The heart of every religion is the commitment and devotion of each person of the religion to some object [1] which is for those persons of ultimate significance and supreme importance. A religion is not primarily an institutional organization (a church), nor a special set of acts (a ritual), nor a particular set of doctrines and concepts (a theology). A group of persons similarly committed may form a church with a particular ritual. They may also develop a unified doctrinal statement or theology. Such institutions, rites, and creeds are not the heart and core of a religion. These may be included in "religion" in wider sense of the word. And in this sense a religion may be defined as any system of actions or thought held by a group of persons who are committed to the same object of ultimate allegiance and devotion. But since the heart and core of a religion is this commitment, it would seem best to define a religion in the narrower sense of the term as the commitment and devotion of a person or a group of persons to some object of ultimate significance and supreme importance. [2]

The object of ultimate significance and supreme importance to which a person of group of persons is committed and devoted is the "god" of that religion. This object of trust and worship may be self, society, power, experience, nature, reason, the family, the state or some supernatural reality. The term "god" need not refer to the personal God of the Christian religion or the object of trust or worship of any historical or organized religion. It is a functional term; that is, a term which takes its meaning from the particular function or operation performed by the object to which the term is applied. A god performs the function of the object of supreme importance and ultimate significance to which persons may commit and devote themselves. "Taken by itself this word [god] carries as little specific meaning as the word 'good.' Both are empty receptacles whose content varies from man to man and from religion to religion." [3] Martin Luther in his Larger Catechism states it very clearly, "Whatever, then, thy heart clings to and relies upon, that is properly thy god." [4]

Every man must have a god. By his very constitution he must necessarily have a god to which he can commit and devote himself, in which he can trust. This is apparent from an analysis of human freedom or decision. There are three elements in every decision: the ability to choose, the alternatives or options to be choosen between, and the criterion by which the choice is made. This third element means that every human decision involves a reference to a criterion beyond the self. In other words, behind every human decision as to what a person should do or think, there must be a reason. And the ultimate reason for any decision, practical or theoretical, must be given in terms of some particular criterion, an ultimate reference or orientation point beyond the self or person making the decision. This ultimate criterion is that person's god. In this sense every man must have a god, that is, an ultimate criterion of decision. Thus in the very exercise of his freedom, decision, man shows that he is such a creature that must necessarily appeal to an ultimate criterion, a god. In fact, his every uncoerced decision implies this ultimate criterion. From this point of view, no man is an atheist in the basic meaning of that word (that is, no god). Every man must have a god. Man is a religious animal who must necessarily have some object of ultimate allegiance and trust which functions as his guide of truth and his norm of conduct. Every man must choose a god. Though free to adopt the god of his choice, no man is free to avoid this decision. Every attempt to do so turns out to be not a denial of the of having a god but an exchange of gods. Every man must choose and have a god. To ask whether one believes in the existence of God is to completely misunderstand the issue. The issue is not whether one should choose between atheism or theism, that is, to believe in the existence of God, but whether one should choose this god or that god as the true God.

Since there are many objects to which a person or group of persons may commit or devote themselves, it is probably improper to speak of religion in the singular. It would be more correct to speak of religions than of religion. However, if the singular form the word is used, it may be used to refer to one of the many religions or, when taken as a collective noun, to refer to the formal characteristics common to all religions. This common core is the commitment and devotion to something as god.

There is no one all-inclusive religion. It is incorrect to conclude from the fact that the common essence of all religions is an ultimate commitment that all religions are basically the same (for example, as in the idealistic and rationalistic theories of religion). The fallacy of this conclusion consists in the assumption that since dissimilar religions have in common the same characteristics, they are identical in content. This is like saying that because baseball and tennis are both athletic activities, they are the same. There are as many religions as there are gods.

It is also incorrect to conclude that, since every man must have a god, all men therefore acknowledge the same god under different names and hence that all religions are "variations on a single theme" (Arnold Toynbee). To use a favorite illustration of the proponents of this view, everyone is climbing toward the summit of the same spiritual mountain, and it is therefore foolish to quarrel over whose route is the best. The fallacy of this position lies in the assumption that, since rival gods all have the same functional label ("god"), they are at the bottom identical. This is like saying that, since Louis XIV and Henry VIII were both kings, they are basically the same person.

Upon analysis this position turns out to be a clever argument for one particular god: the undifferentiated unity of mysticism in which all contraries merge [see W.T.Stace, Time and Eternity (Princeton University Press, 1952)]. The appeal of this position to universal tolerance is really an adroit piece of propaganda for this god. Its contention that all gods are fundamentally the same attempts to cover its claim to be the true God.

