I am still trying to catch up on my book reviews on my website. The Unexpected Journey is a book I read a while back but hadn’t had the chance to review yet. If you are at all involved in other world religions as they compare to Christianity this book is worth exploring. Overall this is not a book that is going to tell you the ins and outs of every world religion but it does cover the experiences of individuals who converted to Christianity from Islam, a Satanist, Jehovah’s Witness, New Age, Agnostic, Atheist, to Hinduism and more. There are of course many books on other world religions that are more explanatory in nature, but this one still serves a purpose in Christian evangelism.
Below is an excerpt from my full review which can be found in my writing section or the pdf can be found Book Critique of The Unexpected Journey: Conversations with People Who Turned From Other Beliefs to Jesus by Thomas Rainer. In light of world events it is always important to understand other world religions. The violence over the Quran burning in Afghanistan right now is a great example (see also Does Freedom Mean Allowing Idiots to Burn the Quran?).
Content Summary of The Unexpected Journey
In The Unexpected Journey, Rainer walks his readers though a methodical approach to exploring other world religions outside of Christianity and how to reach those people for Christ. The journey takes Rainer and his wife to many different states to interview twelve different people. These people were once believers in a religion other than Christianity, who turned to Christianity, and have continued to grow, through various trials, for their new faith in Christ. Each different encounter or interview is written in its own chapter in the form of a journal entry discussion on how each person made the conversion. Some background details on each particular world religion are included and, each chapter ends with questions relating to how Christians can reach people still believing in various other world religions.
Rainer starts off on this journey of interviews with Mormonism and Rauni’s story. Rauni and her family were deeply engaged in the Mormon church by the time they moved to Salt Lake City, Utah, coming with years of experience in the Mormon church. After a closer examination of the teachings of Mormonism and the bible, Rauni’s decision was to leave the church and turn to nothing after feelings of mis-trust in all forms of religion and a harsh treatment from her former faith. Eventually Rauni made the decision to turn to Christ and she and her family, still today, live near Salt Lake City, the heart of the Mormon Church, with the unique ability to talk to others struggling with similar issues.
The next journey takes Rainer and his wife to Chicago to meet with a former Orthodox Jew named Steve Barack. After a brief explanation of the Jewish faith in comparison to that of Christianity, Rainer tracks Barack’s story through the twists and turns that would eventually bring him to an Assembly of God church and on to a faith in Jesus. As Rainer explains from the interview, Barack learned the possibilities of becoming a Jewish Christian, a believer in Christ who is still able to maintain his Jewish heritage.
As Rainer continues his journey and the interviews he is next taken to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City to meet Dr. Ravi, a once karma deficient Hindu, who would take a long journey to belief in Christ. His conversion, much like many Rainer interviewed, came at a huge cost to himself and his family. As is Rainer’s familiar pattern by this point, the author examines Hinduism in a brief form and then ends with a short discussion on how other Christians can reach those in the Hindu religion.
In the next several interviews Rainer travels to several other states, and even conducts one meeting in his hometown of Louisville, KY. Rainer and his wife speak to Mrs. Jones, from Pennsylvania, who claims to have been an Atheist. Mrs. Jones took the unexpected route and goes from believing in nothing or no higher power to faith in Christ, to becoming an effective apologist. Rainer points out that, as Jones explains, “What I really needed was a Christian who had the guts to tell me that I wasn’t the marvelous and upstanding person I considered myself to be.” (Rainer 2005, 74)
Rainer goes on to explain a little about the Atheist worldview and shows why it is so difficult for an average Christian to reach an Atheist. As the author explains, Jones points out that she and many of her Atheist friends knew scripture far better than their Christian counterparts, but the one thing they could not counter was the love some Christians showed her.
The next several interviews that Rainer conducts are with worldviews that do not have the highest number of followers globally, but are still important for the Christian witness to understand. Rainer and his wife went to West Virginia to speak with a Jehovah’s Witness, Paul, who like the others went into his religion with a full effort to promote the Jehovah’s Witness worldview and eventually came to a miraculous discussion for Christ. Paul’s cost of leaving the Jehovah’s was costly as well and Rainer tells such a touching story of how Paul’s life was changed by Christ.
Next, Rainer evaluates the interviews from those with such wide-ranging worldviews as an Agnostic, a former witch, a Buddhist, New Age, a Satanist, and a compelling story from Dr. Townsend, a former believer in Unitarianism. As is the case with all the interviews, each interviewee comes to know Christ as their savoir through incredible circumstances and although these are some of the less followed religions, they are still worthy of note to a Christian who believes everyone should be given the story of Christianity.
