Recently, many mainstream secular writers have made the simple mistake of assuming that all religions – and all religious believers – are essentially the same.

Listen to Michael Kinsey summarize Christopher Hitchens’ arguments from “God is Not Great”:

How could Christ have died for our sins, when supposedly he also did not die at all? Did the Jews not know that murder and adultery were wrong before they received the Ten Commandments, and if they did know, why was this such a wonderful gift? On a more somber note, how can the “argument from design” (that only some kind of “intelligence” could have designed anything as perfect as a human being) be reconciled with the religious practice of female genital mutilation, which posits that women, at least, as nature creates them, are not so perfect after all? Whether sallies like these give pause to the believer is a question I can’t answer.

Robert T. Miller of First Things does a great job of analyzing this book review. Miller doesn’t waste time breaking down Kinsey’s and Hitchens’ mistakes about religion, but I will. Let’s take two. There is one religion that argues that Christ died for our sins – Christianity. There is another that claims that Christ did not die – Islam. Have neither Kinsey nor Hitchens ever noticed that Christians and Muslims disagree with one another? Let’s take another – that the “argument from design” (which Kinsey conflates with Intelligent Design) is apparently inconsistent because of religious leaders’ support of female genital mutilation. Huh? Have Philip Johnson or William Dembski become African animists without anyone noticing?

On a less serious note, the same kind of ignorance is found in Max Brook’s World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie Way, a bestselling science fiction novel by the son of Mel Brooks. The novel is set ten years after “the zombie war” in which, yes, the living dead nearly took over the world, and it’s structured as a series of interviews with survivors, war vets, political leaders, etc. Overall, it tries to give a “realistic” version of what might happen. Brooks takes into account regional and cultural differences as he imagines how different countries – the US, South Africa, China, North Korea, Israel – would react to the catastrophe. As sucker for post-apocalyptic science fiction, I was massively entertained.

But Brooks stumbles big time when he tries to write about conservative Christians. They are referenced a couple of times – dismissively called “Fundies” by a few characters – and they are mocked for their belief that zombies signal the end of the world, their panicked reactions, and, most curiously, an apparent wave of suicide cults formed by Christians.

First, if the dead begin to walk as reanimated zombies, “The End Is Near!” becomes a reasonable belief for everyone, not just Christians. Second, I know a lot about religious history, and I cannot think of a single suicide cult formed by theologically conservative Christians – or Christians of any kind, for that matter. Even Christian groups that sincerely believed that the world is going to end on a specific date. When that date comes, those Christians – well, they usually realize their mistake and move on. Mass suicides like Heaven’s Gate or Jonestown were conducted by fringe, cult groups whose beliefs had almost nothing in common with traditional Christianity. Brooks seems to have made the same leap as Hitchens and Kinsey above – he knows that some religions have sanctioned mass suicide, so therefore it must be a common feature of any religion.

Gerald R. McDermott. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? 2007, IVP.

McDermott raises an interesting question with his subtitle, and he turns to the Bible and to early Christian writers for some answers. A great idea: in North America, where Christianity is by far the most dominant religion, it’s easy to forget that the Bible and the church were birthed in societies obsessed with a multitude of gods and religious systems. McDermott notes, as well, that Greco-Roman philosophy was itself a religious system, based on the idea that God could be discovered through reason. McDermott devotes one chapter each to surveys of the Old Testament, New Testament, and the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

The insights that McDermott are surprising, at least to me. Using passages such as Daniel 10:13 (referencing the “prince of Persia,” a spiritual being with authority over Persia) and Deut. 32:8-9 (where God allots nations “according to the number of the gods” – McDermott favors “sons of elohim” instead of “sons of Israel” based on manuscript evidence), McDermott argues that the OT hints at the following:

• YHWH created “the hosts” as spiritual beings with varying degrees of authority.
• Some of the spiritual beings were given authority over nations or ethnic groups, such as the archangel Michael over Israel.
• These spiritual beings have largely rebelled against YHWH. This is connected to the fall of Lucifer.
• Because of their rebellion, these spiritual beings have led men and women to worship them instead of worshiping the true God.

It’s important to note that McDermott only suggests this as a possible reading. The early Christian writers he covers, however, take it as a given that the gods of other nations are fallen angels. In subsequent chapters, McDermott reviews Paul’s famous words regarding principalities and powers, and the varying views of the four early Christian writers he chose. The Christian writers wrestled with the major question of how much truth other religions contain. Their answer, to differing degrees, is “some.” Clement goes so far as to suggest that other religions may be God’s covenants with other nations, analogous to God’s covenant with Israel, covenants which point to and are to be replaced by the new covenant of Jesus Christ.

Two concluding thoughts: First, McDermott wants to recapture the Bible’s and the early church’s view of other religions as having spiritual components. There are real spiritual beings behind these other religions; they are much more than simply “mistakes” or human searches for God. Because they originate with spiritual beings originally created by God, other religions contain some kernel of truth. McDermott writes,

This also means that other religionists are not our enemy…Our real battle, as Paul advises us, is not against human beings – flesh and blood – but against “the cosmic powers of this present darkness” (Eph. 6:12). (165)

Thus, our attitude toward other religions should be respectful and characterized by “patient persuasion, not hostile argument.”

Second, McDermott does an excellent job of bringing early Christian writers to life. Using Eusebius‘ history of the early church, McDermott interweaves the theologies of these writers with their personal testimonies and contexts. He leads me to desire to read them for myself.