“ARE ALL RELIGIONS REALLY THE SAME?”
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday,
All
I begin with a
question: Are human religions like a
mathematical problem or formula, or are human religions more like a work of
art? These are two fundamentally
different ways of looking at our religions.
Some approach religion
as if it were a mathematical problem.
They believe there is a right answer to the question of life, and it is
religion’s job to reveal that answer, to provide the data and variables needed
to offer a solution.
Others might say that
religion is more like a great work of art.
Its job is not to provide the right answer, but rather, like the role of
art, to interpret our experiences in such a way as to make them meaningful and helpful
in living out our lives.
Is religion meant to
offer an answer or to offer insight and interpretation? I ask this question at the outset, because I
think the way we look at the role of religion makes a difference in how we
answer my sermon title question: “Are
All Religions Really the Same?”
There is a cliché that tells us that the
world is getting smaller, and in many ways, I suppose it is. We are rapidly learning about other cultures
and other people who previously struck us as exotic and alien. For many generations, when we spoke of
Unitarian Universalism has tended to have a
generous attitude toward other religions.
It is our hope and expectation that people around the world can get
along, and in that hope and expectation, we tend to think that all people have
a lot in common, and are more alike than different. This attitude often predisposes us toward
acceptance of other religions.
A few years ago I mentioned here one of my
all‑time favorite stories about popular misconceptions of religion. Since it presents such a perfect introduction
to what I wish to address this morning, I offer it once more.
When the British philosopher Bertrand
Russell was arrested for draft resistance in World War I, he was taken to jail
and interviewed by the jailer who was filling out a routine form about his
background. One of the routine questions
was "What is your religion?" to which Russell responded
"agnostic."
The jailer didn't recognize this word, and
asked him to repeat it and spell it.
After Russell did so, the jailer looked at the paper and said,
"agnostic...agnostic. That's a new
one to me. You know, there are so many
religions in the world, but we all worship the same God!"
Though I suspect we think ourselves to be
somewhat less naive than Russell's jailer, nevertheless, I also suspect that
most of us Unitarian Universalists share a good deal of his underlying
sentiment. Maybe not, "We all
worship the same God," but perhaps something like, "Hey, we are more
alike than we are different." Sure,
the jailer didn't know what he was saying, but his intentions were good. We see in his comment an attempt to be
generously accepting of someone with a different religion, even if clumsily
so. For most of us, such a gesture is
worthy of approval. God knows, there
isn't enough religious toleration around these days.
The statement that "All religions
worship the same God," is a somewhat sloppy expression of a deeper idea
that has been attractive to many Unitarian Universalists over the years. That idea is that what separates religions
from one another is fairly superficial, and that underneath those differences,
at the center of each of the world's religions, we can find a universal human
religious value that transcends peculiar cultural expressions.
The argument goes something like this: if you strip away all the unnecessary
historical and cultural baggage, if you look past the exterior of creeds that
are really only artificial coverings of something more fundamental, and if you
can get people to really listen and understand each other's central religious
convictions, you will find that religions, in their basic essentials, are
really saying the same things.
It is this sentiment
that was expressed through the earlier reading by Unitarian minister Thomas
Wentworth Higginson in 1871, when he said:
“All (religions) show the same aim, the same
symbols, the same forms, the same weaknesses, the same aspirations. Looking at these points of unity, we might
say there is but one religion under many forms.”
This view is very persuasive indeed. It would be even more persuasive if it had
the added advantage of being true, however.
The fact is, from my perspective, it is only partially true.
The answer to the question, AAre all religions
really the same?@ is similar to the
answer to many other important questions: AYes and No.@ Or, AIt depends.@ Or, AIn some ways they
are alike, and in some ways they aren’t.@
It is a little like asking the question AAre all human beings really the same?@ Both answers – “yes” and “no” – can be
defended. Of course all human beings are
the same – they share the same biology, they share the same needs, the same
pleasures and pain, the same set of emotions, the same aspirations and
desires.
But
it is also easy to argue that all human beings are not the same! We are each
unique individuals with differing sets of values and beliefs. A computer programmer in
AYes and No@ is the only
credible answer to the question, “are all human beings really the same.” And so it is when the question is asked of
the world=s religions. I propose to use the remainder of my time by
arguing for both answers, one at a time.