One of the last interviews Rainer conducted and wrote about was a conversion of a Black Muslim to that of Traditional Islam and then to Christianity. This particular interview is perhaps the most noteworthy one out of all the interviews conducted. Muslims, and the overall worldview that is Islam, empowers a huge number of people in the world and this religion is more dominant in our day, in 2010, than perhaps it was even at the time the author wrote The Unexpected Journey. Because this religion is so dominant in parts of the world, and encompasses so many people, it is an important interview to conduct.
The journey for Mumin Muhammad started from hate as he rose through the ranks of the Muslim faith culminating in a personal trial that would cost him his friends, his family, and his job. As Rainer points out with this interview, it is so difficult for a Christian to reach those of the Muslim faith, but Mumin shows God can and does work among all peoples.
Evaluation of The Unexpected Journey
Rainer’s The Unexpected Journey takes on a complicated task of interviewing several people and trying to glean from these people the best way for Christians to reach out to others who believe in religions other than Christianity. Rainer pulled together what had to be an enormous amount of information and found a format and method to share this collective information in a journalistic style. Not only is this extremely helpful in the finished product for his readers, but it allows the reader to compartmentalize each chapter and find ways to place themselves into the stories being told. This format lends itself well to readers, from seminary students, to the casual interested layperson of the church, who takes an interest in reaching others for Christ.
As Rainer walks through each chapter he humbly addresses the presuppositions that are common among many Southern Baptists and fundamental Christians. This is an important aspect of each interview and the book in general. As Christians form their opinions on how to live out their own faith they often create stereotypes of other religions and people. Rainer speaks to the heart of this issue by coming out with his own stereotypes in the text and addresses them with the person being interviewed.
A more puzzling aspect of The Unexpected Journey was the particular religions Rainer chose to include in the book. The author briefly touches on these issues but does not make any real indication as to how these were chosen to be included. This would not normally be of concern to the reader except that the premise of the text is to follow a journey of someone who left a religion and moved to faith in Christ. Some of the religions, which all took up at least one full chapter in the book, were very small in comparison to those practicing other religions worldwide, and some perhaps may not even be considered religions to many Christians. This is a minor point for the effectiveness of the overall text, as all the people the author did interview had changed lives for Christ, no matter where they came from.
Perhaps concentrating on the largest or major religions of the world, which encompass the largest number of people, could have been beneficial. It would have allowed a deeper understanding of each story and world religion. Where many Christians will probably come into contact with a Muslim or someone practicing Islam, few may come into contact with a Satanist or New Age believer. While the information was interesting, it probably didn’t cover a large enough group of people. While the information is useful in a select number of situations it probably does not provide enough information for the reader to be able to be an evangelistic witness to those people groups.
Overall, The Unexpected Journey presented a journey, not only for those people interviewed in each chapter, but Rainer also took the reader through a journey to better understand many different worldviews and how to reach each of those people for Christ. The organization of the text was easy to understand for readers of all levels, and the author presented his findings in a way that could easily be taken from the book and brought into real life situations.
Posts Related to This Topic:
After recent comments on my blog lately I once again was reminded how so many people in this world are actually seeking a reality of their own making, not the real truths that are actually real. This post-modern time we live in lends itself more and more to an absolute void of real objective truth and more to the relative nature of truth, which means truth is really just what you make it out to be. So below is part of how we studied “truth” in seminary, with something called the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is almost better illustrated by the graphic above. If this doesn’t interest you then please head over to The Fillmer Photo Daily blog where I post mostly pictures (and few words), there is always something new to see there as well.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth is actually a tiny little worldly example at the bottom of this post so we have something to compare to what really is the way we get to Biblical truth, but you get the idea.
How Do We Arrive at What is True
This isn’t something new to us, even though we love to think it is with all our modern computer equipment and knowledge. Ling before we appeared, Pilate asked Jesus the rhetorical question, “What is Truth?”
Truth appears to be a property, that is an aspect of certain statements. 2+2=4 is obviously true. 7×5=15 is obviously not. Giraffes have long necks is obviously true. Hippos have red spots is not. The question though for the Correspondence Theory of Truth is, what is truth a property? In this case, there are three candidates: Truth is a property of sentences. Truth is a property of statements. Truth is a property of propositions.
What’s the difference between these?
A sentence is a group of written words, that contain a subject and a verb.
A statement is the occasion of the use of a sentence by someone.
A proposition is what is asserted when a statement is made, the content of the statement.
One may assert the same proposition with two different statements:
- George is a fine fellow who can be trusted.
