fact that just about every religious person first came to faith via non-rational means. They didn't apply reason or use any kind of logical process to arrive at their conclusions. No critical thinking was used to lead them to such a belief, which means most of them will never use critical thinking to question their faith. Many even show disdain for logic and reason, and consider anyone arrogant who "dares to question god." They expect us to convert and accept their faith without feeling the need to provide any rational basis to justify their beliefs. They look down on us for having the audacity to not make assumptions and demand that beliefs actually make sense.
The disregard for logic and reason by the religionists means there can be no objective standard to evaluate truth claims, which means the disagreements can never be settled. Each religion has it's own version of what William Lane Craig calls the "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit." None of them can be tested. No wonder our history is littered with people trying to settle disagreements with a sword - or, as we've seen firsthand, with legislation. "Might makes right" and "majority rules" when it comes to religion. Isn't that the mentality of those who argue that the USA is a "Christian nation"?
Thus, the "good news" of salvation offered by the religions has done quite the opposite of saving us. Lives have been lost, relationships have been ruined, freedom has been denied and progress crippled because the "righteous" don't bother to take a step back to see whether they really are righteous, and the believers never question whether their beliefs are justified.
"For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge."
- Romans 10:2