First I will argue for the essential sameness of all religions. Then I’ll try to point out the fundamental
“differentness” among them. Then I’ll
draw my conclusions. Both positions seem
to me to point to a similar conclusion.
Are all religions really the same? There are common, shared, human needs that
lead us down the paths of religion. We
want to make sense out of life. We want
to understand our relationship with the universe. We want to know what is right and wrong. All of these needs are found in all cultures,
and give rise to our distinctive religions.
A Buddhist may seek personal fulfillment by
practicing spiritual disciplines that sharpen the mind and spirit, spending
hours in concentrated meditation. A
Hindu may seek personal fulfillment by conquering desires and emotional
attachments to worldly things. A
Christian may seek personal fulfillment by surrendering his or her will to the
teachings of Jesus, as interpreted by the church. A Jew may seek personal fulfillment by
carefully observing all the traditions and rituals and rules of their religious
heritage. What is most significant is
not so much the way in which they seek fulfillment, but the very task of
seeking it.
Are all religions really the same? Of course they are to the extent that they
address the same human yearning for meaning.
Religion expresses our human passion for meaning and for values.
A couple of weeks ago I
mentioned Henry David Thoreau’s famous retreat into the woods surrounding
Walden Pond. No one can read his reports
of that experience without observing that it was, for him, a deeply spiritual
encounter with nature. The cycle of
seasons, the birdsongs, the production of food from the earth: the human
encounter with nature for him, as it is for many, was an encounter with the
divine. I mentioned Thoreau particularly
because he also reported that he began each day reading from the Hindu text the
Bhagavad Gita. In that ancient tradition one also finds a
religion that raises nature to something divine over us, of which we are just a
part, rather than nature being something subservient to our own powers and
needs. The experience of nature as an
expression of the divine runs through many religious traditions, including the
Native Americans. This view is one of
many common religious ideas cutting across many human cultures.
Many of the world’s
religions seem to share common contemplative practices. For Christians, the act of prayer, or
communicating with God, is very important to their religion; for Buddhists, the
discipline of meditation, or seeking inner harmony, is very important to their
religion. Christian prayer and Buddhist
meditation may appear to be very different forms of ritual. But both are performed for the same spiritual
reason – to leave the profane world and be in touch with the sacred.
Are all religions really the same? Of course they are to the extent that they
provide avenues for us to discover truth about how to live fulfilled.
One of the tasks of all religions is
ethics. And given the diversity of
cultures in the world, it is surprising that the ethical rules arising out of
religions are so similar. Each religion has
its own version of the Golden Rule, for example – and it is impressive how
similar their statements are. A few
examples will suffice. We are most
familiar with the Christian version of the Golden Rule, found in the gospel of
Matthew: “Whatsoever you would have
others do to you, do so unto them.” Here
are similar statements:
Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself
would find hurtful.”
Hinduism: “This is the sum of the Dharma: do naught unto others which would cause you
pain if done unto you.”
Islam: “None of you truly believes until he wishes
for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
The principle is a
universal one, and similar statements can be found everywhere, from Baha’i to
ancient Egyptian writings to Native American spiritual traditions. It is also found in many secular
writings. Socrates, for example, put it
this way: “Do not do to others that
which would anger you if others did it to you.”
All major religions of the world teach
honesty, charity, and compassion. Most
people in the world, when they wrestle with ethical issues, do so through the
lens and perspective offered by their own religious tradition, and most religions
seem to agree on their basic ethics.
It is time to switch gears and answer the
opposite way for a while. Are all
religions really the same? Well, of
course not!
The world=s religions are
reflections of different cultures which present different worldviews. Take, for example, the difference between
Eastern and Western views of the individual.
Western cultures view the individual
as central, and the tradition of Aindividualism@ is an integral
part of our philosophies and religions.
But in the East, the individual=s identity is not so
autonomous; it depends on culture and context for its nature.
There are many implications to these
different worldviews, but one of the more obvious ones concerns religious views
of afterlife. Let me offer you a choice
between two scenarios of afterlife. What
will happen to you after you die? You
have two, and only two choices here.
