No Title
by Leslie Graves

"Many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."

Does it have the distant ring of a disaster movie? Read on.

I have often wondered what people are thinking when they criticize their own religion. Either it is true or not. Either you belong or you don’t. Religion should not be confused with mere philosophy, which can change on a whim for the sake of personal or public opinion. Something that is strong enough to be religious should also be strong enough to be provable or unprovable, reasonable or unreasonable, fathomable or unfathomable. If you cannot prove it, reason on it, fathom it, then you should discard as either fabricated, adulterated or outright false, and move on. The mind was made to reason. It has a phenomenal ability to argue truth against sophism, but only if it left open, humble and childlike enough to accept correction by that which is of higher intelligence and not mere opinion.

Philosophy is ever-changing because it is admittedly human and naturally self-correcting. Religion on the other hand, lays claim to that which is divine and therefore of a higher form. This unfortunately, is where the waters get muddy, for people rarely wish to be wrong when it comes to their religious beliefs. At least philosophy need not be so proud. But religion—once ascribed to, endangers all by closing the mind and thrusting its adherents into unknowable realms of mysticism where mere belief drives the engines of that which is ultimately believed to be true. Once cemented to mysticism, and depending how entrenched, all opposing arguments, however logical, fall on deaf ears.

Let’s take in a little history—Christianity. As taught today it has hundreds of factions, all claiming to be valid, either for being of original roots as in Catholicism or as reforming that which was apparently adulterated, as in Protestantism. All, however, have committed the greatest disservice to humanity by creating their own schisms with the assumption that forming such is little different to forming a political party to which those of the same philosophical beliefs can be joined together to experience the common support of camaraderie. This method of unifying religion has unfortunately undermined its very precepts, making it nothing stronger than the unreasoning crutch of sophism it has become, a mere accessory, giving an elevated belief in a false sense of security, an assurance that Christianity never did support.

This is in fact, the teaching propagated by virtually every church in Christendom—universal salvation. Now while it is true that the doctrine satisfies the majority of its adherents, it is by no means true to the roots of Christianity, at least not to the way in which Jesus taught it. And if Jesus didn’t teach it—or anything like it, then it cannot be Christian. That is unless someone thinks they should argue that their opinion is more Christian than his.

Just look at history and you can see that the fragmentation of Christianity throughout history into its universal body of churches today has forced compromise, widening the salvation net into every schism calling itself Christian. It is a belief that the originator of Christianity never taught, never meant to be taught and in fact, taught the opposite. Case in point:

During Jesus’ relatively brief duration of ministerial activity as recorded in the Bible, it was at Luke 13:23 and 24, he was asked by a certain man among many, "Lord, are those being saved few?" Now it would have been easy to have embarrassed the man by asking, "Where have you been? What do you think I’ve been telling everyone all of these many months? Did you not listen to my Sermon on the mount three years ago? Did you not hear me tell the crowds at that time, ‘Go in through the narrow gate, because narrow and cramped is the road to life and few are the ones finding it?’ And what else could I have meant when I said that many would say to me on that day, ‘Lord, lord, did we not do powerful works in your name?’ And yet I will say to them, ‘I never knew you, get away from me you workers of lawlessness!’"

But instead Jesus simply repeated again, only this time leaving them with even greater uncertainty than ever by saying to everyone standing there, "Exert yourselves vigorously [Lit., "Be struggling"] to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."

Now being the scholarly man that I try to be, I wondered that if Jesus were alive today, what he might say to the religious clerics today who ascribe to the ‘universal salvation’ theory. Might he perhaps shake his head a bit and wonder by what sort of reasoning they arrived at such an inane belief?

However, Jesus was dispelling a widely held and deeply entrenched Judaic belief at the time—so established, in fact, that it never left the hearts of the Scribes and Pharisees even after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in the year 70 CE

What was the theory? That salvation was only possible by the strict observance of the Mosaic Law as well as Talmudic, oral teaching of leaders of Jewish religious sects at that time. Jesus whole purpose was to show that such a teaching was false—manmade. Among the many shots he took at the religious clerics of his day, one which stands out the most was the famous illustration he made in Luke 18:10-14 in which "Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give the tenth of all things I acquire.’ But the tax collector standing at a distance was not willing even to raise his eyes heavenward, but kept beating his breast, saying, ‘O God, be gracious to me a sinner.’ I tell YOU, This man proved more righteous than that man; because everyone that exalts himself will be humiliated, but he that humbles himself will be exalted."

Further to dispelling this belief was in Matthew 19:16-24. The occasion was a rich young ruler asking for some assurance of his own salvation, perhaps after being unnerved by Jesus’ direct, politically incorrect but nevertheless, effective manner of teaching. He asked, "Teacher, what good must I do in order to get everlasting life?" Jesus replied, "Why, You must not murder, You must not commit adultery, You must not steal, You must not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother, and, You must love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him: "I have kept all these; what yet am I lacking?" Jesus said to him: "If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come be my follower." When the young man heard this saying, he went away grieved, for he was holding many possessions. But Jesus said to his disciples: "Truly I say to you that it will be a difficult thing for a rich man to get into the kingdom of the heavens. Again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God." Little wonder then that "When the disciples heard that, they expressed very great surprise, saying: ‘Who really can be saved?’"

Old beliefs die hard and sometimes not at all. Was it because Jesus never said it or maybe they just weren’t listening? Some of his final words were even more direct and likely quickened his untimely death. Those words were recorded at Matthew 23:23-24: "Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was binding to do, yet not to disregard the other things. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!"

Could anything be more self-explanatory? If salvation was not possible for them, then who was it possible for and what exactly was Jesus driving at? The religious leaders back there didn’t get it. All they could think of from that day forward was how they were going to get rid of this heretic.

As for me, I have no doubt that they still wouldn’t get it today. Even I still ponder the question the man raised, "Lord, are those being saved few?" I also ponder Jesus answer to "Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door." But I ponder most of all the reason why: "Because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."

Maybe we should all become better students of what Jesus taught on this subject. It seems to be a very central doctrine of belief, and yet not taught very well in today’s churches. Perhaps if we actually DID get the point, there wouldn’t be so many disagreements among clerics today. And perhaps more lives might be spared than anticipated.

And that’s my comment.