I recently had the opportunity to engage the public concerning exclusive truth claims at USA Today. Is there Only One Way? was the topic - one that I obviously am passionate about, and one that many who attend church appear to be confused about. You can read the introduction here, and I am reproducing the article here on my blog. If you want to follow the conversation that followed in nearly 100 comments be sure to go directly to the USA Today site.

Is There Only One Way?

Recently, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a survey regarding the beliefs of Christians and their views on entrance to eternal life (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports/reports_2). The first article released by Pew included these findings:

"Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%)."

I wrote about this issue on my own blog (www.edstetzer.com) in "Are Evangelicals Really Universalists?" as a response to an earlier Pew Research project (http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/06/are-evangelicals-really-univer.html).

Our team at LifeWay Research (and many others) felt the definition of "religion" might lead, for instance, some Pentecostals to say that Lutherans can find eternal life through their "religion." In other words, some would hear "religion" and think "denomination." (Pew, as a professional organization, always releases the questions they ask and such analysis and questions are normal in our field.)

So I (and it appears many others) contacted the good people at the Pew Forum to share my concerns. They were gracious to listen to my concerns and subsequently re-asked the questions in a follow-up survey with a more closely worded query. In their most recent study (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=380), I believe they have asked better questions and brought the issue into a sharper focus.

In their new study, Pew research states that 65% of all self-identified Christians believe eternal life can be obtained through a non-Christian belief system. Furthermore, they found that 80% of that group can "cite an example of at least one non-Christian religion that can lead to salvation."

In summary:

Pew Study 1: In the first study, Pew posed the statement, "My religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life, OR Many religions can lead to eternal life," asking respondents to agree with one or the other (or neither), to which 57% of members of evangelical churches agreed with the latter. (from the full report: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)

Pew Study 2: In the follow-up study, Pew still used the word "religions" in its survey questions, but followed-up with clarifying questions for respondents who indicated that many religions can lead to eternal life. They write, "All respondents who say 'many religions' were asked whether Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism can lead to eternal life . . . In total, therefore, each respondent had the opportunity to name up to four non-Christian faiths." They then found that 80% of self-identified Christians who agreed that many religions can lead to eternal life actually cited at least one non-Christian religion that leads to salvation.

The refinement between the two studies is helpful. With the clarifications and follow-ups added to the "many religions" language of the survey, we can be more certain that Christian respondents were not comparing apples to a different brand of apples, so to speak. By actually citing non-Christian religions that they believe can lead to salvation, Pew has done well to remove the concern that "religions" could be misconstrued by Christians as including other Christian denominations.

Theologians call people with such views universalists or pluralists.

Universalism is a term with a wide meaning, so let me define it as the belief that there are multiple means, ways, and methods to gaining an eternal reward or salvation from the divine being after death. (Some argue a difference between universalism and pluralism, but they overlap in many ways and most news stories used the term "universalism.")

Only one group from the Pew research fell into a majority view when it came to the issue that eternal life can only be obtained through faith in Jesus Christ--white evangelicals at 64%. All other groupings and evangelicals as a whole were shown to believe that actions are necessary to obtain eternal life.

The Pew article said, "The poll also finds that roughly one-third of Americans (30%) believe that whether one achieves eternal life is determined by what a person believes, with nearly as many (29%) saying eternal life depends on one's actions."

Looking at this (and other) data tells us a few things: Americans are very universalistic, self-identified Christians are mostly universalistic, evangelicals are somewhat universalistic. (Those who report evangelical beliefs are slightly universalistic and I will address that later.)

To further the discussion, let's talk about the core issues of exclusivity of beliefs and how that affects culture, religion, and human interaction.

How do you view those who hold such exclusive beliefs? Why do you think that people increasingly seem to hold universalistic and pluralistic beliefs?

Let's make it personal, as well: Many faiths believe there is only one way to God, heaven, righteousness, etc. If you are a person of faith, does your faith teach that? If so, why does it matter?

Here is my editorial in today's Tennessean, the Nashville paper. They asked me to write on the topic, "How to Stem the Decline of the SBC."

There are three editorials and some reader's letters: one from the editors from the paper, one from me, and one from Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics and Ethics Daily. Finally, there are reader's opinions.

The first editorial from The Tennessean editors mainly focused on the North American Mission Board and the Global Plan for Sharing, drawing from an earlier piece they wrote on the subject.

The second was from Robert Parham. Robert is a good (and prolific) writer and would be one of the more vocal critics of the conservative shift of the SBC. He stays true to form here and I am sure he will provoke many responses. Obviously, we would disagree on some important issues. Most obvious in this context: I would be a supporter of the conservative shift while he (as you can tell from the article) was not. (We call it the "conservative resurgence" and Robert would refer to it as a "fundamentalist takeover.")

Mine was third and I drew on an earlier blog post here and this post explains the trend. Here is mine in its entirety:

Stemming SBC Membership Decline

LifeWay Research recently reported that the SBC had declined in membership. The SBC growth rate has been slowing for decades but last year was the first year of decline in a long while--but trends say that more will follow.

The SBC I care about is in decline. Yes, it's part demographics (i.e. we're historically rural and such regions are in numeric decline) and ultimately changes have to be made at a local church level. But, many believe there are issues the convention can acknowledge and address to help turn around the decline. Denying the facts won't help, nor will a theological left turn, but there are things that need to change to reverse the decline.

When the news came out, some in the SBC stuck their heads a bit deeper in sand saying, "We're doing just fine, thank you!" They believe trying harder without change is best. Besides, they say, the SBC is not shrinking as fast as liberal denominations--which seems to me like bragging that our sunset is brighter than theirs.

On the other hand, some "finger waggers" will propose that the answer is to move leftward theologically. Yet, regardless of one's theological views (and that is important), no evidence exists to support that a leftward shift will grow a denomination--generally, the more liberal a denomination is, the faster it is declining.

Yet, a growing number of us believe that change is needed in the SBC. Let me suggest a few of those needed changes.

First and most importantly, the SBC must refocus on the gospel. The convention has become big, bureaucratic, and distracted by so many things--from politics to boycotts to programs. In the process, we have, at times, lost the focus on what was once the main thing: being, doing, and telling the good news locally and globally. We must return to our "first love" (Rev. 2:4), Jesus, and then show and share his message. We need gospel change.

Second, the SBC must address the continued loss of leaders. Ongoing denominational conflict has hastened the depopulation of young leaders. Furthermore, ethnic leadership remains mostly absent after decades of ethnic change in America.

Yet, such change will require an openness to other approaches to church and ministry from different cultures and generations. Openness will be difficult since preaching against other ways of doing church still gets the "big amen" at the SBC meeting-- even though the "Amen Corner" is getting older and smaller every year. If we share a common theology, we need to hold out a chair and ask new generations and ethnicities to sit at the table of leadership. We need leadership change.

Finally, infighting must not define the SBC. It is public knowledge that Baptists do not always settle their differences amicably at the convention or local church level. If "Baptist" and "bad-tempered" are synonyms to the average American, the trend toward decline will only accelerate. We need a heart change.

Can the tide be stemmed? Yes. Will it? Realistically, the "odds" are against it. But, I am one who believes that if we obey God's leading, He can continue to use even an imperfect people like Southern Baptists.

Interestingly, The Tennessean editors changed my title from "How to Stem the SBC Decline" to "SBC needs right kind of change." I prefer the original title much more than their new one and hope that change does not confuse readers with the multiple meanings assigned to the word "right."

Being the guy who writes the conservative evangelical position in the secular paper is always interesting (particularly in 500 words!). But, I hope I held up a commitment to biblical theology while calling for change in the denomination. You decide.