Debunking Oprahism

What spiritual relativism is, why it’s illogical, and how it cripples Christianity

Tyler Francke ’10, Journalism, Editor in Chief

Expositions:  Religion & Philosophy

Oprah Winfrey, American talk show host and prophetess of New Age spiritualism, has good news for you: The way to God is much wider than you thought.

As a teenager, Winfrey could bring her church congregation to tears with the testimony of her personal Savior, but she seems to have strayed from her more orthodox beliefs in recent decades.1

“One of the biggest mistakes humans make is to believe there is only one way,” Winfrey said on her popular talk show, recently announced to be in its final season. “Actually, there are many diverse paths leading to what you call God.” 2          

Oh, really? And how do you know that, Oprah?

Snarky comments aside, I do admire this woman. She is a generous philanthropist, a positive and uplifting role model, and the founder of one of the most influential media empires in the country. If I sat down with the mogul for a chat, I’m sure we would agree on many things, and I would probably like her a lot. But we would part ways when it came to religion and philosophy, and I can’t, on both biblical and intellectual grounds, follow her to the “new earth” she thinks she’s headed to.

Winfrey and her followers may think Christianity can be one of many ways to God, but she is wrong – Christianity is absolutely exclusive. This isn’t unique, as almost all religions make claims to universal truth – that’s Truth with a capital “T.” But because of what the Gospel says, Christianity is distinctive in its inability to coexist with any other belief system. My point is simple: Either Christianity is the only way to God, or it isn’t a way to God at all.

As a Christian, I will be writing from that perspective, but my goal is not to prove my religion is true or convert anyone. Instead of proselytizing, I am preaching the gospel of coherent thought: If there is any kind of spiritual truth, then it is absolute. Something can’t be both straight and round at the same time.

Our generation’s ideas of truth have been bloated with complacency and cynicism; I say it’s high time for a stomach stapling surgery to get our ways of thinking back into logical order. I hope to challenge you, in the same way I challenge myself, to make a fearless and searching intellectual inventory of your understanding of reality, asking one question: “Does what I believe make sense?”

Or do you follow the warm and fuzzy doctrine of the Church of Oprah, which makes claims that shatter into nothingness under the weight of logic? Not sure? Keep reading. You’ll know soon enough.

Spiritual relativism defined

“All religions are basically the same.” “I believe in God, I just don’t follow a particular faith.” “There can’t be just one way.” “I think that your faith is true for you, but it’s not my truth.” “God is too big for one religion.” “I’m glad you found something you can believe in, but it’s not for me.” 3

Ever heard statements like this before? Do they frustrate you, too? They are all testimonies to what I call “spiritual relativism.” Basically, it’s the notion that other people’s religious beliefs that directly contradict one’s own may nevertheless be equally true.  Spiritual relativism is the hole in the ozone layer of our current spiritual climate, and for too long now it has hindered the search for Truth and muddied the discussions with incoherence and irrationality. I’m surprised Al Gore hasn’t written a book about it yet.

In the philosophical realm, relativism is most often discussed as applying to morality, such as in the case of cultural relativism – the idea that morality is not universal, but is instead defined by one’s culture. And moral relativism is much more than an abstract philosophical idea – it is the prevailing ideology among Americans today.

According to a 2002 study by the Barna Group, 63 percent of American adults said that truth is always relative to the person and the situation. The numbers among teenagers were even more surprising, as only a dismal six percent of respondents – many of whom could be in college today – said that moral truth is absolute. 4 Statistics on spiritual relativism aren’t easy to find, but we can assume that it would be about as prevalent as moral relativism. 

The sources for relativism are fairly obvious, and I must admit on some levels, it is a highly appealing perspective. Pluralism is a fact of today’s world, especially in America. It can even be seen in our consumer products: There’s no clear “best” of anything anymore. What’s better – Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Unix? Coke or Pepsi? Chunky peanut butter or smooth? Who knows! We have thousands of clothing and retail companies making essentially the same products, and if you stop in at a Starbucks, you’ll find that there is a limitless amount of variations of how to drink a cup of coffee.

Most of the time, we are drowning in a sea of equally valid options, and when confronted with religion, why wouldn’t we follow the same principle? Why would one person being a Christian and another being a Muslim be any different than one guy being a Budweiser drinker and another loyal to Coors? My Muslim friends and I may argue it out every now and then, just like the beer drinkers, but in the end, we all know we’re pretty much getting the same thing, right? Wrong, because religions are not products, but rather ways to understand reality.

