Peter Sellick,

I found that an elegant piece theology (though if I was uncharitable, I might say sophistry) in that it does plausibly resolve that old bugbear of exclusivity Christianity is so often harangued with.
The immediate flaw in your argument though is that your neat little compromise isn't explicit in the text--nor preached or appreciated--but a species of post hoc reconciliation--ingenious exegesis--damage-control.
Additionally, the whole controversy, as you present it, elides the antagonism, on both sides, which can readily be argued to have precipitated it. You conclude by saying, "Who could feel judged and left out?", but those that do, do not feel so merely from a misreading of the text (it's unlikely many have even read it) but from the active denunciations of those believers who also, apparently, don't understand this textual subtlety.
So when you go on to say, "I maintain that the anger and suspicion poured out against Christianity in our society is based on misunderstanding and/or bigotry"--putting aside that this is not the only issue unbelievers object to (and believers often revel in!)--can you see how you tacitly exonerate the church of all the fire and brimstone, and actual violence, along with the bigotry and victimisation it has practiced since time immemorial? It is precisely these vices(?), as witnessed by history, that have "provoked" (why doesn't Graham let us use italics?) the "misunderstanding and/or bigotry" you now sanctimoniously condemn?.
I certainly think your exegetical revision is commendable, and you ought to agitate Christianity adopt it as standard, but please also acknowledge that hitherto it's only been observed in the breach.

Thoughtful article, Peter. A good one to chew on.

As usual, the OLO crowd is as unforgiving as the Melbourne weather when it comes to commenting on anything that attempts to advance a religious viewpoint.

It's supposedly arrogant and bigoted to claim to know the truth and to tell everyone else (however tactfully) that they are, in fact, wrong, or at least not completely right. And yet, at the same time it's perfectly acceptable to make the truth claim that all worldviews are equally valid and that anyone who doesn't believe that is arrogant and bigoted. This is a truly irrational quirk of the apathetic, lazy 21st century culture that we live in, and this kind of pluralistic thinking is why the exclusive nature of Christianity is now so taboo.

If there's one thing I can most definitely agree on with the loud public figures who decry religious belief, it's that ideas matter and that it is perfectly acceptable to claim that your viewpoint is the true one.

I found this an interesting read, and have taken a bit of time to think it through. At risk of harping on about the same old document, the Catholic Church (of which Notre Dame is an arm) presented an alternative view in the Second Vatican Council, in the encyclical Lumen Gentium.

With that document, the Church posited that the path to salvation is through Jesus, but also that one does not need to follow or even know Jesus to follow that path. In its roundabout way, Lumen Gentium contends that Muslims (as followers of a different understanding of the same God) as well as those who have fallen out of communion or those who never entered into communion may be saved. They key is not to hang on Jesus' every word; rather, it is to follow the message of Jesus and live according to Christian values, whether you realise it or not. In that way, people come to the Father (to use your reference) through Jesus' example rather than through His name. Many would disagree with me, but I think this is a higher path. How many people go to Mass each Sunday but live by the tenets of cruelty and self-service? How many people never enter a church but live lives governed by charity, decency and love? Which group would Jesus choose to hang with if He came back to Earth?

Dear Peter,

You wrote: "John’s gospel and the epistles attributed to him give us exclusive statements that point to Jesus and also statements that are breathtakingly broad that include all people who live in love. I understand this as the particular of Jesus representing a universal phenomenon. He is the one in whom grace abounds to the fullest extent and thus he becomes the model of who we are in our fullest. Christ, through is grace, makes us who we are in truth, those who live in grace.

There is no reason that I should accept John's gospel or any other. I try to do my best. To say I live in love would be an unwarranted exaggeration. I don't believe most people, Christians or not, live in love. We are all human. Sometimes we hate. Sometimes we love. Sometimes we have other emotions. Why not simply accept me and all other humans with all our frailties regardless of our religious beliefs or lack of them?

Best statement of Jesus, recorded in John's gospel.

"To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Thanks Otokonoko, for your thoughtful and informative post. It has helped me to clarify my thoughts on this aspect of my faith and my humanity.

I was also impressed by your potential confirmation of a view I have held, that Allah "is a different understanding of the same God", which to me means the One and the same God - at least, as I understand you, this is the view the church put forward in the Lumen Gentium. Not being literate in these matters, I would appreciate your further advice on this - whether this was a proposition put forward, or if it is now accepted doctrine. (I don't actually know what the Lumen Gentium is, or means.)

I have received a couple of rebukes in response to my humble posting on this thread, on Comments page 2, accusing me of "interpreting" - which I take to mean I have supposedly been taking liberties with "the word". My posting was an attempt at my "understanding", which I suppose is similar to "interpretation", though I see a subtle difference in intent. Maybe Otokonoko can help me with this also.

To the naysayers, I can only say that, though I respect your views, I find them generally harsh and not really justified. I wish for once we could have a reasonable and reasoned discussion on a theist issue without the anti-theists just hoeing in on the same old negative, pit of the stomach, reactive diatribe. I'm sure you have a heart, and would just like to see a bit more of it.

Squeers, I think your "sophistry" comment (soft-pillowed), and your "sanctimonious" comment (fairly direct) were hardly called-for - but then, your overall response I found to be objective. Don't necessarily agree, but appreciate your viewpoint. On the positive side, I always pick up a few new interesting terms from you - "exegesis" for example. Thanks.