Another appeal that this position has is that life's most urgent question can be safely ignored; namely, "Which god is the true God?" But this cannot be gotten rid of so easily. Since every man by the structure of his freedom must have a god, he must choose beween rival claimants. And since the claims of these rival gods to be the true God are mutually exclusive, man must choose between them. Only one of them can be the true God. Hence the famous words of the prophet Elijah, "If Jehovah be God, then follow him; but if Baal, then follow him" (I Kings 18:21 ARV). [5] Of course this question is more difficult to face in the modern twentieth century America because rival gods are not easily identified as such. They have become more sophisticated and civilized. But absence of a label does not alter the contents of the package. Although anonymous, they are none the less gods when they become the object of faith and trust in a man's life. If anything, they are more dangerous and deceptive because they are not generally recognized as gods.

Since everyone must have a god, the crucial question for every man is: Which god is the true God? Or to put the question differently: How are we to distinguish between the one true God on the one hand, and the many false gods on the other? In other words by what means can we determine which of all possible gods are pretenders and which is the true one? The clue to the answer to these questions may be found in a further analysis of freedom.

As we have already seen, every man by the structure of his freedom must have a god. That is, in every one of his choices a man must necessarily appeal to some criterion by reference to which the decision is made. An the ultimate criterion by which a man makes his choices is his god. Clearly then the choice of one's god is the most basic and fundamental choice that a man can make, it lies behind and is presupposed by every other decision as to what a man will do or think; it is clearly the most important exercise of his freedom. What should one choose as his ultimate criterion of decision? Negatively, he should not choose that as his ultimate criterion which will deny, destroy or limit the very freedom of choice by which it is choosen. And positively, he should choose that ultimate criterion which will enhance and fulfil that freedom. Any ultimate criterion that denies or takes away the very freedom of choice by which it is chosen cannot be the true God. The choice of such an ultimate criterion is a contradiction of man's basic freedom of choice; such a god is fatal to man's freedom.

By freedom we do not mean purposeless caprice or chance, indeterminism, but rather the ability of choice, freedom of decision, self-determination. Neither is this freedom an abstract entity, "freedom-in-general," Freiheit, but rather the concrete decision of someone, of a free agent. The most appropriate word for such a being who has such freedom is the word "person." A person is a being that is self-determining, not determined, who has freedom, free will, the ability to choose. A person is to be distinguished from a non-person, a thing, an "it", a being that is determined, not self-determining, that has no freedom, no free will, no ability to choose.

A god that is a thing has less freedom than the person who chooses it as his god. Such a god does not have as much freedom as its worshippers. Now a god who does not have at least the freedom that man himself has cannot be the true God. It cannot do any more for them than they can do for themselves. Such a god is only the projection of the whims and fancies of the worshippers because it is in reality inferior to its worshippers. As a minimum criterion, therefore, a god can be recognized as a false god if it has less freedom than man himself. [6] To choose such a god as one's ultimate criterion of choice would be a denial of one's freedom of choice and the worst kind of bondage. An impersonal or non-personal god must therefore be a false god because it does not have as much freedom as the one who chooses it as his god. The commitment to such a god is the denial of human freedom. A false god can be recognized by the effect that it has upon the freedom of the one who gives it his allegiance; it limits the freedom and puts into bondage the one who choose it as his god. The true God, on the other hand, sets free the one committed to Him and fulfils and enhances his freedom. The true God must be at least a person in order to have at least as much freedom as the one who chooses Him as his god. But the true God must not only be a person, He must also have unlimited freedom if He is to be able to do the things He promises and to deliver the one who cries to Him in trouble and need. A god without unlimited freedom might not be able to keep his promises or to save the one who cries to him. Therefore, a god that does not have unlimited freedom must be a false god. The prophet Isaiah applied this criterion to the denunciation of idolatry.

"⁶ Those who lavish gold from the purse,
and weigh out silver in the scales,
hire a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god;
then they fall down and worship!
⁷ They lift it upon their shoulders, they carry it,
they set it in its place, and it stands there;
it cannot move from its place.
If one cries to it, it does not answer
or save him from his trouble." (Isa. 46:6-7)
(See also Isa. 44:18-20; 45:20-21; Psa. 115:2-7; 135:5-7, 15-17.)

The Apostle Paul in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans refers to these criteria to show that man is without excuse for his idolatry.

"¹⁹ Because that which is known of God is manifest in them;
for God manifested it to them.
²⁰ For since the creation of the world
the invisible things of Him,
both His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made,
so they are without excuse."
(Rom. 1:19-20 ERS)

It is this knowledge of what the true God must be like that lies behind all primitive religions, with their anthromorphic gods. Primitive man knows what a god must be like in order for it to be the true God. This knowledge derived intuitively from the nature of his freedom makes him uneasy about the things that he worships as god. He knows that the true God must be a living God. But having failed to encounter such a God, he fills the vacuum with what he imagines to be a facsimile of Him. And since the highest living being he knows is himself, he makes gods in his own image. He also knows that the true God must be a God of unlimited power, not limited like himself. He therefore identifies these anthromorphic creations with the powerful forces that he sees in the physical world about him. Beyond the simple and profound suspicion that such a God does exist, he is at the end of his knowledge ("...whom ye ignorantly worship..." Acts 17:23 KJV).

