Customer Reviews

God's Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible and the Early Church

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is an important work that deserves a wide reading for two reasons. First, it does a good job treating the key issues that surround the question of the Christian understanding of salvation and world religions. The author condenses a lot of material on this subject and offers it up in an easily readable fashion. Secondly, and I think more importantly, this book deserves a reading because it re-examines the worldviews of both the Old and New Testaments for their understanding of the existence of a "middle realm" of gods and powers and spirits. There is in the Bible "a whole class of intermediate beings between the high God and his human creatures" (p. 45). For the biblical authors at least, such entities play an important role in the lives of men, cultures, nations and world religions. Can this be true? If it is, it demands a substantial rethinking of the world religions and our modern, Christian worldview. [Disclosure: This reviewer is a personal friend of the author.]

Provides plausible thoughts on the subject from a biblical/christian perspective. While not meant to be a definitive treatment on the subject by any means, this work does a fine job of exploring it's subject matter and is a good read to help christians think in more widely aware ways in relation to biblical content and "non-christian religions". I personally have a few disagreements with some things in the book, but still, I think it's a great read to get one thinking. Also worth checking out is his other book, Can Evangelical Learn From World Religions.

This book presents an evangelical-Christian take on why religions flourish in light of the evangelical view that the only completely true religion is the one of the Christian's. God's Rivals is a follow up of sorts to McDermott's Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions, published seven years earlier. In God's Rivals, McDermott takes what was one chapter in Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions and writes an entire book on the attitudes of the church fathers concerning the world's religions. He expounds on the "scandal of particularity"; the biblical tradition of God among the nations (Gentiles); the Israelite understanding of the gods of its neighbors; the NT (particularly Pauline) understanding of the powers of darkness that some say may have manifest themselves in other gods; and finally the heart of the book -- a chapter each on Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and their understanding of the other-than-Christian religions.

This book came highly recommended to me by a respected professor, so my expectations for it were high. Unfortunately, the book failed to live up to those expectations. Given my expectations, the following review will be a bit on the critical side, but I nonetheless think this book might be a worthwhile read for those interested in the question posed by the subtitle: "Why has God allowed different religions?" I also think that McDermott's approach to answering this questions is a good way to go. As the sub-subtitle describes, McDermott addresses this question with "Insights from the Bible and the early Church."

In the introduction, McDermott explains his primary thesis: "If there is one theme, or red thread, that runs through the following chapters, it is this: the biblical authors and early church theologians saw the religions not simply as human constructions but as spiritual projects as well" (11). Based on this insight, McDermott attempts to find the happy medium between the "fundamentalist extreme" that views all non-Christian religions as entirely demonic and "religious relativism" which views all religions as equally salvific ways to God.

After laying out the primary issues he wishes to address, McDermott takes a chapter each to discuss the Old Testament and New Testament views on other religions, followed by a chapter each discussing the views of church fathers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Finally, in the last chapter, he ties together all the data from these various sources to address the questions: What are the religions? And why are they there?

Based on his survey of the Old Testament passages dealing with other religions, McDermott discusses four views hinted at by the OT: (1) neighborly pluralism, the idea that each nation has its own god and as long as everyone keeps to themselves, everything's kosher; (2) competitive pluralism, similar to the above idea, only now the nation-gods are in competition; (3) vehement missionary exclusivism, the idea that there is truly only one God, Yahweh, and that all peoples of all nations should serve him; and finally, (4) the cosmic war view, in which the cosmos is populated by a multitude of beings, warring against each other for the world's destiny. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, McDermott rejects (3) and opts for a combination of (1), (2), and (4). He argues that according to a theory-neutral reading of the OT data, one finds that the other gods really do exist (as lesser gods created by Yahweh of course). As he describes, the cosmic war view "rejects the 'Yahweh alone' view that denies the existence of any other gods. It might refuse to call them 'gods,' but when it does that it is only quibbling with words" (63).

We might pause for a moment to ask whether this is really "quibbling with words" as McDermott suggests. For if we take his suggestion at face value, what he is proposing is polytheism: the existence of a multitude of gods. Sure, he acknowledges that these gods are created beings by the One Creator God, Yahweh, but he nonetheless maintains that they are gods. While we might be willing to concede with McDermott that there are other powerful beings in the cosmos, I think we should continue to quibble over the fact that they are not gods. It seems that McDermotthas made the mistake of reading the OT's description of people's real beliefs in other gods as the OT's endorsement of the view that there really are other gods. (For a hilarious and satirical critique of a similar mistake, see George Mavrodes, "Polytheism" in The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity, ed. Philip Quinn and Kevin Meeker [Oxford 2000], 139-60).

