Most Helpful Customer Reviews
26 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Impressive and Concise, April 17, 2003
This review is from: "But Don't All Religions Lead to God?" (Paperback)
I've read a few other works by Michael Green that have been very scholarly and cumbersome in nature. This one is easy-to-read yet intellectually respectable. His stated goal is to be down-to-earth and concise, and he achieves it. Green addresses such common themes as:
"It doesn't matter what you believe as long are you are sincere."
"Aren't all religions pretty much the same?"
"But surely all religions lead to God?"
"What makes Jesus so special, then?" After replying to these themes, Green makes a solid case for the uniqueness of the Christian faith in general, and Jesus in particular. This book is excellent reading for all believers, and for non-believers who are struggling in one or more of these areas. I recommend it highly.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
26 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent popular level apologetics, June 30, 2004
By A Customer
This review is from: "But Don't All Religions Lead to God?" (Paperback)
The book is intended to provide apologetical arguments that are accessible to the general reader. It is not surprising that the treatment of central issues is somewhat truncated at times. However, this is as planned. Green superbly accomplishes his goals: the writing of a popular level introduction to Christian apologetics, and, the whetting of the reader's appetite to investigate further. There is a danger inherent in writing short books for the general reader. The problem is that a few readers who consider and promote themselves as intellectual experts will give the book a short and general reading. In doing so, they tend to criticize positions that the author has not actually presented. Such critics commit the very same exegetical sin they attribute to Green: they present superficial, controversial and inaccurate claims rather than helpfully substantive ones. For example, one critic has made an elementary mistake in directing us to "Chapter 5: No other great teacher ever [sic] claimed to bring us to God." In fact, Green writes just the reverse: "No Other Great Teacher Even Claimed to Bring God to Us." His point is precisely that other religions tend to focus on a process of "salvation" in which humans strive [perhaps with a divine assist] to get to God. In contrast, the Green affirms the gospel message in which God took the initiative--reaching out to us while we were yet sinners. Green is also portrayed as making the claim that "...Christ was the only god-man teacher who promised salvation for his true followers." The issue is not that other religions may or may not claim to provide "salvation" of one sort or another. The question is whether or not the "salvation" offered by other religious figures is as credible or as amazingly suited to meeting the needs of the human condition. Are the claims of other religious leaders supported by historical documents written very soon after the events they describe? Are the manuscripts as well attested as the New Testament documents? Is the term "salvation" being used in a univocal sense by all religions? These are issues with which Green deals, and in a more complex manner than the rather superficial objection offered to the contrary. Green is acccused, as well, of making "ridiculous" and "ludicrously false" statements concerning the unique nature of the salvation offered through the crucified Christ. Other religious figures are sometimes presented as having been sacrificed in a very similar manner. Unfortunately, those making this objection have apparently failed--again--to consider Green's own premises and conclusions. Concerning the Buddha, for example, the earliest traditions do not present him as the one and only God incarnate, crucified in atonement for sin. While any later traditions may claim any number of things about the Buddha, the earliest ones clearly do not present him in this way. In dealing with Buddhism, Green raises the philosophical issue of a substantial self and personal identity over time. How do these relate to Buddhist "salvation"? To simply equate the soteriological doctrines of Jesus Christ and Buddha is stupendously simplistic. It is true that there are virgin born, resurrected savior myths in antiquity. The early Christians themselves were very well aware of them, and welcomed the common ground this provided to present the case for Christ as the one, true savior. Green does not deny any of this. His point is that when careful comparison is made, the work of no other "savior" has been so copiously documented, so closely in time to the events described. No other "savior" lived a life of ethical perfection, consistent with his teachings, no other is so rooted in the real history of humankind. This is the vein in which Green argues. His statements appear rash only to those who have not considered the entire context that Green has carefully provided. The book is not, of course, faultless (how many are?). Green would be the first to affirm this. However, it serves its stated goals excellently. The book is very helpful indeed, and highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Is this the right question?, November 4, 2006
This review is from: "But Don't All Religions Lead to God?" (Paperback)
This may not be the book to read for an introduction to various religions of the world. But, it does give more information on major world religions than is probably known by those who pose the question that is the title of the book. The book provides an adequate overview of how major religions, like Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism compare with Christianity.
I was a little disappointed with the first chapter. The question is stated in a way that "preaches to the choir," but may fail to pull in seekers. I was put off by the comparison, in the first paragraph, of those who profess "it doesn't matter what you believe..." with Adolf Hitler's belief that exterminating six million Jews during World War II was the right thing to do. Both sincere, but wrong. That's too extreme for most people to accept.
However, I have come to respect Michael Green for his book, Evangelism and the Early Church, so I pressed on and found the remainder of the book very helpful. The difference, writes Green, is not between Christianity and other religions; the difference is between Jesus and all founders of other religions. In this context, the chapter (4) on what makes Jesus special is very helpful.
Green's analogy of king and the elephant story from Hindu traditions is effective. This is the well-known story of the king, who can see, who asks several blind people to describe an elephant. Many claim that people of different religions are all feeling the same God, but describing it differently, just as the blind people describe the elephant differently because they are feeling different parts of the whole. Those who make the sweeping claim that all religions are pretty much the same are placing themselves in the position of the king who can see. Green points out that this is an amazingly pompous claim, as if they have the eyes to see what the practitioners of religion cannot see: the whole of God and true religion.
To refute the assertion that "all religions lead to God" is not difficult. It doesn't require 92 pages; Green's first chapter is enough. My concern is that Green misses the point. The question that I hear more often - and I think it is really the question behind Green's question - is this: "Won't God - if there is a God - give everyone a passing grade when all is said and done?" This is the question of universalism that so often arises from the pluralism of our Western culture. Schools and businesses strive to hold all religions as acceptable. So, we ask, why wouldn't God do the same?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