Scenario #1 is that your life continues in
another world beyond this one. You
maintain your own identity and individuality; you have a memory and a self‑consciousness. Eternal life means that you continue living
as the same person you were when you dwelt on earth, but you are simply
transformed into another environment. I
don't know whether you will have a body or not, but you definitely will have
the same identity, probably the same name, and certainly the same
consciousness.
Scenario #2 is quite different. After death, you do not maintain your
distinct identity, though your essential life force continues. Your soul becomes merged and united with the
cosmos itself and is indistinguishable from other souls. There is eternal life, but not continued
individuality, for each person unites with the soul of the universe, and
contributes in that way to the ongoing rhythm of life. If the metaphor of God is used, you become
united with God. If the metaphor of God
is not used, you become united with the cosmic force of life, whatever that may
be.
Which of these two scenarios would you
choose, if they were your only choices?
Would you like your individual identity to continue, or would you prefer
to be joined and merged with the cosmic life‑force, to contribute to the
power that gives life in the first place?
I think I know what most of us would choose. Most of us who were raised in the West would
make the same choice. Most of us cherish
our individuality above almost anything else, and to continue life without
continuing our distinctive identity makes very little sense to us. For most of us, the first scenario is
therefore the obvious choice.
These two scenarios express some fundamental
differences in values between Western civilizations and Eastern civilizations,
and therefore between Western religions and Eastern religions. Western philosophies, religions, and
ideologies tend to begin with the concept of the individual, and nature is
understood primarily in terms of how it relates to human individuals. Eastern philosophies, religions, and
ideologies tend to begin with the concept of nature and the cosmos, and human
individuals are understood primarily in terms of how they fit into the broader
cosmic system.
Are all religions, then, really the
same? Apparently not. Let me give another example of different
worldviews that also result from the different estimate of the individual and
nature. The Western mind assumes that it
is our obligation and right to control nature.
Because the Westerner begins with the individual, we can read in the
book of Genesis that God gave human beings "dominion" over the earth. Almost no one in the West questions our right
to control nature. For most Western
people, our ecological consciousness is only a very recent phenomenon – for thousands
of years, we gave far more thought about how to conquer and control nature than
we did about how to respect and preserve it. To us, the measure of civilization
is defined in terms of the number of cars or telephones per capita or the speed
of our transportation and communication.
I do not intend to be critical of the
Western idea of human "dominion" over the earth. This notion has been tremendously beneficial
to us over the centuries. I wish only to
point out that it is in fact a Western worldview that we take for granted, and
hardly notice.
The Eastern way of thinking is quite
different. Most Eastern thought begins
not with the individual but rather with the universe into which the individual
fits. As a result, it would be scandalous
to the Eastern mind to assert that human beings are granted the right of
"dominion" over the earth, or the right to exert as much control over
nature as they want.
In Hinduism, where minor gods play a role,
those gods reside in nature, and therefore nature must be approached with
caution and respect. Buddhism is the
most contemplative of religions, and it teaches us how to understand and
accept, rather than control nature.
Perhaps the religion that most emphasizes the primacy of nature is
Taoism, whose central teaching is living in harmony with the forces of
nature. "Don't interfere with
nature," is the constant advice of Taoism.
Here is a line from the book of Tao ‑‑ compare it with the
Genesis statement about humans having "dominion" over the earth. The Tao says, "Those who would take over
the earth and shape it to their will, never will succeed."
So are all religions really the same? Not according to these difference, and these,
I suggest, are not minor differences; they go far deeper than the simple
observation, "But we all worship the same God." Even that statement points to far
deeper differences.
Westerners tend to be monotheistic,
beginning with the ancient Jewish heresy that there is only one God. Hinduism, by contrast, while acknowledging
one primary God, also recognizes 33 million lesser gods, give or take a few
hundred thousand. Buddhism doesn't talk
much about God at all, and some Buddhist sects do not have any belief about
God.
Western people understand God as an
individual, a divine "person," like a super human being who thinks
much like us and acts much like us – only perfect. Western religions also believe that God
intervenes in human affairs, and will "fix" things if they go
wrong. Eastern religions are less likely
to see gods as "personal," and gods remain quite aloof from human
affairs.
