Mal Fletcher comments

Mal Fletcher

This week, the BBC showed its long-awaited three part series called, simply, 'The Passion'. It looked, from various perspectives, at some of the dramatic events during the last week of Jesus' life, leading up to his trial and crucifixion.

The writer has taken some liberties along the way with regard to the story. There are clear departures from the narrative given in the gospels, which are our major historical source for information about the man Jesus of Nazareth.

However, I get the feeling from the one part of three that we've seen thus far, that the writer and director have tried at least to depict the humanity of Jesus - and what impending crucifixion must have meant for him. At least the story is being told.

In an age of rampant secularism and religious plurality some would argue that poetic license with a story like this one is par for the course.

As we enter the Easter period, though, it might be healthy for us to reconsider the unique claims Jesus made about who he was and what he'd come to achieve.

Try as you may to be tolerant of all beliefs, you can't honestly look at the life and mission of Jesus without entering into a debate about which path is the right path. He was adamant, you see, that the message he brought was not simply a truth but the truth when it comes to finding God.

That will sound highly intolerant in today's politically correct culture. Whenever you try to compare world religions, people accuse you of being intolerant.

What we call tolerance today, though, is often not tolerance at all - it is absurdity. We try to have our cake and eat it too; to agree with every idea that comes along - even if those ideas are directly opposed to each other.

To question a person's beliefs is not the same as making a personal attack on them. It is possible to disagree with what someone believes, and even to disagree with all your heart, without losing your respect for their humanity and their right to make the choice. But we must remember this basic fact: truth can never be tolerant of error.

Many people, thinking they're being tolerant, will say that all religions lead to the same destination, so it really doesn't matter what you believe. But if two religious systems give very different answers to the basic questions of life, you can't say they're pointing in the same direction.

It's like comparing two compasses. If one says north is this way, and the other says south is in the same direction, you know that one of them has to be faulty.

There are ways to test whether a religion is what it claims to be. For example, we might ask, how it has affected the people who've adopted it? Has it lifted people to a new level of life?

Perhaps the ultimate test of a religious faith, though, is the person of its founder. What does this person say about himself - and what right does he have to speak to me?

This is where Christianity really stands apart. Only Christian faith is based solely on the person of its founder. If you removed Buddha from Buddhism, you would still have a religious system. If you took Mohammed out of Islam, you would still have a religious system. If you take Jesus out of Christianity, though, you're left with nothing at all. Jesus didn't just point the way to God, he claimed to be God in human form.