McDermott discusses how these gods are described in the New Testament as "principalities and powers." He then describes how the church fathers had interesting views on these spiritual forces and how they might help us understand the phenomenon of religious diversity. According to McDermott's account, God initially created these beings--we might call them arch-angels today--with the purpose of watching over the nations and directing the people of the earth to a worship God and obey the law. Instead, these beings distorted their role by directing worship to themselves and making people slaves to the law. Nevertheless, in God's providence, he uses these distorted representations to instill in people an understanding of their inability to follow the law and their need for a redeemer. Thus, despite the distortions in other religions, they contain elements of truth that can potentially lead people in the direction of Christ.

While McDermott's view might sound far-fetched to modern ears, I think we can appreciate his attempt to answer these difficult questions from a biblical and historical standpoint. We thus might view McDermott's work in the legacy of Francis Schaeffer: those Christian thinkers who are willing to ask the difficult questions that many Christians steer clear of, who have the daring to offer novel solutions, but who's views perhaps ultimately miss the mark. I would thus recommend this book for those who have wondered about the questions McDermott has raised, those who find themselves in either the fundamentalist extreme or the extreme of religious relativism, or those who would simply like to learn more about the views of some of the church fathers.

I have a few other minor quibbles with this book, however, which may be distracting for the reader. First, McDermott is forthright with the concession that "my treatment of these texts and issues reflects my Reformed theology. In other words, I believe in a big God who works in ways that burst all of our conceptual boxes--with contrasting approaches which sometimes seem paradoxical or even contradictory to us but which for him are no problem" (18). While his Reformed theology shouldn't necessarily be a distraction for non-Calvinist readers like myself, the way he details it is at points problematic. For example, at one pointMcDermott discusses God's purpose for Satan and other arch-demons:
"Satan is a creation of God enforcing God's law through a "ministry" of accusation. His job is to defend justice according to God's law. But, as we have seen before, he treats law, which is secondary in God's final order, as primary. Satan's role is like that of other law-enforcers, such as the angel of death or the angel of punishment... As Paul's Jewish contemporary Philo put it, God rules through intermediate powers, who are servants to do things not appropriate to God himself" (79, italics mine).

It appears, according to his description here, that one of "our conceptual boxes" that God is not limited to is his self-revealed moral character. God has revealed himself to us as a perfectly holy and righteous God, but according to McDermott's suggestion here, God works in ways contradictory to his revealed character by delegating dirty work to his servants, apparently including Satan. If this understanding truly reflects his Reformed theology, then I think this is yet another reason to reject that theology. For those readers not yet willing to do so, I think they will at least need to wrestle with the implications of McDermott's Reformed understanding of a "big God."

Secondly, and perhaps more trivially, McDermott seems to offer a rather naive understanding of the development of the discipline of philosophy. He states,

"Remember, the ancient world's conception of philosophy was very different from our own. We typically think, with some good reason, that philosophy is for those who have given up on religion. So if you want to find God, you would not go first to the philosophers. But in the second century, most religious seekers pursued Greek philosophy with the intent of finding God..." (88).

One might think that this paragraph was written in the 1930s. Certainly the legacy of Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, Ayer, etc is still felt in philosophy today, but given the renaissance of Christian philosophy in the last half-century, McDermott's comments unfortunately only serve to propagatethat lingering fundamentalist stereotype of philosophy as the devil's discipline.

Lastly, McDermott finds it difficult to strike a balance between lay-accessibility and academic rigor. While we should applaud him for even attempting this balance, it still makes the reading a bit annoying at times. For example, when citing words from the original Hebrew or Greek, he can't seem to make up his mind between transliteration or the original language font. Sometimes he gives one, sometimes the other, sometimes both. He also at times seems to be overdependent on a limited number of sources or in the beginning chapters on sources that are simply outdated. One might leave this book wondering, for example, what Old Testament scholars from the last decade would have to say about some of his interpretive decisions.

Again, I should acknowledge that I had very high expectations for this book, so my take on it here is probably a bit heavy-handed. All critiques aside, I think this book might still be quite helpful for those wrestling with these difficult questions. It might leave the reader with even more questions than when she began, but with these issues that is usually a good thing. Far too many Christians think their understanding of other religions and the people who adhere to them is the absolute Christian view, and I think this book does a good job at taking those people down a notch. For that accomplishment alone, McDermott should be applauded.

[...]