Pluralism, of course, goes beyond consumer choices. There are a lot of different spiritual beliefs in this world, and we college students, both by nature and conditioning, value kindness, acceptance, and open-mindedness, especially regarding topics we don’t know much about – like religion. It makes sense that tolerance and political correctness, coupled with a lack of knowledge of or interest in religion, would lead to spiritual relativism. I’ve been there myself, in fact. It’s far easier to gloss over the inconsistencies and presume that everybody’s basically right.

But the problems are obvious. A policy that declared both sides right in any disagreement would fail in every other aspect of life. Take classes, for example: Two lab partners work on the same math problem and come out with different results. Can they both be correct? Of course not. The answer to an equation could not be 74.32 and -29.548 at the same time, and no teacher would hesitate in marking the incorrect answer as such.

Now imagine an argument with a friend. You thought you had agreed to meet at 7:00 p.m. – she was sure it was 5:00. Now she’s upset, and you have to defend your honor. Would you try suggesting that you’re both right? It doesn’t make enough sense to be considered. Two contradictory statements about the reality of something can’t both be true; at least one of them is simply wrong.

Most religions contain some truths. There are threads of truth everywhere, but I believe that they lead somewhere – to an absolute truth, which is the nature of the metaphysical reality. Most viewpoints contain elements of this Truth, but they also necessarily contradict it in some ways, and the contradictions must be sorted out and denied.

Only in matters of opinion can conflicting arguments both be correct. For example, two people could have very different views about the deliciousness of chocolate ice cream and both be completely right. But too many place the spiritual questions into a similarly subjective category, when in actuality, religions have always been in the realm of the objective, universal, and absolute.

It is indeed a distasteful proposition to tell someone you think their fundamental beliefs about reality are wrong, not just for you, but for them as well. Yet, to do so would be an act of dignity and respect, acknowledging you understand their views are just as universal as they believe them to be, but that you find valid reasons to disagree.

Kindness, acceptance and open-mindedness are important, as long as they don’t compromise one’s intellectual honesty. There are valid ways to deal with religious disagreements, like finding a way to reconcile the two views or withholding judgment until further exploring  the topic. Accepting two contradictory statements as the ultimate truth, however, is foolish.

Beaten and burned by logic

There may be some who disagree; perhaps you don’t think that religions are as absolute and exclusive as I claim. For that reason, I’ve included a chart  on the next page that lists some of the oldest, largest, and most revered faiths in the world and a brief statement of their core beliefs.5 As anyone can plainly see, it is the universal claims religions make – not my interpretation of them – that render spiritual relativism impossible. It is a futile task to fit them together without watering the doctrines down to where most of their adherents would object.

Important to philosophers are the three classic laws of thought, the second of which is known as the “principle of contradiction,” or the “law of non-contradiction.” Essentially, it states that if the proposition A is B is true, then A is not B cannot also be true. A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to display the presence and absence of the same quality at the same time, and in the same sense. 6

Note that this law is not a means of discerning which proposition is true – it merely shows that both can’t be; one is true, the other is false.

The principle of contradiction is attributed to Aristotle, and it has been accepted as an un-falsifiable axiom by most philosophers over the past 2,000 years. My favorite all-time proof for it was given by the prominent Persian logician Avicenna: “Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.” 7

I would never advocate beating or burning someone to prove a point – not even Oprah – but the fact is religions, whether you like it or not, claim to be laws, not principles. There have been few devout believers in the history of the world who thought they were just following “good values” – they believed they were following the Truth. And if there is spiritual truth, then it can not be true for one person and not true for another at the same time. It either is true, or it isn’t.

The principle of contradiction makes short work of one of the foundational principles of spiritual relativism, that something could be true for one person and not for another. The fact is that no ideology could pull off the trick of being both true and not true simultaneously; the laws of logic render it impossible.

Rational faith in a reasonable God

So why use logic in a spiritual discussion? After all, “Isn’t that what faith is for?” Absolutely not – this is a misrepresentation of true faith. The Bible describes faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” 8 What it doesn’t say, and what you won’t find anywhere in Scripture, is this statement: “Faith is believing things that don’t make any sense and contradict other things you believe.”