- Mr. Shannon is a man of integrity who can be relied upon.
Both statements are about George Shannon, and both are true because they assert the same proposition.
One may use the same sentence to assert two different propositions:
- This is really cool!
- This is really cool!
In this instance the same sentence refers once to a dish of ice cream and then to a new car.
We also speak of beliefs as being true or false. Beliefs are basically propositions. They may be stated in sentences. Again the same belief may be stated in different sentences stating the same proposition:
Christ died for our sins.
- Jesus Saves.
- We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
- There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Every truth may be represented as a proposition. Don’t be misled by those (postmodernists) who speak of “non-propositional truth.” If it is a truth it may be stated in a proposition—that is as a sentence which expresses the truth. Some thinkers see truth as a property of representations, linguistic representations or mental ones. They are mistaken. Others see truth as a property of propositions which are represented or expressed in thought or speech.
The best known theory of truth is the Correspondence theory of truth goes something like this: Whether what is said about the world is true or not depends on how the world is. In other words, a proposition is true if it corresponds to the way things really are.
Let’s label a proposition with the letter P. P may stand for any proposition you want. Under the correspondence theory of truth, P is true if two conditions are met:
- It is a fact that P
- The proposition corresponds to that fact.
For each true proposition, there must be a fact.
The association of truth with fact entails the association of words with world. In other words, it is possible to use words in ways that accurately describe the way the world is, even if some this this is impossible. This is absolutely essential if the proposition “The Bible is the Word of God” is to have any meaning at all. Conservative, Bible-believing Christians assert that the Bible gives, in words, an accurate, inerrant, description of the way the world is, of what has happened, and of what will happen. The sentences in the Bible, understood in context, accurately portray reality. That is, the propositions expressed in the Bible correspond to the way the world really is.
The Correspondence theory of Truth
This is the “scientific” definition, which serves less of a purpose here but it does have an important place.
The coherence theory of truth states the following: A statement is true if it coheres with other statements. The test of truth is internal. The system of statements one makes must cohere, must be consistent. If one proposition in a group is not consistent with the others, we know that the whole system is not true.
Propositions are truth-bearers. Those who hold to the coherence theory say that truth cannot consist in the relationship between truth-bearers and that which is not a truth bearer (such as a fact). Here is a problem with the theory already. It divorces truth from facts. Truth, these theorists say, consists in the relationship which truth-bearers have to one another. This may be a relation of mutual support among a set of beliefs or non-contradiction between them, or they may together support an overall concept..
We should point out that this theory leads to a relativism, since contradictory systems may be internally consistent. Moral relativists say that there is no external morality, nothing for moral statements to correspond to. If a moral standard makes sense to you that is all that we need.
Religious pluralists—those who believe that all religions are equally valid, that all of them lead to God, depend on the coherence theory of truth. Since all the different religions make sense in terms of their own system, then all are equally true. (It may be argued, however, that not all religions are even coherent within their own system, but this is another matter.
The important thing for us to remember is that the coherence theory separates “truth” from “facts” and seeks only internal consistency. Postmodernists like this theory.
Is the coherence theory of truth useless then for Christians? Not at all. God is consistent and rational. He has created a consistent world for us to live in. Coherence is helpful to us as a negative test—no set of propositions can be true if there is a contradiction within them. The truth will always be internally consistent. By itself, however, that is not enough. True propositions must be consistent with other true propositions, and together, all true propositions must correspond to the way the world is.
Some who defend the Christian faith do so on the basis that the Bible offers a coherent view of reality, and that it corresponds to the world as we actually live in it. No other religion or philosophy offers the same kind of benefit. Even coherent philosophies break down when we try to actually live by them. They just don’t correspond to the way the world really is. Francis Schaefer (The God Who is There) defends the truth of Christianity on this basis.
In conclusion the graph at the top really says it all. There actually are truths in this world, but they are surrounded by false propositions and we only gain knowledge when our beliefs overlap the truth.
Posts Related to This Topic:
Truth is something that is a main theme around my blog and encompasses much of what I write about as well. Truth, or lack of it, can take many forms and many arguments, but there is an ultimate truth, or deception of the ultimate truth prevailing in our society today about salvation. This ultimately goes to answer the question, “is Jesus the only way of Salvation?” There are basically three options recognized by theologians today. Only one of them is found in the Bible, that of Exclusivism, the other two are heretical.
The two main heresies about salvation that run pervasively throughout our culture, are those terms referred to as Pluralism and Inclusivism. Below is a quick explanation of all three, then a brief reflection on the heresy called Pluralism (I will individually address the other two in posts at a later date).
