3.4B- Religious pluralism and society Flashcards
(19 cards)
What are multi-faith societies?
-One of the most important issues for Christians living in the 21st Century is how they should relate to people who follow non-Christian religions or who have no religious belief.
-The UK has become religiously diverse, and although Christianity is still the predominant religion, significant proportions of the population practice other religions or reject religion entirely.
-People are encouraged by modern society to tolerate and respect the religions of others, to welcome diversity and to embrace everyone’s freedom to have their own beliefs, tastes and opinions.
-However, this atmosphere of tolerance can put Christians in a difficult position. Sometimes they are left wondering whether it is appropriate and acceptable for them to share their faith openly with others or to try to convert other people to Christianity.
-Occasionally, incidents reach the news headlines, for example when someone chooses to wear a crucifix necklace in the workplace or publicly criticises homosexuality by making reference to the Bible.
-Modern society in the UK seems to hold the view that religious belief is a personal matter that should not be on public display in case it offends the rights of others to have different beliefs.
-Christians might feel that they are not able to say that they think other religions are wrong, for fear of being considered arrogant or judgemental or discriminatory.
-The Christian churches have attempted, in various ways, to address the difficulties for Christians of living in a multi-faith society. For example, the Catholic Church and the C of E have issued statements giving guidance to their members about living a Christian life and speaking about Christianity with members of other faiths.
-Some Christians have also become involved in the more formal practices of inter-faith dialogue, where they meet with members of other faith communities for discussion in an effort to achieve better understanding.
Causes of a multi faith society: Globalisation
-One major factor in the rise of multi-faith societies in the western world is the effect of globalisation.
-Globalisation has become a fashionable term since the 1970s to describe the way we think about the world as increasingly interconnected. The term can be used both negatively and positively.
-Economically, it is often used to refer to the ease of cross-border transactions and de-regularisation of trade restrictions between countries.
-Socially, as Manfred Steger suggests, it describes the way in which human lifestyles, consciousness and fashions can influences each other from one side of the globe to the other.
-Globalisation has been facilitated by the advancement of technology, as well as through politics, for example through the liberalisation of laws which makes travel and free trade comparatively easy.
-Crane and Matten have therefore defined globalisation as ‘deterritorisation’. The impact of deterritorisation means that religious knowledge and belief systems are not isolated to particular cultures and geographical locations but are encountered locally and often literally next door to each other.
Causes of a multi faith society: Migration
There are a number of different reasons why a person or group of persons might move from one region in a country or from country to country. These reasons may include:
- Economic improvement (Economic migration)
- Family reunification (i.e. to places where family members have already migrated)
- Safety (i.e. when refugees move to a new country or region)
In the UK, many people, especially from the Indian subcontinent, migrated to Britain in the middle of the 20th Century from former colonies. During the WWII many Jews fled Nazi Germany and settled in Britain and since then there have been refugees and asylum seekers from parts of Africa and Eastern Europe.
-The result is not just the explosion of non-Christian religions, notably Islam and Hinduism, into a nominally Christian protestant country but also different forms of Christian practice- such as the Evangelical Pentecostal Christianity from Africa and traditional Roman Catholicism from Poland.
-Migration poses many challenges for the exiting mainstream church denominations, For example, established Christian communities can no longer assume they are the primary provider of religious needs. As Michael Barnes says, the situation for some established Christian communities can sometimes feel ‘overwhelming’.
Causes of a multi faith society: Post-Enlightenment mindset
-Post-Enlightenment societies have established what Steven Pinker has called the ‘Humanitarian principle’, the proposal that human get on better when each person takes into account the interests of others. A key precept of the post-Enlightenment mindset is not to judge a person’s particular lifestyle unless it is seen as being harmful in some way to society.
-Western societies therefore regard the place of religion in society as a personal lifestyle choice, as it is not for society to distinguish the truth of religions if they contribute to the welfare of society as a whole.
-The tolerance of many kinds of religions, based on the humanitarian principle, has therefore led to the development of multi-faith societies.
-Despite the following of many different religions occuring, it is about living according to basic convictions about truth.
-Another practical challenge for multi-faith dialogue is how to balance tolerance of diverse religious practices and yet retain integrity of beliefs.
