Is There Only One True Religion
or Are There Many?

A sermon delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation (Blacksburg, VA), March 12, 2006, by the Reverend Christine Brownlie.

Is there only one true religion or are there many?

This very old question has taken on a new urgency as we witness the tragic consequences of what might be described fundamentalist fever. I’m thinking of the violence in the Middle East, the battles between Hindus and Muslims in India, the painful quarrels within Christian denominations over homosexuality and equal rights of marriage and ordination, and the escalating battles over the right of women to have abortions. All of this turmoil is based, at least to some degree, on the belief that there is really only one true religion, and that all others are false and wrong.

Many of us look at these painful and tragic divisions, and we wonder why people focus so intently on the differences between their own faith and the beliefs of their neighbor, differences that lead to tragedies. After all we say, don’t most religions emphasize the same basic teachings and values? Love God. Love one another. Care for the poor and helpless. Don’t be greedy. Live in peace. When you come right down to it, aren’t all religions really the same?

Many believers and scholars of religion would answer with a firm NO! There are significant differences between a monotheistic religion that emphasizes trust and obedience to one supreme God, and a polytheistic religion that offers many gods worthy of veneration and worship allowing the believer to choose one or two and become a devotee of those deities. Those who believe that the universe was created by a mighty and ever-present deity (as many Jews, Christians, and Muslims would claim,) have a different world-view from those who believe that there is no external god who intervenes in human affairs (as many Buddhists would claim).

The differences are real and important. At best, we can say that all religions might share some teachings. But there are many pious believers who stand firm in the claim that there really is only one true faith — and that faith is the one they follow.

This question is of interest to Unitarian Universalists because we claim “Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life.” as a part of the living tradition that is our source of authority. But even this broad statement doesn’t eliminate the problem. UUs are still forced to make some choices — even if our spiritual path combines beliefs and practices from different faiths. Let me give you a simple example: How do the various faiths answer the question of what happens to us after death? Hinduism and Buddhism, (along with other faiths that share the same roots) believe in a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Christians envision that the soul is reunited with a triune God. Moslems hope for a place in a multi-storied paradise and a deeper connection with their one God. Some Jews believe that the dead simply wait in expectation for the Day of Days when all will be physically resurrected. Some are sure that their bodies will simply return to the Earth, and that those who knew them will carry their memory with them.

Clearly, these are conflicting beliefs: they can’t all be true. Most of us settle on one as true for us. We choose a particular belief because it provides satisfactory answers to what theologians call questions of ultimacy. Such questions ponder the purpose and meaning of life, how one should live in the face of suffering and death, and the final destination of the human soul — assuming that we believe in the soul. Our chosen answer might encourage us to do the hard work of living our faith — we want to come back as a more developed soul — or we hope for union with the divine source of life — or we hope to be remembered as a good person.

Although our way of the spirit does not provide us with one acceptable answer to the mystery of death and the “next stage,” most religions do have an answer. and this answer is of great importance to the believer. Why? Because the question of what happens after death is the basis for the theological concept of salvation, and this concept solves the problem and mystery of death.

For many people, religion is not really about living a good and ethical life. It’s about salvation — going to a good place after you die. And many believers are sure that their religion is the only path that will get you to that good place. As one Latin Church father wrote, “Outside of the church there is no salvation.” This means that those who are outside of the one true faith face a bleak and possibly terrible future after their death.

This idea of exclusive salvation was the reason that many of us left the church of our childhood. I know that the claim that only Christians would or could be saved was troubling to me because it meant that my Jewish neighbors and friends were condemned to an eternity of suffering. I just could not believe in a God who would condemn someone to eternal punishment because they were born Hindu or Buddhist or Jewish. Whose fault was that? How could it be that a “loving” God would condemn most of the people who ever lived and ever would live to hell? My own reason and understanding of relationships, my own experiences of love, told me that this could not be true. I would guess that many of you, for very similar reasons, came to a very similar conclusion at some point in your life.

For years, I’ve held fast to my emotional response to the exclusive claims of any religion, yet “I don’t like it, and I don’t believe it!” seems to be an intellectually inadequate argument. This morning I’d like to offer two compelling arguments against the claims for “one true faith” that I find satisfying: The first is from the Christian theologian Shubert Ogden, the second, from a humanist perspective is offered by the Rev. Davidson Loerher who serves the First UU Church in Austin TX (although he declares that he is not a UU).

Ogden’s argument is grounded in his definition of religion, his view of the nature of God, and his sense of the limitations that humans face in knowing both the nature of God and the will of God. This will be our starting place as well.

Ogden holds that religion is a response to the idea that all human beings face a predicament that every human being struggles with: we have an incomplete and false understanding of what he calls “ultimate reality” — what it means to be human, our relationships with others, and our relationship to the whole of life. Another way to say this is that religion helps us as we try to make sense of our basic faith in the meaning of life, given the facts of life (death, suffering, inequity) as we actually experience it. Ogden calls this the “metaphysical aspect of religion.” The other aspect of our predicament is the difficulty we have in the question as to how we ought to act in relation to others. This is the where the ethical teaching of religion has its roots.