Brief Explanation of Exclusivism
Exclusivism (when dealing with Salvation) is that eternal salvation of the soul found only through faith in Jesus Christ. Only those who are called and have trusted Christ are saved. They are declared to be right with God, and all their sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. No one, who does not trust in Jesus Christ has any hope of salvation, but may only expect to be judged and condemned to everlasting Hell.
Brief Explanation of Pluralism
Pluralism can be defined as saying “all religions lead to God”, at least all of the higher ones, for they are all in touch with the same spiritual realities. Each religion merely describes these realities differently. Thus, anyone who follows any of the “higher” religions may be assured that he really is in touch with God. This is the position of many Americans today. It is the unofficial position of most television networks and programs being produced, and is represented as the only morally sound position in many venues of public life.
Since this is so prevailing it needs no further explanation, but here are a couple of examples: “We [Muslims, Jews, and Christians] all worship the same God.” as said by Walter Abdur Ra’uf Declerck (quoted in The Fort Worth Star Telegram, Oct. 25, 2003). You can find quotes like this in hundreds of places all over local or national media, and the Internet is overrun with the same sentiment.
One of the leading voices in theological circles is from John Hick, a British Theologian who gives a very good example of this type of thought process.
The great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative [salvational] “spaces” within which, or “ways” along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfillment.. . . The great world traditions have in fact all proved to be realms within which, or routes along which people are enabled to advance in the transition from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. . . . Accordingly, by attending to other traditions than one’s own, one may become aware of other aspects or dimensions of the Real, and of other possibilities of response to the Real. . .
Brief Explanation of Inclusivism
This, in some sense, is more damaging to the ultimate truth, giving someone a false sense of their eternal salvation when it just doesn’t follow what Christ teaches in scripture. Satan’s best work sometimes can be seen taking truth and falsity and mixing them together into a lethal combination of false doctrine and incorrect theology. The danger here is that this comes from so far inside “the church” that many people are led astray.
Inclusivism says that Jesus is the only Savior, but He will save some who have never trusted Him. We can affirm that Salvation is only in Christ, without affirming the need to tell others about Him as they need not have faith in Him anyway. This is the position of some Catholics, who believe that other religions are more or less able to save depending on how similar they are to Catholicism. Thus, other denominations, and religions which teach that there is one God, or those which teach a high view of ethics will lead their followers to salvation. This is the view of many mainline denominations, and most theologians today as well.
An example is seen in the Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner when he says:
It is. . . quite possible to suppose that there are supernatural, grace-filled elements in non-Christian religions.. . . A lawful religion. . . can be regarded on thye whole as a positive means of gaining the right relationship to God and thus for the attaining of salvation. . . The member of an extra-Christian religion. . . [is] an anonymous Christian.
Reflections on Religious Pluralism
Pluralism as described by John Hick, is now the mainstream of most media outlets and continues to invade our daily life, even in the church. My personal experience with a pluralistic worldview has been mostly limited to the current media forms of our culture like the Internet, satellite broadcasting, and social networking entities, but more and more you can see this view prevailing in our government as well. One can now see how easily a person can make the transition from the Truth of an exclusivist worldview, to being more inclusivistic, and then to pluralistic without perhaps knowing the transition has taken place.
Many who carry a pluralistic worldview today are not even aware that this is indeed the worldview that consumes their life, but it is the worldview that engulfs their life. Just the fact that we live in a society where this view prevails puts many, if not most, of us in some type of pluralistic camp. Author Ronald H. Nash wrote an excellent book on this topic titled Is Jesus the Only Savior? At the end of his section on pluralism Nash quotes John Hick from Jesus and the World Religions with the following propositions:
“If Jesus was literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they can appropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life is Christian faith. It would follow from this that the large majority of the human race so far have not been saved.”[1]
And Nash concludes the section on pluralism by saying
If I am a Christian exclusivist and discover after death that Hick’s version of pluralism really is true, I will have lost nothing except Hick’s good will during the life. But if I am a pluralist and it turns out that Christian exclusivism is true, then the consequences for me will be very serious.
These two statements are fundamental to the pluralism argument today and the last statement shows how deficient pluralism can be. In the media, where I have my personal experience with pluralism, I contend, is where most people in our culture have such a problem with an exclusivistic worldview when Hick says, “it would follow… a majority of the human race have not been saved. “
The media views what is or is not fair in two ways. One, what is socially fair to all (they insist and desire that all roads lead to the same God), and two, how some said worldview of fair effects the profit margin of the product or service they are selling (if they don’t say all roads lead to the same God, or wide is the road to salvation, they will immediately exclude some potential sales to those who don’t agree, which we have said is most in the world today). Exclusivism in the media’s eyes is not fair to all; therefore they will always tend to push their efforts to the pluralistic worldview.
