Over the past decade, a major part of my work at the university has been devoted to assisting higher degree research students towards their doctorates. The outward objective of their three-year program is to make a substantial original contribution to some field of knowledge. However, the more significant underlying aim is to develop their abilities to think like scientists and become trustworthy competent researchers in depth through all phases of the research process.

Naturally, every researcher would like to make some revolutionary discovery or uncover evidence that proves an important theory, but the reality is that while some of their hypotheses will be supported, others will be refuted by substantial evidence to the contrary and many of them will remain unproven. Do the latter situations constitute failure? No. Even the famous inventor, Thomas Edison, when asked how he felt about a seemingly endless series of unsuccessful experiments, took the positive view that he had discovered several thousand things that wouldn't work, and was therefore much further along the path to making sustainable light from electricity. Every experiment was methodically conducted and recorded, and something new had been learnt with each attempt. The eventual outcome of his persistence is now history, but the message to research students is that the matter of paramount importance is not whether their theories turn out to be correct or mistaken but whether they have attained the necessary skills to do credible competent research.

So what does this have to do with religion?

Islam, Judaism and Christianity each claim to be the only means to salvation and some of their internal denominations make even more bold and exclusive assertions. While they have argued vehemently throughout history and often oppressed, persecuted and terrorised one another over their disagreements, God has paradoxically remained apparently silent and allowed this state of affairs to continue without stepping in and showering the world with conclusive evidence that would presumably lay the problem to rest for once and for all, and everyone would convert to the ‘real truth' in much the same way as they now believe that the earth is round. To this day, every religion remains only a theory without conclusive universally convincing evidence. Each is a belief system , not a proven entity.

Perhaps the riddle of which one holds the truth is not even the crucial issue. Could it be that the real objective of the Almighty at this stage is to develop our ability to live by faith, that is, the willingness to believe in and pursue something beyond the obvious evidence of our senses, engage in an honest personal search for truth and learn the skills and habits of love? From this viewpoint, the absence of proof begins to make more sense. Perhaps qualifying for the Kingdom of Heaven may be like the research degree – not awarded on whether the theory was correct, but on the kind of person we have become. If this is indeed the case, then the absence of conclusive proof is not a hindrance but rather a necessity, for the value of faith cannot be learnt in an environment of certainty any more than true research skills can be mastered by working on what has already been established.

However plausible this perspective may be, one still needs to explain the conflicting claims of the various religions that unless one accepts their path, one is doomed. My first response is that such assertions are part of their individual theories and fortunately for the remaining majority, none of them is empowered to make the final judgement. Secondly, religions overlap to a considerable degree and very few people fully understand let alone perfectly practice their own religion. Thirdly, the interpretation of scripture is an ongoing study in every religion and never a closed issue.

I cannot speak with any authority for Islam or Judaism, but a few of the teachings of Christ may be worth discussing:

• First, it needs to be pointed out that being ‘baptised' is the establishment of a personal relationship with God rather than a certificate of denominational membership.
  


• Second, the significance of baptism is the desire to be ‘washed' of whatever makes us unfit for the presence of God and signifies a desire to turn our lives around and seek what is more inclusive of others, deeper and longer lasting rather than only immediate, superficial, totally self-indulgent values.
  


• Thirdly, to be born again of the Holy Spirit suggests that we voluntarily accept the influence of God in our lives.
  


• Finally, the warning 'who does not believe will be condemned' does not precisely specify the beliefs. One may object that the Christian message was clearly implied, and certainly, that is what the disciples were instructed to preach, but the overwhelming evidence from the teachings of Christ is that God does not condemn on the basis of dogmatic technicalities but on the way people choose to live, suggesting that the most crucial belief may simply be the need to turn away from evil and make a fresh start. This minimum is embedded in all the major religions.

Interpreted this way, it would seem that 'baptism' would be no less than a logical necessity for unity with God and the inheritance of eternal life. However, it is arguable that many Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus also do this in fact through their own conscientious pursuit of truth while for many ‘Christians' their formal baptism was really no more than an empty ritual never supported by an appropriate way of life.

“No-one can come to the Father except by me” (John 14:6)

• Although it is basic Christian teaching that Christ was the person who reopened the doors to the Kingdom of God and without his sacrifice no one would be able to enter, the Bible does not say that only Christians can enter.

“Come blessed of my Father, for when I was hungry you gave me to eat. ……

Depart from me …for when I was [in need] you never [took care of me]. …….

As long as you did it to one of these the least of my brethren, you did it to me.” (Matt 25:34-46)

• Here Christ was referring to the final judgement, and specified the ultimate criteria for eternal life with God. It is clearly implicit that anyone who acts these ways qualifies for the prescribed outcome regardless of his or her religion. There can be little doubt regarding one highly relevant requirement, and that is our willingness to learn to love beyond our immediate superficial selves. In relation to this, no person whatever their beliefs has any excuse, for even the most committed atheist is capable of sensitivity, compassion and the elementary ability to discern what is good or harmful.

One more question begs for consideration: Could people who are seen as perverts, mass murderers and suicidal terrorists qualify for the Kingdom of Heaven ? Convictions vary according to which side is responding, but the truth is that we do not know and it will not be our decision. Naturally, society must protect itself from such people, but that is an entirely separate issue from personal salvation. Several other cases, such as the insane and people who die in their infancy, also fall into the unknown category. Perhaps they get another opportunity.

Like entry into a professional research career, salvation must have its criteria, but eternal life is unlikely to be the automatic or exclusive privilege of a particular religious group. It is almost certain that it will be based on deeper personal realities rather than the unproven but incidental correctness of dogma. By analogy, the conscientious sailor who believes that the earth is flat is more likely to succeed in his adventure than the negligent one who thinks he knows geography better. Of course, like competing theories confronting a researcher, it is almost inevitable that some formal religion will eventually emerge as more accurate than the others, but that will probably not be the crucial issue in determining who will be saved.

Beyond salvation, it is entirely possible that each person's role in the Kingdom of God could be influenced by every aspect of their lives, including the specific nature of their beliefs. Every difference could make a difference. To use a more familiar analogy, a person may be rescued from unemployment and offered secure work, but their exact role in the organisation would depend on where they can best contribute, and the prior pathway of their development is naturally relevant. In the eternal context, our religion can have a major influence, and perhaps Muslims, Jews, Christians and people of other faiths who are judged worthy to enter the Kingdom may be destined for different roles and relationships according to the way their characters have been shaped. However, in view of our vague ideas and limited evidence, strong predictions are somewhat premature.

"Matters of Faith"
©Carl Jacob

Web design by Ieva Bergman