Comment from skeptic: Any exclusivist claim to truth, such as those made by major religions, is inherently divisive and lacks openness to external influences. Therefore, a skeptical stance, which does not claim absolute truth, is more intellectually honest and reasonable.
Response:
From a Christian perspective, the claim that Christianity holds exclusive truth is not inherently divisive but is instead a declaration of what ultimately corresponds to reality. If Christianity is true, then its exclusivist claims are necessary for the sake of truth and coherence. Jesus himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), making an exclusivist claim that is central to the Christian faith. Furthermore, division is not necessarily negative; it can result from essential distinctions between truth and falsehood, light and darkness. Such distinctions are crucial and unavoidable if we are to live meaningfully in this world.
Ironically, in criticizing religious exclusivism as inherently divisive, your own stance is itself exclusivist. By claiming that religious truth claims are problematic because they create division, you are asserting that only a non-exclusivist or skeptical approach is acceptable. In effect, you argue that skepticism or a refusal to make exclusive truth claims is the only valid stance, one that will supposedly lead to a flourishing world if everyone adopts it. This, however, is itself an exclusive claim that, by your own reasoning, creates division and thus undermines your critique of exclusivism.
Even the stance of saying, "I don't know the answer, and you shouldn't either because it’s divisive," is itself a declaration of what others ought to do. This stance presupposes a standard of some kind—a moral or intellectual guideline suggesting that uncertainty and skepticism are preferable to making any definitive truth claims. By asserting that others should adopt a position of skepticism to avoid division, you are implicitly declaring a standard by which everyone else ought to live.
By insisting that we should always remain skeptical about ultimate truths, you assert that skepticism is the only legitimate perspective. This creates a contradiction: you become an advocate for your own exclusive view (skepticism) while criticizing others for making their exclusive claims. Thus, your argument "poisons the well" against the very possibility of exclusive truth by dismissing it simply because it is divisive, without genuinely engaging with the content or merit of those claims.
Exclusivism, however, is unavoidable. Whenever someone makes a truth claim—even a claim like "we should remain skeptical"—they are taking an exclusive stance, excluding contrary viewpoints. To say that all exclusive claims are wrong is, paradoxically, itself an exclusive claim. It asserts that a particular viewpoint (skepticism) is the correct one to the exclusion of other views, such as those held by Christians, Muslims, or any other religious adherents. At least religious perspectives are transparent about making truth claims and inviting scrutiny.
Exclusive claims are essential in any serious pursuit of truth. When we claim that certain things are true, we necessarily exclude their opposites as false. For example, if we say "2 + 2 = 4," we are making an exclusive claim that excludes "2 + 2 = 5." Similarly, if Christianity claims that Jesus is the only way to God (John 14:6), it does so not out of a desire to be divisive but from a conviction that this is the truth revealed by God. If this claim is true, it must necessarily exclude contradictory claims.
If a claim is true, it will naturally create division between those who accept it and those who do not. If Christianity’s exclusive claims about Christ are true, then division will occur between those who accept these claims and those who reject them. Likewise, your exclusive claim that skepticism is the only correct stance creates division between those who agree with you and those who do not. Thus, your position creates division just as much as any other. The focus, therefore, should not be on whether a claim is divisive but on whether it is true. In this sense, truth can bring deeper unity among those who hold to it, even as it divides from those who do not.
Making judgments is an inherent part of living in God's creation. Therefore, a stance that rejects all judgments (such as radical skepticism) is disconnected from how reality actually functions. In the world God has created, making judgments is unavoidable, as we are constantly confronted with decisions about truth and morality. To claim that we should refrain from making any judgments fails to align with the reality of how humans live and engage with the world every day.
A worldview of skepticism or relativism, where all truth claims are seen as equally valid or equally uncertain, is inherently unstable because it fails to provide a coherent framework for moral or factual distinctions. If we cannot assert any exclusive truth, we lose the basis for distinguishing between right and wrong, true and false, or good and evil.
By critiquing religious exclusivism while asserting your own form of exclusivism (skepticism), your argument falls into a self-refuting position. If all exclusive truth claims are inherently divisive and therefore negative, then your own exclusive claim about skepticism must also be divisive and subject to the same criticism. Instead, the key issue should not be whether truth is divisive but whether the truth claims of Christianity (or any other worldview) are indeed true. Christianity argues that it provides the most coherent and comprehensive account of reality, grounding concepts like morality, truth, and human dignity in the character and revelation of the triune God. Thus, the stance you advocate is not free from the very thing you critique—it simply replaces one exclusive claim with another. Instead of objectively examining the truthfulness of a claim, you dismiss all exclusive claims on the grounds of division, without recognizing that you are simultaneously imposing your own standard that others ought to follow. This reveals an internal inconsistency: you cannot both oppose exclusivism and make an exclusive claim about how others should think. If there is no objective basis for determining what is true or false, right or wrong, then why should anyone adopt your standard over another? Without a foundation for these standards, the argument becomes arbitrary and incoherent. On the other hand, Christianity provides a coherent foundation for such standards, based on the nature and revelation of God.