Studying theology is challenging because it involves
exploring the nature of God and His Word. As finite beings, we cannot expect to
grasp everything fully. However, as students of theology, we are called to
develop a deeper understanding of Scripture than others and the responsibility
to provide thoughtful answers to those grappling with difficult questions. So,
we go to a theological seminary to deepen our understanding of God’s Word and
be thoroughly equipped for His work. Many enter theological college with the
expectation of enhancing and augmenting their knowledge, finding answers to
their questions, and equipping themselves to guide others. However, the reality
of the curriculum often diverges from these expectations. What students
anticipate learning and what is actually taught can be strikingly different. By
the final year, as one of our lecturers used to say, we often find ourselves
with more questions than answers. But, the aim of this article is not to deter
anyone from studying theology or to cast theological institutions in a wholly
negative light. Rather, it seeks to foster meaningful discussions that promote
both learning and growth.
I intend to highlight a few crucial topics that theological
students often find confusing and briefly counter these misconceptions. The
first topic I will address is the denial of absolutes. We are constantly
bombarded with a multitude of philosophical and religious perspectives.
Religious pluralism captivates students and many become deeply immersed in it.
Religious pluralism holds that multiple religious traditions offer valid paths
to God or ultimate reality, each containing genuine religious truth and value,
rather than one being exclusively true. Religious pluralists use the blind men
and the elephant parable to argue that all religions grasp only part of the
ultimate truth. In the story, several blind men touch different parts of an
elephant – one feels the trunk and thinks it’s a snake, another feels a leg and
thinks it’s a tree, and so on. Each man perceives only a fraction of the
reality, leading to different but partially true perspectives. Pluralists apply
this to religion, claiming that no single tradition has complete knowledge of
God or ultimate reality. Instead, different religions provide complementary
insights, and insisting that only one is fully true is seen as narrow-minded or
arrogant.
I would like to argue that the blind men and the elephant
parable is self-defeating because it assumes a position that it denies. The
parable suggests that all religions are like blind men feeling different parts
of an elephant, each understanding only a piece of truth but mistaking it for
the whole. However, for someone to claim that all religions are only partially
true, they must assume that they themselves can see the whole elephant – a full
knowledge of ultimate reality. This is self-defeating because it contradicts
the very point of analogy: if no one has full access to the truth, how can the
story teller claim to know that all religions are limited? By doing so, the
pluralist takes a privileged, all-knowing perspective that they deny to all
religious traditions. Christian apologists use this critique to argue that
objective, revealed truth is possible, and that Christianity claims such a
revelation in Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
Religious pluralists often align with postmodern philosophy,
which denies the existence of absolute truth and asserts that truth is
inherently relative. According to this view, what is considered “true” is
shaped by individual perspectives, cultural backgrounds, or specific contexts
rather than being universally fixed. However, the claim that “there is no
absolute truth” presents a significant philosophical contradiction. If there is
no absolute truth, is that statement absolutely true? For it to be true you
have to make an absolute claim – so it self-destructs. ‘If you relativise the
absolute, you have to absolutise the relative.’ Therefore, the very notion of
absolute truth cannot be logically denied. Truth by definition is exclusive.
Consider these two propositions – i) All views are false. ii) All views are
true. If all viewpoints were false, then the very claim that all viewpoints are
false would also be false, leading to self-contradiction. Likewise, if all
viewpoints were true, then the belief that all viewpoints are false would also
have to be true, resulting in an inherent paradox. Therefore, it is logically
impossible for all views to be either entirely false or entirely true. This
necessitates the existence of absolute truth. Absolute truths and standards,
however, cannot be arbitrary; they must be established by a perfect being. Any
being that falls short of perfection would be unqualified to define absolute
truth. I firmly believe that the God of the Bible – the Christian God – is
perfect, and His truth is absolute. Consequently, relativism and pluralism,
which deny the existence of absolute truth, must be rejected.
Now, after reading the above lines, if you are a thoughtful
individual, you may find yourself reflecting on the concepts of tolerance and
intolerance. Because our faith makes exclusive truth claims, it is often
misinterpreted as intolerant. However, this is a mistaken conclusion. In
epistemological discussions – whether in religion or philosophy – differing,
even mutually exclusive, viewpoints are inevitable. Yet, holding firm to our
beliefs should not be misconstrued as a moral failing. Rejecting the beliefs of
another religion does not equate to hatred toward its adherents. I may
disbelieve and reject the teachings of Hinduism, yet this does not imply any
animosity towards Hindus. Pluralists often err in accusing Christians of
intolerance simply because we affirm Christ as the way, the truth, and the
life. In matters of truth, particularly of faith, exclusivity is inescapable;
every worldview, in some way or another, makes its own exclusive claims.
Pluralists, despite advocating for inclusivity, hold an
inherently exclusive belief. Their stance is only non-exclusive if they
disregard truth altogether – but if truth is irrelevant to them, then their
beliefs, arguments, and assertions become meaningless. How, then, are
pluralists exclusive? They claim that the Christian belief in Christ as the
only way is false, while asserting that multiple religions provide valid paths
to truth. In doing so, they establish their own exclusive position. If we apply
their own principle consistently, they, too, are intolerant – rejecting the
Christian conviction that Jesus is the sole way while affirming their own view
as the truth. Thus, where does their concept of tolerance truly stand? If
disagreement on beliefs were inherently a moral failing, then pluralists
themselves would be guilty of it. Therefore, mere disagreement over religious
claims should not automatically be deemed a moral blunder.
Rejecting the act of homosexuality is often mistakenly
equated with intolerance toward homosexual individuals. However, these are not
the same. Scripture clearly states that those who practice homosexuality will
not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), and that God Himself
judges such actions (Romans 1:26-27). It is deemed evil, and the fear of the
Lord involves hating what is evil (Proverbs 8:13). Therefore, we should reject
homosexuality as sinful. Yet, it is crucial to distinguish between rejecting the
act and hating the individual. Many fail to make this distinction, leading to
confusion. Some wrongly assume that condemning the act is equivalent to
condemning the person, and in doing so, they compromise biblical truth.
The argument that homosexuality cannot be considered wrong
if individuals are born with that inclination is theologically flawed. While
humanity was created in God’s image, the fall introduced sin into our nature,
corrupting our being. As Scripture declares, all have sinned (Romans 3:23). The
mere fact that we are born with certain inclinations – such as jealousy – does
not justify them. Likewise, being born with a sinful disposition does not mean
that our sinful nature is God-given. To attribute sin to God would be to deny
His holiness, rendering Him something other than God. The Word of God is
ultimate standard of truth. What Scripture declares to be evil is indeed evil,
for divine truth is not subject to human opinion, nor can personal perspective
override the authority of God’s revelation.
Let me conclude with a few key reflections worth pondering.
Everyone, including students of theology, must immerse themselves in Scripture
and know it thoroughly. Just as one must first study a genuine banknote to
recognise a counterfeit, so too must we know God’s Word to discern falsehood.
Furthermore, critical thinking is not an enemy of faith but a powerful ally
when used wisely. It safeguards us against the deceptive influences of faulty
philosophies, misguided worldviews, and ideological indoctrination. Do not
confine yourself to the narrow waters of closed mind – rise above, think
deeply, and develop the discernment to distinguish truth from falsehood. When
theological students graduate with more doubts than convictions and step into
ministry where seekers hunger for answers, the proliferation of counterfeit
currency is bound to escalate. When the misguided lead, they risk drawing
others off course.
