Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many? (Hardcover)

by Schubert M. Ogden (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 114 pages
• Publisher: Southern Methodist University Press; 1st edition (April 1992)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0870743287
• ISBN-13: 978-0870743283
• Product Dimensions: 8.7 x 5.9 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,759,026 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Ogden's Caught In a Time-warp!, August 1, 2008

By	Readalots (South Texas, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many? (Paperback)

As I recently turned to Schubert Ogden's "Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many?" (1992 114-page hardback) I was trust back decades into the well-worn Process Theology. What an unpleasant stroll down memory lane. By the book's conclusion I am again wondering if systematic process theology is not really heretical. (Certainly, 19th century German liberal Systematic Process Theology remains untenable and useless.)

Inventing and describing three theological options (pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism) for refuting believers' religion as uniquely true, Ogden diligently (and unpersuasively) proposes a fourth original (but not novel) character. Insisting on religion's appropriateness and credibility for its witness and common experience, he oddly concludes a double standard for "monism's" inclusive exclusivity. Correctly, Ogden says that pluralism is not the consistent replacement for exclusivism.

Most perplexing is Ogden's lack of scriptural reference (from any of the world's "axial religions"). Has he once again forgotten that every religion, whether "true or not", is rooted in its holy writing? In deed, there is little sourcing of any kind through this book (keeping it from earning more stars).

To define a religion as "true or not" without intimate consideration of its holy writ is to miss the mark (harmetia) about its truth and value. But again, Systematic Theology is unconcerned about value, religious or otherwise. Ogden misses his target- those opposed to modern German liberal theology.

Of course, Ogden is speaking from the pre Sept. 11th world untrained in the psycho-political power of religion. Today's true religion is identifiable in the public actions of its believer. And believer praxis continues to define the only true (orthodox) religion.

Ogden's is a cogent and fascinating argument. It is recommended to those with an interest in German liberal theology of the past two centuries, old time Process Theology, and students of religious/theological history.

6 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Ah, Process Theologians! Gotta love them! Not!, June 10, 2005

By	G. Stucco "mr guido" (usa) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many? (Paperback)

Ogden's contention is subtle and a bit obscure. First, he identifies the three soteriological approaches to other religions: exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. Second, he proceeds to critique each one in turn. Third, he proceeds to set forth a fourth view, which he does not care to name. More on that later.
Exclusivism's assertion that Christianity is the only true religion and that other faiths have absolutely no salvific value is beneath Ogden's contempt.He flatly and forcefully rejects it as incompatible with the biblical evidence for God's goodness and universal salvific will. He also charges it of not being conformed to experience and reason. He concludes that Exclusivism is not "credible to human existence" and an inappropiate representation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Ogden also rejects Inclusivism, both in its "pluralistic" (other religions are paths of salvation, even though they are superseded or fulfilled by the Gospel) and "monistic" (other religions are not salvific: their members can still be saved despite of their beliefs, not because of them) thanks to the mediation of Christ (of which they are not aware).
Ogden rejects both Exclusivism and Inclusivism because he cannot stomach the idea that only one religion is true and others automatically false. Does it mean that he accepts and embrace Pluralism, then? By no means. According to him, Pluralism is not the logical and unavoidable outcome of a consistent movement toward other religions, but rather an independent assertion that must stand or fall on its own.
After noting that despite of the similarieties between all religions we cannot conclude that indeed they are saying the same thing about Ultimate Reality (p.61, 64, 66), Ogden argues that Pluralism's claim that there are de facto other salvific religions is unwarranted. His thesis, which he advocates as a viable soteriological view in aternative to the other three, is that THERE COULD BE true religions out there, and that the Cross of Christ simply makes salvation manifest, NOT possible. What he calls "the Christ event" cannot be the cause of salvation because the love of God is.
What should we make of this little book, originally a lecture he delivered? Let us proceed in order. First of all, I was uncomfortable with talk about "true religion". This kind of talk marks a shift from the proper focus on a salvific event (e.g., the Gospel of Jesus Christ; the setting in motion of the Dhamma Wheeel by Buddha; the revelation of God to Moses in the Torah) to its embodiment in space and time. In other words, who cares to argue for the exclusive truthfulnnes of an ENTIRE body of beliefs, customs and practices called "religion"? It makes more sense to argue whether a salvific event is indeed exclusive of others or not. Also, I disagree with his all too quick dismissal of inclusivism and exclusivism and, worse yet, I lament his total disregard for the biblical witness in support of these views.
All in all, the book reads well, but because of its "polite condescendence" and lack of clarity in outlining the "fourth" soteriological view (by the way: I wonder how it has been received in the theological community) I do not recommend it to the general public.