The debate of religious plurality usually takes place between the Exclusivists, who believe there is only one way to God, and the Pluralists, who believe there are many paths to God.

I agree with the fundamental observation of the Pluralists: all religions are an expression of the same spirituality. But I believe this spirituality is bankrupt of eternal life, thus the unending “search” for salvation.

The language that the Exclusivists use has a problem. They argue that there is only one religion by which one can get to God. I disagree. I understand religion as the practical application of one’s spirituality. To say that a religion is the way to get to God, i.e. be spiritually connected with the Creator of the universe, is to put the cart before the donkey. Rather, the exclusivist should show how there is only one solution to a universal spiritual problem (that people are seperated from any spirituality that can give eternal life) and thereby expound on the religious ramifications.

Since God is perfect and infinite, then all human efforts to get to him, physically and spiritually, are in vain. Only if God himself transcends the practice of religion, fulfills its requirements (essentially, takes that issue off the table) and gives his spiritual life to us, is there any hope, then, of eternal life or salvation.

If the issue were how to get to God, then the debate could continue infinitely. But that is not the issue; the issue is: “Has God come to humans in any way?” If he has, then clearly it is only through the way in which he has chosen to do so that salvation can be found, and religious activity can take on an optimistic character based not on trying to reach God, but on the fact that he has reached humanity.