Christianity’s response to multi-faith societies: looking for history
-The way in which Christian churches adjust to multi-faith communities no only has an important contribution to social cohesion as a whole but to their own understanding of what it means to be a Christian in the 21st Century.
-Some scholars argue that in some ways the situation echoes the position the early Christians found themselves in after the death of Christ and before Constantine adopted Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire from 313.
-It might be argued that without the existence of the ‘other’ (other religions, other political ideologies, neighbours and strangers), Christianity would not have developed it own distinctiveness and rich range of beliefs.
-The word ‘other’ has a wide range of meaning and use but it has a very useful part to play in developing the purpose of contemporary inter-faith dialogue. It is important to note the relationship between the use of ‘other’ and ‘othering’. Although the ‘other’ is used negatively it may also be used positively to acknowledge that there exist multiple interpretations of the world.
Theological exclusivism’s responses to inter-faith dialogue
-Restrictive Access Exclusivist’s argue that the purpose of inter-faith dialogue for them besides wishing to be better informed about a non-Christian religion, is that they would probably see dialogue as an opportunity to introduce others to the Gospel with the hope of conversion. As it is not possible to know who the elect are and who they are not, then form them it is a Christian duty to use all opportunities to bring people into direct contact with Christianity. If this objective is clearly understood by other non-Christians then dialogue is possible as it is based on honesty and integrity.
-However, although Universal Access Exclusivists share this desire for honesty and integrity, they consider that for dialogue to be genuine there has to be respect for those we often treat outsiders or ‘others’. This means acknowledging that the truth of God’s revelation is not restricted to Christianity, because as Vatican II taught, the Catholic Church accepts that non-Christian religions “Often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens everyone” Since Vatican II, Roman Catholicism has seen inter-faith dialogue as a means of increased respect and understanding, which is fundamental to the Church’s desire to develop its pastoral care of all people including non-Christians.
-Michael Barnes argues that inter-faith dialogue is taking a more ‘risky option’ for Christians as it necessarily means that those involved will have to question the teaching of the Church past and present. Part of the risk is that in a genuine desire to find the middle ground between Christianity and non-Christian faiths and in seeking to find beliefs and values in common, Christian truth becomes relativised.
-Dominus Iesus wanted to draw a line between accepting ‘rays of truth’ outside the Church and maintaining the doctrine that salvation is only possible by being a member of the Romans Catholic Church as the one true Church. The tension in the Roman Catholic Church between pastoral inclusivism (i.e. treating non-Christian people with respect) and soteriological exclusivism (i.e. believing that only Christians can be saved) is not easily resolved.
-Karl Barth viewed this argument from a Protestant perspective but harks similiarites to Roman Catholicism’s response. Whether Barth is a theological exclusivist or inclusivist, his theology reminds Christians and people of other religious faith against human arrogance which claims to have any monopoly of the truth. In inter-faith terms, Barth’s theology calls for Christians to enter dialogue with deep humility and openness. That is because it is not for humans to dictate when and where God reveals himself, but God alone. Dialogue is therefore about developing one’s own faith in Christ as the light of the world by also recognising that the world contains ‘lesser lights’ which reflect the light of Christ. These lesser lights include non-Christian religions. Many find Barth’s theology frustratingly unclear, especially when it comes to developing a coherent inter-faith theology. Although dialogue only effectively operates in a spirit of openness, humility, and non-judgement the question remains whether Barth’s theology avoids the charge of Christian religions as ‘lesser lights’, which, if true, would undermine genuine dialogue).
Theological inclusivism’s responses to inter-faith dialogue
-The aim of theological inclusivism in inter-faith dialogue is to address the charge of Christian imperialism and therefore to develop and genuine discussion which is not competitive.
-This doesn’t mean to say that those involved in dialogue may not makes critical judgements form their own faith position. If this didn’t happen then the integrity of one’s particular religion would be reduced but it does mean being, as Karl Rahner taught, “tolerant, humble and yet firm towards all non-Christian religions.”
