Is Jesus the only way to God?

The bishop has not entirely abandoned Christian evangelism. There is a continuing place for it, he says, but it isn’t among sincere followers of any of the world’s great religions. "Evangelism should be directed towards those who have no living faith, not those who do," he writes.

Inter-faith apologetic

Ingham’s book is an unabashed apologetic for the "inter-faith movement"–a century-old series of initiatives seeking common ground among established world religions. He is is convinced that these efforts are a pivotal part of the ongoing mission of the church, which is "to build God’s kingdom of peace and justice." While Ingham discusses three different Christian approaches to the question of whether or not "God’s beauty and glory [can be] demonstrated in many incarnations beyond the one called Jesus," he clearly identifies with the "religious pluralist" category, which accepts that "there are diverse paths to God, and that God is active among spiritual traditions outside Christianity."

This may seem a curious belief for a Christian bishop to espouse, but his position is neither naive nor uninformed. Ingham has done his homework. He conducts a nuanced discussion and his book demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the issues. He acknowledges, for example, that a "failure to distinguish between religion and sect invites substantial and valid criticism of inter-faith endeavors." He baldly observes "the fact" that "the world’s religious doctrines [note, he doesn’t say "the world’s religions"] are often mutually contradictory, and cannot be reconciled." He also takes pains to distinguish between pluralism and relativism or syncretism, noting that pluralism "does not surrender the concept of truth."

Indeed, Ingham is unashamedly Christian and maintains that "for Christians, Jesus Christ is and must remain the non-negotiable criterion of truth." But this affirmation does not, he insists, preclude the existence of other paths to God.

The bishop is well aware that the gospel he preaches is not held by the majority of Christians, and he does leave more than a few loose ends for his critics to pick at. Part of his rejection of Christian "exclusivism," for example, stems from his acceptance of recent scholarship which neutralizes the "absolutist" pronouncements of Jesus. That these scholarly debates are far from resolved scarcely rates a mention. It is enough to declare that "there is less certainty" on these issues today. Later in the same section, Ingham cites biblical examples to show how Jesus acted inclusively when he interacted agreeably with non-Jews. This behavior, he says, points away from narrow exclusivism. But that doesn’t necessarily mean religious pluralism. The very same passages can easily be understood to commend sensitive missionary outreach.

All of which suggests that Ingham’s conclusions are closely connected to his guiding liberal ideology. Certainly the priorities of faith are expressed in liberal terms. Throughout the book we are in favor of peace, partnership, cooperation, dialogue and mutual understanding rather than competition, war, religious bigotry and intolerance. Ingham repeatedly rejects doctrines or efforts that would change people’s faith as "imperialistic." And he is entirely comfortable stating, without supporting argument, that "it is obviously intolerable to believe in a God who consigns to hell or oblivion those who are not Christian and yet lead exemplary, just, and holy lives, or attempt to do so."

Not surprisingly, tolerance emerges as a primary virtue. And equally unsurprisingly, Ingham’s tolerance for diverse expressions of faith is more expansive than his willingness to accommodate Christian orthodoxy–a tendency he is apt to justify by referring to the example of Jesus, who denounced the "orthodox" religious leaders of his day as narrow-minded hypocrites. (Perhaps Anglicans living in Ingham’s Vancouver jurisdiction will have more to say about a selective tolerance that aggressively champions a select set of "justice" causes, but works to inhibit those who are attempting to call Anglicans to re-examine their commitment to biblical essentials.)

In all of this I do see Ingham as a man unafraid to take risky steps of faith. Certainly he is stepping out in faith when he asserts that a God who would "actually condemn everyone who is not joined to the church to an eternity of everlasting fire" is "not worthy of honor, glory, worship and praise." That’s a brave claim for a mere mortal to make. And he is a stepping out in faith when he accepts the teaching that although theological harmony is impossible, "at some deeper level all religions are one."

"Grounded openness"

Although my own theological biases run counter to Ingham’s in many places, his discussion of the challenging issue of religious pluralism is generally cordial and only mildly condescending to his less inclusive fellow travelers. I do appreciate his emphasis on a "grounded openness" in inter-faith relationships, but wish he offered more evidence of his grounding and left less cause for concern in the breadth of his openness. Indeed, Ingham’s position is essentially like "the Hindu vision of the many-sidedness of truth" that is quoted approvingly throughout the book.

Mansions of the Spirit is well-written, persuasive and highly appealing to the relativistic spirit of the age. It will be read widely in ecclesiastical circles and beyond, and is likely to convince more than a few that religious pluralism is the right path for Christians to follow.

As a bishop, Ingham is charged to be a guardian of the faith and a keeper of the flock. With the publication of this book he he has either advanced that role with prophetic courage, or diminished it by compromising important elements of the faith he has promised to protect. Certainly he is calling for a radical revision of longstanding Christian doctrine. In the process, I fear, Scripture and tradition are being given short shrift.

Doug Koop
Editor