A few weeks ago my wife and I visited a Buddhist temple in Busan, South Korea. After witnessing about thirty Buddhists practice various meditation exercises, my wife asked me why God would allow false religion to exist. This is a very interesting theological question. I purchased this book to help her explore this issue and I ended up reading it too.

I am glad that IVP published a book on this topic. This is the first Christian book that I have seen that attempts to grapple with the issue of non-Christian religions in a lengthy manner. So I appreciate its uniqueness and originality. I also appreciate the author's emphasis upon supernatural influences in the world religions. Often times we Bible believers can succumb unknowingly to the influences of naturalism. McDermott's treatment of evil supernatural powers was in my opinion the most helpful and informative portion of the book.

However, I have a few minor criticisms of this work. First, it seems like McDermott could have explained and summarized his main points in about one hundred pages rather than 170 or so. He spent way too much time talking about Origen's wild speculative theology. His analysis of Origen's theology was an unnecessary diversion from the main goals of the book. Although this author claims to be an evangelical Christian, his writing style almost seems to put the authority of the early Church Fathers on par with Sacred Scripture. I am sure this is unintentional but I wish he would have been more careful in that regard.

Dr. McDermott has written extensively on the world religions from the orthodox Christian perspective. God's Rivals sets forth to answer the questions of whether or not there are other gods, and more importantly Why? Past that the questions really flow, and I personally love his style of giving enough facts from the Bible and historical writings to let the reader begin to form his or her own opinion. The "continuous red thread" is a helpful concept guiding this reader through a difficult forest. Bill Fintel

I came across this book after I began wondering about the spiritual experiences of non-Christians. After discussions with Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons, I realized that persons of other faiths often have powerful spiritual experiences. I wondered how these could be accounted for from an orthodox Christian worldview. Gerald McDermott's book is the only one that I know of that addresses this question for a popular (non-academic) audience and that does so within the confines of a biblical Christian worldview. After I finished reading the book, I was very pleased with the understanding provided. The book is not intended to be a lengthy, academic treatment of the subject. McDermott provides a brief but satisfactory overview of the Bible's teaching on the origins of the religions and how early Church fathers understood the role of the religions in light of the truth of Jesus Christ. He then ties it all together and offers some suggestions on how we modern Christians might understand the non-Christian religions and how we might approach the members of these faiths. I think that McDermott provides a convincing account that resonates well with traditional Christian beliefs. I recommend this book to anyone curious about this subject.

