Completing a book: Disputed questions in the theology of religions
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Bristol
Department Name: School of Humanities
Abstract
In this book I wanted to describe and contribute to the discussion of five 'quaestiones disputatae' (disputed questions) in the field of 'theology of religions'. Theology of religions is currently defined in terms of how: Christian theology relates to and assesses other religions; whether non-Christians are 'saved'; and whether other religions can be a means of salvation despite the claim that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone; and by attention to a number of other questions.
In the first chapter I want to argue that world 'religions' have been problematically seen in a unitary fashion as if they were clear analogues to 'Christianity'. This cultural production of religion started in the seventeenth century and has skewed the radical difference and otherness of non-Christian beliefs and practices. I argue for a more theological definition of 'religion' that relies neither on seeing the 'other' as if they were a mirror image of 'Christianity' (distorted or otherwise); or on assessing the other in Christian terms. This allows for a new form of contextualised and specific engagement with the cultural and political phenomenon of a religion in a particular time and place which forgoes any overall general theology of religions.
In the second chapter I isolate key social and political, rather than theological, factors that have shaped the theological debate in Europe and the United States since the nineteenth century. I examine the influences of colonialism, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, secularism and capitalism to show how these factors have actually dictated various theological positions. I argue that this situation in which non-theological considerations dictate theological positions requires remedy, without in any way insulating theology from history and other disciplines.
In the third chapter I examine the vexed question as to whether non-Christians are saved or not. I want to show how this debate has been reliant on a particular model of mapping out positions in the theology of religions utilised since the mid nineteenth century which has unduly shaped the question into an either/or choice. I criticise this model and argue that this issue is not a question that can or should be answered for theological reasons and that this question should be removed from the disputed questions in this field.
In the fourth chapter, I turn to the question of whether in principle a non-Christian religions can be the means of salvation. This particular question has received much attention in the reaction to Jacques Dupuis book, so I outline the arguments on both sides of the Dupuis debate. I want to suggest that a resolution to this central debate can be reached through utilising the technical distinction between a sacrament and a quasi-sacrament (in effect the former being an objective effacious saving act, regardless of the respondent's disposition or the giver's disposition; and the latter being dependent on both the giver and the respondent for its effacious nature). I shall argue that other religion can be quasi-sacramental in principle, although the question of whether they are in practice is entirely another matter. They cannot be sacramental in principle or practice.
In the final chapter I turn to the recent debate about the social and political 'clash of civilizations' (Samuel Huntington) and the importance of democracy to negotiate religious differences (Jeffrey Stout). I shall be arguing that both thinker's over-value democracy and its historical role in religious civilisations and show how careful and reasoned argument between and within traditions can be pursued without the social necessity of democracy. I am not concerned to advance an anti-democratic position as such, but to question whether democracy is a 'sacred cow'. This chapter is also an attempt to show how theological reasoning is central to determining social and political considerations.
In the first chapter I want to argue that world 'religions' have been problematically seen in a unitary fashion as if they were clear analogues to 'Christianity'. This cultural production of religion started in the seventeenth century and has skewed the radical difference and otherness of non-Christian beliefs and practices. I argue for a more theological definition of 'religion' that relies neither on seeing the 'other' as if they were a mirror image of 'Christianity' (distorted or otherwise); or on assessing the other in Christian terms. This allows for a new form of contextualised and specific engagement with the cultural and political phenomenon of a religion in a particular time and place which forgoes any overall general theology of religions.
In the second chapter I isolate key social and political, rather than theological, factors that have shaped the theological debate in Europe and the United States since the nineteenth century. I examine the influences of colonialism, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, secularism and capitalism to show how these factors have actually dictated various theological positions. I argue that this situation in which non-theological considerations dictate theological positions requires remedy, without in any way insulating theology from history and other disciplines.
In the third chapter I examine the vexed question as to whether non-Christians are saved or not. I want to show how this debate has been reliant on a particular model of mapping out positions in the theology of religions utilised since the mid nineteenth century which has unduly shaped the question into an either/or choice. I criticise this model and argue that this issue is not a question that can or should be answered for theological reasons and that this question should be removed from the disputed questions in this field.
In the fourth chapter, I turn to the question of whether in principle a non-Christian religions can be the means of salvation. This particular question has received much attention in the reaction to Jacques Dupuis book, so I outline the arguments on both sides of the Dupuis debate. I want to suggest that a resolution to this central debate can be reached through utilising the technical distinction between a sacrament and a quasi-sacrament (in effect the former being an objective effacious saving act, regardless of the respondent's disposition or the giver's disposition; and the latter being dependent on both the giver and the respondent for its effacious nature). I shall argue that other religion can be quasi-sacramental in principle, although the question of whether they are in practice is entirely another matter. They cannot be sacramental in principle or practice.
In the final chapter I turn to the recent debate about the social and political 'clash of civilizations' (Samuel Huntington) and the importance of democracy to negotiate religious differences (Jeffrey Stout). I shall be arguing that both thinker's over-value democracy and its historical role in religious civilisations and show how careful and reasoned argument between and within traditions can be pursued without the social necessity of democracy. I am not concerned to advance an anti-democratic position as such, but to question whether democracy is a 'sacred cow'. This chapter is also an attempt to show how theological reasoning is central to determining social and political considerations.
Organisations
People |
ORCID iD |
| Gavin D'Costa (Principal Investigator) |