To say "We all worship the same
God," even overlooks the fact that "worship" means very
different things around the world. The
Western practice is to gather together and worship as a group, a
congregation. This is almost completely
foreign to Eastern religion, in which worship is more often an activity to be
practiced alone, or within the family.
So there you have it. The world=s religions are,
and are not, the same. I suspect that
when most people ask whether all religions are the same, they are really
wanting to know the answer to a different question. What most people want to know, it seems to
me, is whether any one religion is as good or as bad as any other, or if one is
superior to others. The answer to that,
it seems to me, depends on which religious questions are most important to
us.
It is relatively easy to identify the
questions that religions tend to ask.
What we find in studying the world=s religions is
that each one has a different favorite question. Some of religion=s common questions
are as follows:
First, what is the purpose of life? Why are we here?
Second, how can I cope with suffering in
life?
Third, how do I find personal peace and
contentment?
Fourth is the question of ethics. How do I know what is right and what is
wrong?
And fifth, how do I know truth? On what can I depend?
These are five of many questions that human
beings the world over ask themselves, and usually turn to religion to discover
answers. And the fact is that religions
tend to focus their attention on one question above the others. Here are a few examples.
First, what is the purpose of life, or why
are we here? This is a favorite question
of the Hindus, and they answer that the purpose of life is to discover the hidden
fact that we are Brahman, God. Our
destiny is gradually to uncover the God within us, and thereby achieve oneness
with the divine.
Second, how can I cope with suffering in
life? This is the favorite question of
Buddhism. The answer is that as you
approach enlightenment, you realize that suffering is an illusion because you
slowly discover that life itself is an illusion.
Third, how can I find personal peace and
contentment? Islam has an answer to this
one. The word "Islam" itself
connotes "the peace that comes when one's life is surrendered to
God."
Fourth, how do I know what is right and what
is wrong? Judaism is one of the most
ethically‑centered religions, and has given us the ten commandments,
along with many other rules of personal ethics.
Fifth, how do I know the truth? On what can I depend? Christianity, more than any other religion,
places a high premium on correct belief.
It is the only religion I know of that considers itself to be logically
and rationally "true" in any literal sense. For most other religions, "truth"
is a metaphor that simply helps us understand life better.
Are all religions really the same?
If you think religions
function like a mathematical problem does – to provide the right answer to
life’s perplexing questions – then you will see that religions offer very
different answers indeed, and that is that.
They share a few, but very few,
answers.
But if you think
religion works more like art does – that it provides insight and
interpretation, not some elusive “right answer,” then you can affirm not only
that religions provide differing interpretations, but that the differences are
beneficial to us, for they provide greater lessons. Religions are alike in offering more insight
into the same puzzling questions of life.
The ways in which
religions differ from one another can be significant. The important question, it seems to me, is
how we treat those differences. There
can be several approaches to take.
One approach says that
there is only one right religion, and while others may be well-intentioned,
they are wrong. This approach is not
uncommon, and it carries blinders, denying that adherents of that supposed “one
true religion” have anything to learn from any other religion.
Another approach could
be a form of extreme relativism – each religion has equal value for in the
context of its own culture. This
approach makes no value judgment, just an observation of how the religions fit
within their culture. The gods of each
religion are to be honored for their respective uniqueness, and all religions
are of equal value.
A third approach says
that no religion has the complete grasp of truth, but each one contributes a
different insight into truth. We mortals
can only understand eternal truths subject to our limited and fallible human
capabilities. From our imperfect
perspective, each religion can offer an insight from its own cultural experience,
and each insight offers something of value.
Huston Smith, perhaps the most respected scholar of world religions,
uses the analogy of a stained glass window.
Just as a stained glass window divides the shining light of the sun into
different colors, so also the different religions reflect wisdom from their own
unique perspective. Each religion, like
each color of a stained-glass window, has something to contribute to the
overall vision.
Seen from this
perspective, the fact that religions are so different is an asset to our
understanding. This perspective
acknowledges the significant differences among religions, but admires the
beauty with which each contributes to a greater vision of truth. Like a stained glass window, the beauty of
the whole is enhanced by the differences we see.