Different Spokes for Different Folks

[TBC: The follow excerpts are taken from a longer article written in 1997. The emphasis is ours in the second paragraph.]

The ’60s, for all that, was wrong with the era — and there was plenty wrong with it — was a time when we, as a people, examined many of our prejudices toward people of other races and ethnic backgrounds and found them undesirable. We also began examining our attitudes toward differences in outward appearances, such as hair length, clothing style, etc., and seeing these as nothing more than harmless personal preferences: “Different strokes for different folks.”

There were many positive changes in our society as a result, but, in my opinion, it didn’t take long to go way too far. We began to idolize “tolerance” as virtue #1, and we trashed our society in the process. We threw morality to the wind, and frankly, we are now reaping the whirlwind. As I contemplate the vastly negative changes that have occurred in our society during the last 25-30 years, I wonder what the next 25 years will bring. For example, our national consensus today is that sexual abuse of children, involuntary euthanasia, and infanticide are wrong. Will they still be wrong in 2021? Or will only fundamentalist “bigots” think so?

Objective truth is another casualty of the times in which we live. TRUTH is now seen as just another personal preference. You have yours, and I have mine. And so, a bigot today is not someone who prejudges another person based upon skin color or outward appearance; a bigot these days is anyone who will not validate another person’s belief system. It is one thing, in a free country; to have the right to believe anything you wish to believe. But, just because everyone has the right to believe whatever he or she chooses, it does not mean every belief is equally true and valid.

I would say the majority of people today — in our country, at least — believe that all religions are basically the same, just as good and valid as any other and that it is bigoted or intolerant to hold that there is only one religious truth. This was the theme of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, which we attended here in Chicago in 1993. The Parliament likened all religions to a big wheel with many spokes, the spokes representing the differences between individual religious groups. Although the spokes are separated at the rim, they all join at the hub, meaning that, although there are outward differences between all faith systems, all are the same at their core. It’s just different spokes for different folks, and it really is not very important which spiritual path you choose (as long as I gather you are sincere) since all paths lead ultimately to the same place. Oh, how tolerant and nonjudgmental and, oh, what a big, fat fib!

There is one sense in which the world’s religions are the same at the hub, and it is that core similarity that unites them but separates all of them from biblical Christianity. Religion is a system of good works designed to make you acceptable to God; however, these works may be defined by your particular religious spoke. Christianity teaches there is nothing a person can do to earn his or her acceptance by God; that salvation is a free gift, pure and simple. Jesus was asked by the people of His day, “What works must we do to do the works God requires?” He answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John:6:28-29 [28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
See All...).

The “Global Ethic” signed by most of the participants of the Parliament says:

“We are women and men who have embraced the precepts and practices of the world’s religions … Opening our hearts to one another; we must sink our narrow differences for the cause of world community…”

Christians cannot “embrace the precepts and practices of the world’s religions,” which include idolatry, Spiritism, etc., and are unwilling to sink our differences for any cause, no matter how high-minded it sounds. Our difference, salvation by faith in Christ alone, is the core of our faith. This difference not only sets us apart from the other faiths but makes real unity with them impossible. Since unity at all costs is the goal of such events as the Parliament, this difference makes us highly unpopular, to say the least.

In fact, the only religion not tolerated at the conference, and the only one openly vilified there, was biblical Christianity, whose adherents cannot and will not agree that Jesus is just one of those spokes on that great wheel and that all paths are valid ways of getting to God. Why are we the bad guys? Why is it wrong for us to say Jesus is the only way and the only truth, as He claimed to be (John:14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
See All...)? I’ll tell you. You see, if Jesus is the only true path to the Father, that has to mean the other religions are false paths and false “truths.” We are labeled wrong for saying others are wrong, but they do not consider themselves wrong for saving we’re wrong when we claim others are wrong. They feel right in judging us as judgmental because our view that we are right is (in their eyes) wrong. Confused yet? There’s more. We believe other paths are false, which, of course, makes our path false in their eyes since they believe all paths are true. We think our beliefs are ultimately and absolutely true, which makes our view false, according to the Parliament, since they proposed there is no true truth and, in fact, really no false! Except ours, of course, since we believe ours is true. Get it? We’re considered basically intolerant, and that cannot be tolerated!!!

Let me say that real religious tolerance (freedom of religion and conscience) is a very good thing. There are more Christians being killed and fiercely persecuted for their faith today than ever before in history. Other faiths are being cruelly persecuted, as well, in various locations around the globe. Genuine religious tolerance and any resultant peace would be wonderful.

But with all the talk of peace that was bandied about the conference, was the conference itself a peaceful one? In a word, no. At one of the plenary sessions, Chicago police had to be called in to restore order after a shouting match broke out between the Hindus and the Muslims of India. The Greek Orthodox Church pulled out of the conference when it became apparent to them the conference was not merely non-Christian but anti-Christian, and they would be expected to share the dais (stage) with Wiccans and goddess worshipers and pretend they were all praying to the same God. The Jewish delegation pulled out because Louis Farrakhan, anti-Semitic (anti-Christian also, I might add) leader of the Nation of Islam, had been invited to address one of the plenary sessions.

Since the Parliament was so openly anti-Christian, why were we there? We were not there to participate but to dialog with the participants and to interview some of them for a radio program. We found many sincere, nice, lovely people there. We wanted to find out if they fully understood the implications of unity at any cost that was being pushed by the leadership of the Parliament. Some understood and embraced it fully; some did not.

https://midwestoutreach.org/2023/08/10/different-spokes-for-different-folks/