The A-Z of Believing: U is for Universalism

The universality of moral concern is not something we learn by being universal, but by being particular. Because we know what it is to be a parent, loving our children, not children in general, we understand what it is for someone else, somewhere else, to be a parent, loving his or her children, not ours – Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

It is often assumed that some religions are universal in spirit, such as Christianity, while others are more particular, such as Judaism. Yet, it won’t be a surprise to regular readers/listeners of this A-Z of Believing that the picture is more complicated, and that generalisations like this suffer from over-simplification.

For example, Christianity does indeed possess particularities of faith, a term which refers to those points religions regard as being of fundamental significance and, in a sense, non-negotiable elements of their relationship to the divine. From the Christian perspective, particularities include the Christian conviction that in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God acted decisively for all humanity. In other words, Christianity is a religion that combines a claim to be universal in scope with the particular demand of exclusiveness in belief: Christ is lord of all and the saviour of all.

The New Testament quotes Jesus saying that: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no one can come to the father except through me” (John 14:6), and the record of early Christian preaching includes the oft-repeated text that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name given to men by which we can be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For its part, Judaism clearly possesses particular features, such as Jewish attachment to the land of Israel and an emphasis on the Torah, which defines the covenantal relationship with God. However, there is also a strong emphasis on universal values, such as on social justice for all, as proclaimed by the biblical prophets in the eighth century BCE, through to the development of Reform Judaism with its emphasis on universalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Like Christianity, Judaism combines particularism with universalism.

For Christianity, universalism is generally understood as God loving or saving all people and God wills all to salvation, but there is disagreement as to whether salvation is limited to believers only (extra ecclesiam nulla salus – “outside the Church there is no salvation”) or to all, regardless of belief. Christian theologians, such as Karl Rahner, have explored the universal salvific will of God. Rahner proposed the concept of “anonymous Christianity” and was concerned with how God can save all people and how Christ can remain the mediator of salvation. Unsurprisingly, Jews and other non-Christians do not welcome the title of “anonymous Christian”.

In the end, particularities of faith will always remain. They are, in fact, irreducible and irrevocable, and should be viewed as such. Alongside and in tension with universalism, particularism is central to the identities of all religions. Attempts to minimise particular religious beliefs increase the likelihood of failure in any authentic inter-religious encounter. Particularisms of faith cannot be glossed over for the purpose of achieving either a superficial accommodation between communities or a watered-down syncretism.

Genuine dialogue goes far beyond merely acknowledging that there are diverse religions in the world. Instead, a mature dialogue recognises, even celebrates, the particularisms that will always be present. Particularism is no barrier to successful inter-religious dialogue. Indeed, such an affirmation is a necessity you might call a universal requirement.

Some may assert that despite particularities of faith, all religions have equal validity and share a universal value system, albeit with distinctive outer trappings. Others may turn inward and seek exclusivism. They assert that their particular faith commitment is the sole path for all people to follow. The former results in a bland relativism, where all religions are viewed as the same with no significant differences or particularities; the latter can result in narrow-mindedness or chauvinism. Accepting the tension between universal values and particularities of faith affords religious believers the right to self-definition on their own terms as well as affirming the same right for their dialogue partners.

There is a temptation for inter-religious dialogue to be limited to the areas of common ground, though these will always provide a bridge. The existence of these particularities of faith means that religions contain features which, although shared in principle, may divide in practice as, for example, whose scripture is divinely revealed and who, ultimately, has the deepest insight into God’s purpose for humanity.

Although from the outside the particularities of faith might seem narrowly possessive, from within, however, they reflect an experience and a tradition which cannot be denied nor ignored, even alongside the universal elements. It takes a high degree of maturity to let opposites coexist without pretending that they can be made compatible. At the same time, it takes the same degree of maturity to respect an opinion which conflicts with one’s own, without attempting to achieve a naive accommodation.

But, thankfully, we do share things in common, not least the universal values arising from what theologians describe as the Golden Rule. I am going to end this letter by reading a series of short quotes taken from seven different sacred texts. Try to guess which quote belongs to which text or religion. The full quote (and the religion to which it belongs) can be found on our website:

1. As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them

2. Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others

3. What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow

4. Treat others as you treat yourself

5. Do to others what you want them to do to you

6. Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you

7. Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful

Not so easy, is it?

Next week is: V is for Violence

Listen to each episode of ‘An A-Z of Believing: from Atheism to Zealotry’ on the Woolf Institute podcast site or wherever you get your podcasts

Written and presented by Dr Ed Kessler MBE, founder and director of the Cambridge-based Woolf Institute, this compelling guide to religious belief and scepticism is a must-read for believers and nonbelievers alike.

Founded in 1998 to explore the relationship between religion and society, the Woolf Institute uses research and education to foster understanding between people of all beliefs with the aim of reducing prejudice and intolerance.

Says Dr Kessler: “Latest surveys suggest that 85 per cent of the world’s population identify themselves as belonging to a specific religion, and in many parts of the world the most powerful actors in civil society are religious. Understanding religion and belief, the role they play and their impact on behaviour and decision-making is, therefore, vital.”

Dr Kessler – who was awarded an MBE for services to interfaith relations in 2011 – is an affiliated lecturer with the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University, a principal of the Cambridge Theological Federation and additionally teaches at the Cambridge Muslim College.

He says: “This A-Z of Believing aims to show how the encounter between religions has influenced and been influenced by the evolution of civilisation and culture, both for good and for ill. I hope that a better understanding of believing will lead people to realise that while each religion is separate, they are also profoundly connected.”