Most Christians have been stopped in their tracks by the following question:
"Do you think you have the right to tell me the only true religion is Christianity?"
Or: "Are you telling me the only way to God is through Christianity?" Or: "...your Christ."
Any answer to the above in the affirmative—while technically correct and clearly what the Bible says—won't answer the heart behind the question. Nor will it share the heart of Christ and His commitment to reconciliation.
The way to engage the questioner and their heart is by gently asking the following three questions:
1) Do you feel that when people do immoral or "bad" things, they should be punished?
2) Have you ever done anything immoral or "bad"?
3) If someone offered to take your deserved punishment instead of you, would you take them up on the offer?
The Conversation
So here's how the conversation might go:
Questioner: "Do you think you have the right to tell me the only true religion is Christianity?"
Responder: "Thank you for this very important question. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions to help me answer the question?"
Questioner: "Sure."
Responder: "Do you feel that when people do immoral or 'bad' things, they should face the proscribed consequences?"
Questioner: "Yes." (If they answer "No" or "Depends on what they did..." then there are other responses to consider that prove they actually do believe this. Most people do believe this though.)
Responder: "Have you ever done anything immoral or 'bad' to someone else?"
Questioner: "Yes." (Most people are pretty quick to admit they have done something immoral at some point in their life.)
Responder: "In other religions, you might have to 'work those off' through several lives or sacrifices or suffering penance. Only in Christianity do we find the only one who is completely free of immorality sitting as the judge, pronouncing the judgment, then offering to take your place. If you sat in the place of the accused and the judge offered to take your place, would you consider their offer?"
As you see, it presents the gospel of reconciliation and substitution without being maneuvered into the elitist-sounding place of "yes, my religion claims to be the only way."
The Questioner's Perspective
In some cases, the person who asks this question has (at least nominally) sampled the pluralistic smorgasbord of religions. They may have adopted a "consumerist" view that all are good options, meaning that all would eventually lead to God/god. They bristle at the thought that Christians might be saying someone doesn't have the right to select the religion of their choice or none at all.
However, this is definitely not what Christians believe: we believe in a God who guards free-will. We have woven this into our Western society and chafe at other societies who do not allow the legal right to adopt any religion or none at all. There are many societies, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, built on religions that make it not only illegal to chose an alternate religion, but murder you if you do so. This narrows the options, proving not all religions result in an equal benefit to humans.
Some religions benefit humankind better than others.
Then, as a rational person, it seems wise and intelligent to examine each religion's factual claims, truth claims, and results delivered to find the one that best addresses the main problem that plagues the world: human moral failure.
The question becomes: Which religion offers the best solution?
All religions offer a different solution and the results delivered vary drastically. While it is true that any religion can be hijacked by power-hungry humans, which religion offers the most complete solution to the problem of human moral failure and our separation from God? Which one keeps the human heart most in check? Which one offers a total heart-exchange?
The question then becomes: Which one is the most true?
While every religion may contain a kernel of truth or even great swaths of truth, eventually, all religions contradict each other with their factual claims and truth claims—removing the possibility that all are true. It might be possible to say that perhaps all are partially true or contain truths...but which is the MOST true?
Regardless of how one answers these questions, it doesn't remove the right to choose or the reality of multiple options. Nor does it require one to actually chose the most true or wise...
A conversation that includes truth claims by religions—particularly any examination of the truth claims Christianity presents—usually leads to accusations of exclusivity, arrogance, and intolerance. This is because all religions (including Atheism) and all people make their own truth claims (including the person who accuses another of exclusivity, arrogance, and intolerance). Possessing conviction that our views are right, is not arrogant and intolerant, it's just believing that some things are true.
For me, though all of us followers are flawed, the most central Christian teachings are true, provide the most complete solution to the human problem, and have provided the greatest results in the history of humankind. This is not to say Christianity is right about everything nor are all other religions are wrong about everything.
The Questioner's Heart
The question reveals the questioner's pain as well as the confidence that Christianity is elitist. They've likely been hurt or marginalized by Christians or a local church.
When someone has been hurt by the exclusivity that some local church-goers sinfully employ to either control or inflate their importance or experienced damaging fundamentalist fervor that may have been a misguided attempt to bring them into salvation, how should we respond?
We should respond with self-control, listening to hear their fear of being wrong or left out. We should assure them we defend their right to chose any religion or none at all. We should guide them to use their reason to question their imbibed world-view and consider the truth claims of each religion and their proffered solution and results.
By asking questions and engaging the heart, you can offer a commuted sentence rather than a hamster-wheel prison of work and sacrifice. It also opens the door to the questioner's own self-examination: would it even be possible to work their life's immoralities off? Or make enough sacrifices to clean their slate? And, eventually, do they even want to continue trying?
A conversation with questions like these can open the door to grace's substitutionary work.