Is there value in studying comparative religions?

The study of Comparative Religion has been usefully served by the series of "Sacred Books of the East," edited by Max Müller, with which intending Christian Missionaries in that part of the field do well to make themselves familiar. Reinach's recent book entitled "Orpheus" affords a handy répertoire of information, which has been followed by Gilmore's article in Schaff-Herzog, vol. iii. CHRISTIANITY, of course, is for its adherents the absolute and final religion (John 14:6), which alone brings humanity to "the City of God" (MacCulloch, "Comparative Theology," p. 2). Its most formidable rival at present is Islam.

The study of comparative religions may be an interesting literary study, but the claims of Christianity are vital, and may not be refused save at the risk of the soul’s eternal doom.

And it is just here that we would point out a very remarkable contrast between Christianity and the false religions of the world.

Comparative religions agree in making their gods out of men. A late popular writer, Mr Grant Allen, describes the process in one of his books.

In order to make intelligent comparisons with other faiths, Christians must know what their own faith teaches - what their own Bible says. These teachings are not to be revised, watered down or "demythologized." Biblical Christianity stands in faith and assurance upon the evidence "that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). Only God can provide saving faith to a person, and that happens only when that person is open to what God has to say. In Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 12:3, "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." [...]

If such a spirit moved us, we might see other divine movements among Christians elsewhere, even though, mixed in with that which is of God, there are elements too purely human and doctrines and practices too unscriptural to allow us to walk with them in practical fellowship. We also would learn that God has practical and profitable lessons for us from all around, if we were only humble enough to learn from all sorts of teachers, and wise enough to “take forth the precious from the vile” (Jer. 15:19), the mandatory condition for our being “as God's mouth.” We frequently would find things that would be a rebuke to us in what others said or wrote, and this would test us much. It would show if we proudly desired to believe that all spiritual wisdom was with us, and outside was only darkness.

After all, this falls into line with gross and idolatrous religions. For in what vital way does every religion in the world differ from the Gospel? Every false religion makes man his own Saviour by his own life and efforts. The Gospel offers a wonderful Saviour and uses the words “grace” and “gift” in connection with the word salvation—words used by no other religion.

Giving a lecture on “Comparative Religions,” the late Joseph Parker paused to say most impressively, “Remember, Christianity is not one of them.” Christianity is not a comparative religion, but a contrasting religion.

A deceased celebrated London preacher made a very true remark. He was speaking about comparative religions, and added the significant sentence, “But remember, gentlemen, that Christianity is not one of them.”

This tolerance will tell the heathen that his religion is not error but truth—half truth, they say, and Christianity can supply the rest—heathen cults to form the foundation, Christianity to build the superstructure.

It is quite the fashion for people to talk nowadays about “comparative religions.” By that is meant the Christian religion, the Buddhist, Mahommedan, Confucian religions, etc. They put them side by side and compare them, and they have professed to discover that there is no difference in essence, only in form. But between the comparative religions of the world and Christianity there is no comparison. They are not in the same category. Their difference lies not in shape and size, but in the nature of their texture. Essentially, in their source, scope, and effects, they have nothing in common, save where comparative religion may have borrowed, and even then the borrowed matter can no more be assimilated than water and oil may be mixed. Their borrowed matter lies like sparkling gems upon a dung-heap.