McDermott, G. R. God's Rivals; Why has God Allowed Different Religions?. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007.
God's rivals, does God have any rivals? Of course not, He is the ultimate being above all beings. Psalm 89:7 describe God as, "a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him." Therefore, God, that is the Triune God, has no rivals in the sense of "one that equals another in desired qualities." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Yet, He has many if we consider that there are many who are striving to take his place. Some of these, who are striving to take God place, are thought by McDermott to be described in the Psalm we have just quoted. He accepts that many of the religions of the world were begun by what were once angelic figures whom God had placed over the nations to govern them. Yet, McDermott also understands the biblical teaching of original sin and therefore also acknowledges that man has had a hand in establishing many of the other religions upon the earth with or without the aid of supernatural assistance. Indeed, we are all God's rivals in this sense. However, McDermott's book is not about religions founded by humans, but religions founded by supernatural being which we would call fallen angels or demons.
The subtitle of McDermott's book asks a question which will form the main focuses of his book. The question is, "Why has God allowed different religions?" Most of us have wondered about this question at least once in our lives. If God is all powerful and could eliminate any of these so-called rivals, why has he allowed them to continue? McDermott will offer many different possible explanations to this question within the pages of his book. Moreover, many of his points will come through the writings of the early church fathers, such as, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. McDermott will show that each of these early theologians have attempted to answer this question within their own cultural contexts. Justin Martyr will describe the other religions as "counterfeit religions" which were created to cheapen the "true religion". However, McDermott interprets Justin as finding some positive in these false religions, that is, when it comes to the truth that they contained. All truth must come from God therefore Christ or the logos must have brought this truth to the pagan religions. The truth that is described here is a "natural truth" brought about by natural revelation. Justin understood that this truth was of a very limited nature, but, it could be used by God to establish a point of contact (what we may describe as the alien work of God through the Law). However, McDermott reminds us that Justin, as well as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexander, and Origin, all expected that those pagans who had died without the revealed truth would be given the opportunity to learn about Christ in hell as some sort of postmortem revelation of the Gospel. So what was Justin's answer to McDermott's question? McDermott writes:
Justin's answer was elegant. Christ has been in the world since its very beginning as the Logos. He has been in all human beings since the beginning, leading them to the truth and pulling them away from error. Christ within them. The theophanies of the O.T. were manifestations of the Christ; he spoke through the burring bush to Moses. The glories of Greece and Rome were inspired by Christ. Whatever evil has plagued the world has arisen and continued only because of human resistance to the truth and beauty of the Logos. Christ finally appeared in the flesh at the end of the ages to affirm the reality of the vision to which he had been pointing for all of history, and to die for the reconciliation of humanity with God.
Is this really Justin's answer to the question of why God allows for other religions to exist? Since there are no references given to us here by McDermott to check the original quote, I will let those more gifted in church history research the answer to this question. However, this explanation seems troubling and almost places the reconciliation of Christ and the crucifixion as a secondary issue as compared to the "truth" McDermott identifies as Justin's main point.
We now move on to Irenaeus. Much of Irenaeus' work took place during the Gnostic controversy of his time. Therefore, McDermott rightfully identifies that much of Irenaeus' writing is focused upon how, "God has been working through all of history to save a people for himself." Moreover, this work has taken place in a material world which the Gnostics would deny. Therefore, McDermott describes Irenaeus' theology as "Divine Pedagogue", or in other words, God teaching his people through the different events of history. Therefore, McDermott points us to Irenaeus' teaching about "righteous pagans" who would be saved in the end by a special revelation of the Christ. Once again this point is problematic because it is based on a postmortem presentation of the gospel. McDermott tells us that Irenaeus believed, "people will be judged on the basis of what they did with the revelation they received." Yet, once again, McDermott has not given us any reference points or footnotes for follow up research. What was Irenaeus' answer to our question of why God allows the other religions? McDermott answers, "God has always been at work in the religions, working by the Word to move history toward its final culmination in Christ." This might be an acceptable answer if we were to accepted a postmortem revelation, but it breaks down quickly when one losses such an idea. Much of McDermott's treatment of Clement of Alexandra and Origin follow a similar line of reasoning, therefore, we will allow the reader to continue on their own through McDermott's arguments based upon these early church fathers. However, the section on Origin does get us closer to understanding why God may have allowed these other religions to exist. McDermott writes, "Therefore, pagan learning and religion can be good for teaching the gospel to others. But it is not good for actually learning things about God." He we see the idea of contrasts brought into the picture. God can teach us what not to do, or what is evil, by demonstrating this through the other religions. In his conclusion McDermott writes:
Knowledge of the religions can help teachers of the gospel show seekers how Christ answers questions posed by the human condition and the best of culture's interrogators... the religions are good for apologetics. God can show the church through the religions how Christ is the fulfillment of all the religions yearnings expressed by other cultures...the religions are good for theology... God uses the religions to teach the church deeper insights into the meaning of Christ and the biblical deposit of truth."
Less the reader misunderstand the context of McDermott's last comment; he was describing the uses that Christianity has found in pagan philosophy to describe such things as the Trinity and evil.
Can we then really find good in the other religions? McDermott answers in the affirmative. McDermott closes the conclusion with these words, "Other religions may be inspired in part by other powers, but God has not abandoned whole cultures to perdition and untruth. God is still at work, using even distorted truth to teach truth. And his spirit is leading individuals within the religions to draw closer to himself."
Overall, this book is worth a read. It is a short and easy read that will inspire much thought. McDermott has an open view of the spiritual battle that continues within the world and is not afraid to deal with the issues that many modern writers would overlook as pure superstition. However, he gives more prominence to natural revelation then we can allow him. Even though many biblical citations are mentioned, this book is clearly a more philosophical attempt to answer the question of why other religions than it is exegetical in nature.
Moreover, we feel that McDermott has passed over one of the main reasons for God's allowing of the religions, which is the Judgment for sin. Therefore, while we do recommend this book to those who are theologically trained, we think that it could bring confusion rather than answers to others.

*** Why are their so many religions, since there is just one, true God? If you have ever wondered that, you are not alone. The author examines this issue in detail, examining the angles from the perspective of the Bible, including the Massoretic text and the apocryphal books, such as Sirach and Jubilees. While his perspectives are interesting, despite his purported Reformed orientation, as a Reformed Christian, Ican say that his views are somewhat troubling. Seemingly, he advocates the idea that all other gods are real, simply subordinate to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. However, it does give one much to think about. ***

Reviewed by Amanda Killgore, Freelance Reviewer.