Every religion claims to have a transforming truth that solves this human predicament. Every religions also claims that it alone is the standard by which all other religions are judged as true or not true. The difficulty with this claim of superiority is that there is no objective way to verify the truth of religious claims, no theological corollary to the scientific method Ogden considers claims for truthfulness based on the sacred texts of a particular religion as nothing more than begging the question. He also rejects the idea that religious truths are above careful scrutiny because they come from a divine source and are a matter of faith. The test (or formal norm) that satisfies him is this: common human experience and reason. Religious truth claims are to be judged by the experiences you and I share with our fellow humans held in the light of our reason. To this standard, he adds a second important test: To determine fully the truthfulness of religious doctrines, we must also consider the “necessary implications of a religion for both belief and actions.” On this basis alone, Ogden suggests that we might hesitate to pronounce any religion as true!

Ogden, as a Christian, assumes the existence of God. Some of you are going to point out that this doesn’t agree with your experiences or your sense of reason. And while I respect your objection, remember that Ogden’s source of authority in determining religious truth is “common experience” and reason, and that most people who claim to be religious also share a belief in God.

Ogden’s God is not omnipotent, omni-beneficent deity you may have learned about in Sunday school. He says that there are other forces at play in our world, and that these forces also exercise power. Just as there is a source of creation and goodness, there is a source of destruction that brings suffering. Given this reality, Ogden contends that God is best defined as “unsurpassingly powerful and good.” This means that nothing is more powerful or more expressive of goodness than God, but it’s not God’s fault that bad things happen.

Ogden then goes on to argue that an unsrpassingly powerful and good God would not and could not condemn or abandon most of humankind to an eternity of suffering, because to do so would be evil and contrary to the thus nature of God. To believe that God would send souls to eternal torment means that God is not powerful enough or good enough to save them all.. I think that our Universalist forbearers would agree wholeheartedly with that statement.

Ogden also believes that God offers “all-embracing, unbounded love” to all people. This unbounded love makes God both trustworthy and deserving of our loyalty. Our loyalty to God demands our loyalty to all those whom God loves, so believers are called to love everyone!

Ogden goes on to argue that since human beings cannot know the will or the mind of God, to claim that there is only one true religion is to presume more knowledge than any human being can rightly claim. He isn’t ready to say that all religions are true—o r false, but that there can be more than one true religion.

As a UU, I find this line of reasoning — and I have given you less than the Cliffs’ Notes version this morning — helpful to my own theological thinking and very helpful when I talk to people who believe in a God of judgment. But I realize that for those of you who have little or no use for the idea of God, Ogden’s arguments are probably not very persuasive, since they hinge entirely on his concept of a deity.. But don’t despair! There is a second option that may resonate with your heart and mind.

Rev. Dr. Davidson Loehrer takes a different approach to this question of one true faith. To Loehrer, the primary function of religion is ethical rather than metaphysical. He says that the purpose of religion is to help us know how to live noble and good lives so that at the end of life, our friends and family will be proud to have known us. In this day and age, it doesn’t take much imagination to contemplate situations where lives of immorality and destruction are admired and celebrated. We know that there are terrible instances where an entire society turns to violence and claims that this violence is sanctified by God or an allegiance to some other claim of superiority. In that light, I am inclined to include Ogden’s test of common human experience and reason as an additional check — and here I mean “common” — on a global scale. I think we can safely claim that most human beings do not approve of the slaughter of innocent people as has happened in the Holocaust, Hiroshima, Rwanda and other places.

I’d like to add something to Davidson’s idea. If we substitute Loehr’s norm of a good life for Ogden’s tests of a true religion, we can come to the same conclusion: There can be more than one faith that leads to a good and noble life. Either approach requires us to make a respectful and careful examination of our beliefs and the implications of those beliefs as expressed in our actions. In other words, our faith proves itself true in our actions and relationships. Our challenge, then, is to be thoughtful about the beliefs that we choose for ourselves. Do they hold up to common human experience and reason? What are the necessary implications of our claims to truth for our actions and relationships? Can we make room for the idea that there can be more than one truth faith, that not one of us has sole ownership of that commodity? And finally, can we respect — and even celebrate — the multiple truths that are held within this beloved community? Can we examine these truth claims together, without fear or feeling offended?

You see, our cherished diversity doesn’t serve us if we are afraid to explore it. I sometimes think of us a hungry people who are sitting at a table covered with an assortment of foods that are unfamiliar to us — a theological potluck, if you will. Are we going to taste only the dish that we brought? Will we try some that look familiar? Or do we have the courage to take from each, tasting carefully, realizing that we may have to go back for seconds and even thirds before we can make up our minds? I believe that we can support and encourage one another on our various and differing spiritual paths only if we’re willing to engage in honest and respectful discussions, listening to each other with open hearts and minds. We are the church of many truths, open to many traditions and many varieties of religious experience. Will you join me at the table? There is room you — and for anyone else who is longing for an open and inclusive community. Let’s talk. Let’s share our truth so that we can grow and face life together, with courage and hope.

May it be so.

UUC Home Page

Reverend Brownlie Home Page