We must guard, however, against certain ideas on this subject now beginning to be spread abroad. It will be no digression, either, to examine them here, as they really underlie much of the reasoning of this part of the lectures under review. These ideas are not at all of the frankly materialist school already alluded to, however akin in some respects. They emanate rather from a conception of religion as that primeval instinct in man which materialists deny; but an idea, at the same time, which distorts that fact, as well as many others, to suit a classification of religions imagined to be scientific. What is termed the science of Comparative Religion is one of those ideas of recent growth, which seem to believers of plain scriptural training to be quite as erroneous as their appearance is momentous. No doubt it is something imported from that quarter, which underlies the term "sense of God" in regular use in many quarters as a designation for the religious consciousness in heathendom. On that ground must be explained our quarrel with the phrase, which otherwise appears harmless enough. If what was meant by the "sense of God" were merely the dim consciousness of the existence of such an One in pagan hearts, all were well; but this is not at all so. A great change has come over the minds of many in regard to the relation of Christianity to other religions of the world. Whereas formerly the faiths of the world were divided simply into true and false — Judaism, where partially, and Christianity, where fully, God had revealed the truth, and Paganism, wherein (certain admirable ideas and features notwithstanding,) men grovelled in error and darkness now, a more detailed or complicated classification is attempted. A full survey of the various systems of religions, ancient and modern alike, throughout the world is being conducted on strictly modern philosophic principles, with due attention also to what psychology can teach as to their origin and phenomena.

Take then that strangely significant altar inscription as the symbol of anything in the way of truth or knowledge of God classical paganism ever showed. Is there much to constitute it a formidable rival of, anything to entitle its being regarded as a valuable contributor to, Christian thought and doctrine? Why, rather, what have they in common? May we not see also in Paul's use of the occasion, his reference to their abject confession, and to the obscure statement of one of "their own" poets, an apt illustration of what the Spirit of truth may have done in adopting, or adapting, the diction of their philosophy to serve His own ends in setting forth that which met their every question, and made foolish their every dream? As has been said, this answer to the suggestion of Christianity's relation to the religions of the past prompts itself readily, and proves sufficient. And, really, the assertion sometimes made today that "Christianity was at first a mere development of Judaism, and that it was by combining with elements borrowed from the religions and the philosophies of the ancient pagan world that it assumed its final form" is best answered, as it has been answered, by the statement that, "Were we to see in Christianity only a synthesis of all the anterior religions, we should have in Christ only a composite idol enshrined in the last of the pagodas."

But now we have a newer study of religions, from an entirely fresh and original standpoint. Conclusions similar to those appearing in the last quotation we no doubt find accepted in many cases under this novel method as well; but they are reached from a different direction, as the subject is approached in a rather different way. That is, the principle of differentiation between Christianity and other religions is sought in another and wider sphere. The comparison of Christian doctrine with the teachings of the older religions of which we have spoken would be regarded as only a partial application of the comparative method by adherents of the new school, and would have reserved for it the particular designation, "Comparative Theology, the remaining portions of the field of survey being the "Psychology of Religion" and the "History of Religions." Together forming a comprehensive scheme to be known as the "Science of Religions." Now under this pretentious title they profess to "seek to study religion not merely in particular aspects and ways, but in its unity and entirety, with a view to its comprehension in its essence and all essential relations. "Two things we must expect, then, from such as affect to take such philosophic views of that which is a serious enough matter for men at large their religion. 'These are, that any special claim as to Christianity must not be preferred at this early stage, it must go into the crucible with the rest, take its chance of emerging approved worthy of place, or of supreme place, in the illustrious society of the faiths of the world, when they are "unified and co-ordinated in a truly organic manner." And at the same time we must expect, from those who propose to probe so deep into the origin of this peculiar compound feeling called religion, this "process of mind," this inexhaustible field for psychological study, we must expect, let us remember, to hear much of man, his progress in ethical thought, and perception of the infinite, and very little of "the notion of a special revelation from God."

The late Dr. Joseph Parker was lecturing on the comparative religions of the world—Mahomedanism, Buddhism, Theosophy, etc. etc. when he paused and said impressively, “Remember, gentlemen, that Christianity is not one of them.”

Every comparative religion is based on the doctrine of man being his own saviour, and therefore contains an appeal to the natural heart of man; Christianity bears witness to the utter ruin of the sinner. In this it stands alone. It cannot be compared. It directs attention to the blessed risen Christ of God as the only Saviour, and that in virtue of His atoning death on the cross, to which the Passover pointed forward, whilst the Lord’s Supper points back to it.