I worship a supremely reasonable God, who constructed a universe operating according to precise physical laws. I am inclined to agree with the astronomer Galileo Galilei, who in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.” 9

As C.S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, the Lord exhorted His followers to have childlike faith, but never did He champion the virtue of childlike intellect. In fact, His instructions for the Apostles were that they be “as gentle as doves, but as wise as serpents.” 10 Similarly, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” 11

The nature of faith will necessitate that we believe certain things without definitive proof, such as the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. However, there is similarly no reason to disbelieve God is capable of this miracle. Some say it is illogical to believe in miracles because they’ve never been observed, but all that really means is something I would agree with – miracles don’t happen on a material basis, nor do they come about very often. They could only occur with divine intervention – in rare cases, for important reasons. Believing something is possible, even if you’ve never seen it, is not necessarily irrational.

The reality of Hell

As I said earlier, the claims of Christianity make it more exclusive than any other religion. It is ironic then that it is so often commandeered  by relativists who insist the Gospel is compatible with many other faiths, but it’s easy to see why: After all, Christianity is only about God’s love, right?

Not exactly. God does love us all; in fact, the Bible says God is love.12 But Bible-based doctrine traditionally maintains that non-believers are damned by God to spend an eternity in Hell, and I admit that doesn’t sound particularly loving of Him. It’s no surprise that most would want to believe this is overly extreme – God can’t really care that much about a person’s religious beliefs.

I disagree. I believe in a perfect God, who made man in His own image, for the sole purpose of sharing His glory with them. I believe God breathed His own breath into man and gave them dominion over all of creation, and He heaped honor and privilege onto them and gave them one restriction: Eat from any tree in the Garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.13

It should have been an easy rule to follow, but man broke it, seeking equality with their creator and finding only guilt. I think God, who needs nothing from us, would’ve been perfectly justified in wiping the human race out then and there, but instead, out of pure patience and love, He covered the shame of their sin and promised to send a savior to rescue them from their desperate condition.14

And God watched and grieved as men became increasingly evil and violent and rebellious, and repeatedly ignored His laws, killed His prophets, corrupted His festivals, and broke His covenants. I believe God finally sent the savior He promised – His only Son – who would take all the sins of humanity on His shoulders and teach them the ways of the kingdom of God, and man rejected this Savior, beat Him, tortured Him, and subjected Him to the most horrible death imaginable.

And I believe God was willing to forgive man even then, giving one final plea to His fallen creation: “Remember my Son, who has made the way for you. Honor Him. Trust Him. Follow Him.”

This is the gospel message. What God has offered is not a “Get Out of Hell Free” card, but an invitation back to the Garden, a chance to be restored to the place of honor in His sight that we forsook by choosing our own way instead of His. The consequence of sin is separation from our source of life, and if we die in that state, our soul stays separated from Him for eternity – what we call hell. We choose our eternal fate, not Him. God’s aim is for us to turn from our ways and submit to His.15 This brings Him glory – that we would freely give our wills, the one thing He refuses to take.

I don’t know that Christianity is the Truth – I won’t know for sure until I die. But I understand the implications if it is. And if so, considering our above track record, I couldn’t imagine a fairer proposal than the free gift of life offered in Jesus Christ. I, for one, wouldn’t dare to look God in the face on the day of judgment, and tell Him, “Sorry, but one way was not enough.”

The weight of the gospel

The claims of Christianity carry more weight than any other doctrine. Most religions claim God sent prophets and holy books, but Christianity claims God sent His only Son. The scales don’t balance.

I can’t say it any more clearly: If Jesus Christ was the Son of God as He claimed to be, then all other ways of understanding spiritual truth are false. If the Son of God came into the world and died for its salvation, then any faith that says He didn’t or that it doesn’t matter may very well be a path to somewhere, but certainly not to God. To believe that Christianity is just “one of the many ways,” as Winfrey asserts, means to believe the Almighty is OK with a person rejecting the price His Son paid to set them free from their sins as long as they believe in something and they’re sincere about it. Not only is this illogical, it would also be a very un-loving thing for God to do.

Don’t believe me? Consider the words of Christ on the night before He was killed. Found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the passionate account of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane is one of the most powerful ever recorded.