In what way can man find any additional knowledge of the true God? In the same way in which he gets knowledge about another person: by what the other person says and does. But the initiative lies with the other person. If he remains silent and inactive, no knowledge is available in addition to the fact that he is there. Therefore, if man is to know anything additional about the true God, God must take the initiative and reveal Himself in word and/or deed. And God has taken the initiative and has revealed Himself in word and deed. The Bible is a record of the "words and the mighty acts of God." The true God is not silent and He is not inactive; He has spoken and He has acted. This is recorded for us in a book, the Bible. And we know that these are the words and deeds of the true God because they are the words and the acts of a God who is personal being and has unlimited freedom and power. The God who is revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the living God who created all things.
(The living God - Joshua 3:10; I Sam. 17:26; Psa. 84:2; Jer. 10:10; Matt. 16:16; Acts 14:15; I Thess. 1:9; I Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:31;
The Creator - Gen. 1:1; 2:3-4; Ex. 4:11; Neh. 9:6; Job 38:4; Psa. 90:2; 102:25; 104:1-5, 24; Isa. 40:28; 44:24; 45:11-12, 18; 48:12-13; Jer. 10:11-12; John 1:1-3; Acts 17:24; I Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10; 11:3; Rev. 4:11).
Because He is a person, He is alive; and because He has unlimited freedom, He is the all powerful Creator of all things. The God of the Bible is the true God, and all other gods are false.

The Bible records the revelation of God that has taken place in many ways and at many times, but supremely and ultimately in His Son, who became the man, Jesus Christ.

"¹ In many and various ways
God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
² but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son,
whom he appointed the heir of all things,
through whom he also created the world.
³ Who being the radiance of the glory of God and
bearing the very stamp of his nature,
upholding the universe by his word of power,
when he had made cleansing of sins,
he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
⁴ having become as much superior to angels
as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."
(Heb. 1:1-4 ERS).

But even though these Christian confessions affirm that Jesus Christ is God, they never say that God is Jesus Christ, as though Jesus Christ is all that there is to God. On the contrary, they also affirm a faith in the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Eph. 1:3; I Peter 1:3) As Paul writes to the Corinthians,

"But for us there is one God, the Father,
from whom are all things and for whom we exist,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and through whom we exist."
(I Cor. 8:6).

ENDNOTES

[1] The use of the term "object" here and in the following discussion is not intended to indicate that the object of the commitment and devotion is a non-person. Whether the object of religious trust and worship should be a person or a non-person or suprapersonal is a subject for discussion in another context.

[2] "Fundamental to all religion is the experience of commitment or dedication."
[David Elton Trueblood,
Philosophy of Religion
(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), p. 11.]
"An individual's religion, any individual's religion, is his commitment to something or someone which is for him of ultimate significance... It would seem that this is really a common core of all so-called 'historical religions,' which may vary widely as to the content of a proper commitment. They are all agreed, however, that man is to commit his life to something which is of supreme importance, and it is this which makes them religious. Religion is a leap of faith which man makes in regard to that which seems most important to him."
[Harold A. Durfee,
"The Relationship of Philosophy, Theology, and Religion,"
Journal of Religion, Vol. XXXII, No. 3, (1952) pp. 188-189.]

[3] E. La B. Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1955), p. 40.

[4] Martin Luther, "Larger Catechism," in
Luther's Primary Works
(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896), p. 34.

[5] All quotations from the Scripture are taken from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Holy Bible (NT-1946, OT-1952) unless otherwise noted. The following symbols will be used to designate other translations.

KJV	King James Version, 1611
RV	English Revised Version, 1881-1885
ARV	American Revised Version, 1901
GNB	Good News Bible, 1976
NAS	New American Standard, 1971
NEB	New English Bible, 1961-1970
NIV	New International Version, 1978
ERS	My own translation from the Greek or Hebrew

[6] E. La B. Cherbonnier,
"Biblical Metaphysics And Christian Philosophy"
THEOLOGY TODAY, vol. IX, No. 3, (Oct. 1952) pp. 360-375.
To read this article click here.

[7] The Jerusalem statement in 1928 said, "Our message is Jesus Christ. He is the revelation of what God is and what men through him may become."
[quoted by Walter M. Horton,
Christian Theology, an Ecumenical Approach
(New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1955) p. 20]
The Faith and Order Movement interpreted the Jerusalem statement at Edinburgh, in 1937, as follows:
"We acknowledge that all who accept Jesus Christ as Son of God and their Lord and Savior, and who realize their dependence on God's mercy revealed in Him, have in that fact a supernatural bond of oneness which subsists in spite of divergences in defining the mystery of the Lord..."
"We are one in faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God. We are one in allegiance to Him as Head of the Chruch and as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We are one in acknowledging that this allegiance takes precedence over any other allegiances that make claim upon us."
[Edinburgh Report, Chapter III, sec. viii, and concluding "Affirmation of Unity" as quoted by Horton, Christian Theology, p. 179]