-The distinction between the two kinds of theological inclusivism is especially important when it comes to the practicalities of inter-faith dialogue. Whereas Structural Inclusivists believe that a non-Christian religion as a whole may be the means to salvation, Restrictive Inclusivists reserve salvation to individuals based on the quality of their personal faith.
-For Structural Inclusivists, inter-faith dialogue is aimed at developing institutional changes and understanding (i.e. of religion as a whole), whereas for Restrictive Inclusivists, dialogue focuses on individuals. Additionally, the focus of restrictive Inclusivism inter-faith work is on individual dialogue, often because it is sceptical of institutions to change and because theologically salvation is the result of personal faith and commitment and not via the Church. Inter-faith work is therefore aimed at local communities and less at the global conversations such as ‘Dabru Emet’ and ‘A Common Word’.
-The great strengths of inclusivist theology of inter-faith dialogue is that it balances finding the common or middle ground between religions whilst respecting religious differences.
-However, critics consider that theological inclusivism reduces the creativeness of dialogue.
-For dialogue to be really effective, Christians cannot presume any privileged position as all truth is open-ended.
Theological pluralism’s responses to inter-faith dialogue
-Pluralists make the notion of difference the foundation of inter-faith dialogue. Theological pluralists argue that as religious truth is multifaceted then dialogue with the ‘other’ becomes a genuine quest to enlarge one’s own spiritual view of the world.
-Developing ‘global faith’ through inter-faith dialogue doesn’t mean always looking for the common ground (a weakness of inclusivist dialogue) but actively enjoying disagreement and difference.
-Disagreement resits the tendency of globalisation to treat all religions as if they are essentially the same without any distinctiveness and that they are all worshipping the same God.
-On the other hand, universal theological pluralists do think that different religions are aspects of the same underlying reality ( the ‘Real’, as John Hick calls it). They believe than an appreciation of this provides inter-faith dialogue with the real possibility of establishing world peace.
-They use inter-faith dialogue to develop and promote a ‘global theology’; part of this task is to educate people that the myths of each religion are not concerned with making ultimate claims about Truth, but are instead about overcoming ego and selfishness and living a Reality-centred existence.
-But for ethical theological pluralists this goal is too abstract. While they agree with the underlying principle that inter-faith dialogue should place emphasis on the importance of living unselfishly, the way to do this and establish a fairer and more just world is by using the diverse insights of the great world religions.
-Paul Knitter argues that the purpose of inter-faith dialogue is not in the first instance theological, as Hick argues, but practical. According to Knitter, religions must first act to resolve common problems such as working for peace in combating extremism and radicalisation; only after that is done must each religion reflect and discuss theologically/philosophically how it understands and applies its teachings.
-For theological pluralism to work effectively in inter-religious dialogue it would require all participants to support the pluralist model of religions. This is especially problematic for universal theological pluralists as it effectively means abandoning their faith as a source of truth and seeking to create a common world religion. This notion of inter-faith dialogue is firmly rejected by all Christians.
-Ethical and pluriform theological pluralists regard the purpose of dialogue is to celebrate difference and work towards a more harmonious and fairer world.
-Keith Ward, for example, who broadly supports pluriform theological pluralism, argues that inter-faith dialogue is a significant aid in developing what he calls a ‘global faith’. A global faith is an attitude of openness by anyone of faith who wants to understand another tradition in order to deepen and develop their own.
Mission and conversion
It seems only natural that if we believe something is right or true that we should want others to believe it too. There are many secondary reasons which support why this is desirable:
- holding values in common binds us together and produces a more cooperative and purposeful society;
- having the same belief system validates values and gives them creditability;
- holding beliefs in common gives power and control to a group or leader.
-Persuasion in Christian theological terms equates to mission and conversion. Christianity is in essence a proselytising (the way of attempting to convert people’s religious or political beliefs.) religion, as in Islam. The theological motivation for Christian mission is driven by a desire to prepare people for the Kingdom of God either in this world (to establish a world of peace and justice) or in the afterlife (to pave the way for a union with God in heaven). But in the contemporary western world and in a multi-faith societies overt proselytising in seeking converts to any religion is regarded as an infringement of liberal principles and as an inappropriate use of power. The underlying assumption is that if religious beliefs are essentially private then it is wrong to ‘impose’ your views on others.