A pluralistic worldview can be discussed or defended when dealing with a person or group one on one, but when dealing with an entity as large as a new media outlet or a prime time network program where pluralism is so ingrained in the essence of the production, you can not simply converse about Matthew 7:13-14. In the case of the media, your only recourse in the end may be to refer to what drives the business, and that is profit (for the most part). The sometimes not-so-simple task of refusing to do business with the group or funding them in any way would be one way of removing yourself from their pluralistic worldview, although it may not make a substantial difference. Another way, as could be the case when dealing with the government, is to voice your argument to the appropriate person.
Unfortunately, Hick’s view that eventually all human beings will ultimately be saved from Hitler to Stalin and everyone in between is the prevailing view of our culture, even among Believers, and changing their mind will mean changing their hearts to see the saving grace of God Himself.
[1] Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savoir (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonervan Publishing, 1994), 69-92.
Posts Related to This Topic:
In this particular article I was asked to choose the three most important reasons for including apologetics in my own personal ministry. The answer is the following post. Originally published on May 13, 2009 and republished for this blog on June 4, 2010. Although it is very important to understand the differences between religions like Jews, Christians, and Muslims (which is what the Coexist campaign seems to be trying to do), it is more important to me as a follower of Christ to understand our own reasons behind what we believe.
The three most important reasons for including apologetics as a part of my ministry, and to me any ministry, are personal truth, cultural relativism, and discipleship. More specifically, apologetics, to my ministry and to me is:
- For personal truth: To know the salvation I seek and trust is the actual Truth. To know why I believe what I believe to be true and not just to believe because I feel It to be true.
- Cultural relativism: To be able to defend the perceived truths of our highly relativistic culture, as we are commanded by scripture, in being able to lead others to a relationship with Christ and to do this through truth in scripture, knowledge, and love, not through a blended Christian worldview of the truth as we know it.
- Discipleship: To eventually be able to disciple, mentor, or lead other Believers to the truth in scripture so as not to be deceived by a cultural blending of Christian truths and worldviews.
For many years after I became a Christian I went through the motions of being a Christian. Not questioning the truth but accepting all known teachings from others as truth without understanding why. Taking a more apathetic approach to the truth of Christian philosophy, I became a lazy Christian believing the truth as truth, but not ever testing or seeking out the truth beyond an emotional basis. Similar to how it is said in No Doubt About It, “He is real to me. …So I cannot doubt His existence, and you don’t need to prove it to me”.[1]
I took God as self-evident, and although no one in more than 15 years as a Christian introduced me to an apologetic view of my faith, I didn’t need one either. Just because I hold God and Jesus as self-evident doesn’t mean everyone else does, and if I don’t have an apologetic understanding of my own faith, how can I effectively explain it to someone else.
It seems our understanding of truth in our culture today is relative. This may be a trend that started in America many centuries ago, but in the age of information everything seems to be on an accelerated course. Our society is constantly bombarded with inaccurate statements, reports, other media and information of all kinds and it seems goes unchecked. Unchecked so much so that one person can look at a door, call it red, another call it blue, and both agree the contradiction is true. Mis-information is bad, but one of Satan’s best weapons is to blend truth and falsities into one and make people believe it to be truth and fact without question.
According to Kinnaman in UnChristian, most outsiders see Christians as too hypocritical, too antihomosexual, too sheltered, too political, too judgmental[2] and most of what the outsiders perceive to be true about Christians is a blending of truth according to what scripture says and truth according to what our culture says is true. For these reasons, apologetics plays an important role in cultural relativism.
To be a disciple of Jesus is something as Believers we all strive towards as we grow and mature in our walk in Christianity. To become a disciple, Jesus poured truth into the original 12 during his ministry so they could in turn do the same to others when Jesus was physically absent. At any point in a Believers life they will be pouring into some other Believer, or will be poured into by a Believer, or possibly both at the same time. To achieve this we can and should follow the example Jesus gave during his ministry on earth and be ready to learn, and teach apologetically when called.
[1] Winfried Corduan, No Doubt About It: the Case for Christianity, 1st Edition (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997). 45.
[2] David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, Unchristian : what a new generation really thinks about Christianity… and why it matters, 1st Edition (Baker Books, 2007).