The day the Church remembers as Good Friday was surely anything but for the man who experienced it firsthand. We can’t forget the physical agony He endured, the floggings, the beatings, the nails, the slow suffocation of crucifixion, but we must also think of the emotions of the day, as Jesus felt the sting of betrayal again and again – by Judas, by His chosen people choosing Barabbas, by His disciples who denied Him. He even felt forsaken by His own Father – God, not Joseph.16 He would be humiliated, hanging naked on a cross like a common criminal. He would be torn apart inside as the guilt of the world’s sin was placed on His shoulders, and His spirit would suffer the wrath of God.

I don’t know how much of the details Jesus was aware of in the Garden. But I know God knew everything, and God was watching and listening as His beloved Son, sorrowful to the point of death, so anguished blood came through His pores, prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” 17

In other words, “If there is any other way, please don’t make me do this.”

But God did. The cup didn’t pass, and Jesus was brutally murdered just as history remembers. This puts all of us in a tough situation: If the death of Jesus served no necessary atonement purpose for humanity, if there are other ways to heaven, then there was no reason for Him to come to earth in the first place and endure what He did.

Either God callously ignored Christ’s desperate pleas – not a very loving thing to do – or God denied His Son’s prayer only because His death was absolutely necessary, and there is no other way. Which kind of God would you believe in?

The simple Truth

Take a deep breath – see? The spiritual climate is already clearer.

The problem with relativism – besides its logical fallacies – is that it so obscures spirituality with contradictions and countless options that it becomes impossible to make a real or meaningful decision. Though it might appear to simplify things by removing the significance of any particular path, it really just makes life more complicated. With Oprahism debunked, the choices are fewer, and they can – and should – be explored rationally just like anything else. In relation to Christianity, there are only three possible options, and I hope that by now you can see that “It’s just one of a bunch of different truths,” is not among them.

The first option is there is no Truth, i.e. atheism. Atheists maintain there is nothing beyond the observable, material universe: no heaven, no souls, no spirits, no God. Very few Americans – only 10 percent according to the latest poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life18 – are willing to accept this, but it is a logically consistent worldview, far more coherent and valid than spiritual relativism.

If you are among the vast majority who do believe in some kind of higher power, there are only two remaining options regarding Christianity: Either it’s not true, and a different path is – such as Hinduism or Islam. If you choose one of these different paths, I would love to respectfully discuss your faith and how you came to it, as long as you agree to tell me you think I’m wrong, and not that I’ve just “found a different truth.”

The final option is, obviously, that Christianity is the ultimate, universal truth, the one and only way to God.

Regardless of which road you take, employ open-mindedness when conversing with people who chose differently. In thoughtful, honest dialogue, both parties can come to a greater understanding of the Truth – not their truth. Humility is essential, because an understanding of the absolute truth would be nothing more than a gift from the being that created it, and no human can claim full, complete knowledge of spiritual truth – even if some happen to be closer to it than others.  

Whatever the Truth is, every one of us is subject to it, so we should work together to figure out what it is. Let us, as one, leave behind the shackles of political correctness, complacency, and tolerance and practice the real virtues of honesty, peaceful discussion, and love, and through them explore and ultimately discover more of the nature of our collective destiny. As long as we can ignore any selections from Oprah’s beloved book club, I’ll be happy to join you in the search.

1.  Taylor, LaTonya. “The Church of O.” Christianity Today, April 1, 2002.

2.  Ibid.

3.  All these statements are actual quotes from UMaine students heard by the author, most of them friends.

4.  The Barna Group. “Americans are most likely to base truth on feelings.” February 12, 2002.  http://www.barna.org/

5.  All information on world religions taken from: Matthews, Warren. World Religions. Stamford, Conn.: Wadsworth Publishing, 2008.

6.  Aristotle. W.D. Ross, trans. Metaphysics, Book IV.

7.  Avicenna. Metaphysics, I. “Commenting on Aristotle, Topics I.”

8.  Hebrews 11:1, New International Version.

9.  Galilei, Galileo. Drake, Stillman, trans. “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany: Concerning the use of biblical quotations in matters of science.” 1615. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957.

10.  Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1952.

11.  1 Corinthians, English Standard Version.

12.  1 John 4:8, NIV.

13.  Genesis 1:26-29, 2:7-8, 15-22.

14.  Genesis 3:6-7, 15, 22.

15.  2 Peter 3:9.

16.  Matthew 27:46.

17.  Matthew 26:39, King James Version. Also see Matthew 26:42, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:46.

18.  The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey | Religious affiliation: diverse and dynamic.” Washington, D.C.: The Pew Forum, 2008.