A couple of weeks back, when I was washing my truck, my wife popped out and asked if I could wash her car too. Unfortunately for her, I ran out of soap while doing my vehicle. If I were admittedly a better husband, I would have noticed her car was dirty and washed hers first. But sadly, even after 20 years together, I still have shortfalls that go unnoticed until hindsight kicks in.
So, I asked her to remind me once the new soap arrived.
Fast forward to today. The new soap had already come in a couple of weeks back, but her car remains unwashed and dirtier than ever. As we were driving to lunch, we started bantering with one another about it. I playfully explained how it was totally her fault for not reminding me, because she knows I have squirrel brain. When it comes to trivial matters, we often flirt by sarcastically deflecting blame for things we know are obviously our own fault.
She then proceeded to tell me that she did, in fact, remind me, but she couldn’t for the life of her remember the details of when or how. I naturally seized the opportunity to stand my ground, maintaining that I never received such a reminder. With both of us fuzzy on the details, we continued our back and forth, recounting a series of competing events that supported our own case.
Competing Claims Do Not Negate Truth
I want to pause at this part of the story and point out something. Though we both knew I was in the wrong here, we had competing truth claims about whether she gave me the “appropriate reminders” I requested.
Now let me ask a question. Does our competing account of why her car remains dirty somehow disprove the fact that her dirty car exists? Of course not. We may disagree about what happened, and one of us or even both of us may be completely wrong, but the existence of competing claims does not disqualify the subject from being true.
Yet, when it comes to Christianity, we often see this line of reasoning applied.
Some argue that if Christianity were true, we wouldn’t see so many competing belief systems. Rather, they claim that religion is simply the result of humanity’s natural instinct to explain what they don’t yet understand.
It’s a strange assertion, because we often see competing truth claims in science, history, philosophy, and many other fields. When people debated whether the Earth was flat or round, no serious person concluded that the Earth didn’t exist simply because there was disagreement over its shape.
When the Titanic sank and debate arose over whether it went down in one piece or two, what were we still able to conclude?
That the Titanic sank.
Just because truth claims compete does not mean the subject matter does not exist. In fact, competing truth claims often acknowledge that there is a source to disagree about.
Competing Religions Are Expected
Scripture teaches that God is clearly perceived in nature and that He has written certain things on our hearts.1
If this is true, then the human inclination to search for and invoke God is exactly what we should expect of creatures who have been designed with a natural draw toward their Creator. So, if anything, this natural instinct is more of an argument for Christianity than against.
At this point, one may rightly ask, “Well, if God gave us such a draw, then why are we drawn in so many different directions? Why are there so many belief systems?”
It’s a fair question, but the kicker here is that if Christianity is true, then multiple religions are exactly what we should expect to find.
The entire biblical account is a history of free-willed humans rejecting God, redefining good and evil for themselves, and making new gods that better suit their own passions. God’s image, imprinted on all of us, has certainly been effaced, but it has not been erased.
Scripture consistently shows this tension. People maintain their draw toward God, while simultaneously resisting it and reshaping truth to better accommodate their own destructive desires.2
Test for Truth, Not Competition
Circling back to my wife’s dirty car, as we continued our back and forth, she slowly began to remember the fuzzy details. At one point, I went to wash her car but decided not to because it started raining. Later, she asked me to set up the pressure washer and foam cannon so she could do it herself while I was at work, but it was too hot and we didn’t want the soap to stick to her car. She is very willing to wash it herself, but it’s one of those roles I try to do for her.
Eventually, she was able to recall enough specifics to prove her case in a courtroom sense. After a good laugh together, I finally admitted defeat, and I am preparing to wash her car as I write this.
But it’s important to remember: just because there may be two, three, or a hundred different truth claims, it does not follow that none of them are true.
As author and Asbury Theological Seminary graduate Chris Wright eloquently states:3
If disagreement disqualifies a source from being true, then nothing is true.
Competing claims do not eliminate truth. They simply give us more claims to test.
Rather than being troubled by the existence of competing truth claims, we must test them to see which best corresponds to reality. We should examine the evidence from history, science, and philosophy while sincerely seeking God and asking Him to reveal Himself to us.
Much like a detective who weighs conflicting accounts, or a scientist who seeks the best explanation for the available data, we can follow the evidence wherever it leads. When we examine the effects of God all around us alongside the overwhelming historical, philosophical, and scientific evidence, I believe that pursuit ultimately leads us to Christ, who really is “the way, and the truth, and the life.”4
See: Rom. 1:20; Rom. 2:14–15; Eccl. 3:11
Washing her car, should come naturally too you.
Justin, this was fantastic. I appreciate this article a lot. I was recently listening to Todd Philipps video for his reasons for discounting Christianity after serving in ministry and his number one reason was because of competing religions and how geographic location seems to dictate religious belief. Obviously this is a logical fallacy, but I was trying to think of how one would respond to this argument.
This was helpful: Competing truth claims does not discount the existence of the subject matter. That is an excellent response.
I also appreciate how you mention that the Bible presupposes competing truth claims. Some people seem to think that the gotcha moment is when they make this argument but the existence of competition was already presupposed.
Really appreciate this! I often work with those who are bringing up this point all the time. Always helps to have some additional insight and loving, wise ways to respond.