Mission and Inter-faith Dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church: Redemptoris Missio 55-57 (This is a set text)
Paragraphs 55-57 in particular deal with the place of mission in inter-faith or inter-religious dialogue, and are summarised as follows:
- “Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church’s evangelizing mission” (paragraph 55) as it is ‘one of its expressions’ and an opportunity for it to give an explicit account of Christian belief.
- Dialogue is possible with non-Christian religions because all religions provide spiritual riches even when they contain “gaps, insufficiencies and errors” (paragraph 55). Dialogue, though, must not be motivated by “tactical concerns or self-interest” but respect because all lawful religions are led by the Holy Spirit (paragraph 56).
- Through dialogue, the Church seeks to uncover the rays of truth “found in individuals and in the religious traditions of mankind” (paragraph 56).
- For dialogue to be effective there must be honesty from both sides and desire to overcome prejudice and intolerance.
- Paragraph deals with different types and modes of dialogues such as: exchanges between experts and official representatives, cooperation with all those safeguarding religious values, sharing spiritual experiences, and developing a ‘dialogue of life’ by sharing spiritual values and giving examples of how these should be lived “to build a more just and fraternal society.”
-In summary, Redemptoris Missio is arguing that all members of the Catholic Church have a duty to be in respectful dialogue with people of other religious faiths.
-Redemptoris Missio gives a special role to the laity (the non-ordained members of the Church) in developing missions through dialogue because they are witnesses of how Christianity can be lived every day.
-Even though missionaries and Christian communities are often misunderstood and their motives questioned, Redemptoris Missio encourages them to be persistent.
-In this way members of the Church can learn more about God’s revelation in the world through non-Christian religions. Dialogues for ordinary people also gives them the opportunity to witness by example how the Christian gospel can be lived authentically.
-Even though dialogue is essential for a better understanding between faiths, the Church has a duty to proclaim the truth of the Christian gospel.
Mission and Inter-faith dialogue in the Church of England: Sharing the Gospel of Salvation (This is a set text)
-The aims and practicalities of mission in the Church of England are set out in its document Sharing the Gospel of Salvation (2010).
-The document begins by outlining the missionary situation in Great Britain and the reasons why members of the Church should be bolder expressing their beliefs in society.
-In summary, Sharing the Gospel of Salvation encourages Christians to be more confident in expressing their faith openly in society. This has to be done with sensitivity, in spite of the openness and generosity but ultimately it is hoped non-Christians might come to accept the truth of Christianity, inter-faith dialogue provides the opportunity for the Church and people of other faiths to work for the good of society.
Mission in other faiths
-
A Common Word Between Us and You was published in 2007. In it, 138 Muslim scholars and cleric met for the first time to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam. Every denomination/school of thought in Islam, and every major Islamic country in the world, was represented in the message, addressed to all Christians. This is one of the most significant documents ever to have been produced relating to Muslim-Christians relations. It is ‘unprecedented’ that religious leaders from several different faiths have met together with a common purpose. It was a common, though not final, word, implying mutual dialogue rather than conversion and supercessionism (Islam has always seem itself as correcting Christianity). It challenges both religions to live up to their own best teachings in ethics and politics. There is no attempt to hide the differences between two religions, but it challenges both to look more closely at the demands made of their believers, especially in the responsibilities to live up to the teachings of their religion expected of each of them. It hopes for an on-going dialogue between the two religions, seeking to find commonalities for debate and discussion.
-Dabru Emet (Speak the Truth) was published as a statement in 2000. Over 150 rabbis and Jewish scholars from around the world signed it. It argues that: - Jewish and Christians worship the same God
- Jews and Christians seek authority from the same book- the Bible (what Jews call ‘Tanakh’ and Christians call ‘the Old Testament’)
- Christians can respect the claim of the Jewish people upon the land of Israel
- Jews and Christians accept the moral principles of Torah.
- Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon
- The humanly irreconcilable difference between Jews and Christians will not be settled until God redeems the entire world as promised in scripture.
- A new relationship between Jews and Christians will not weaken Jewish practice
- Jews and Christians must work together for justice and peace
-The Jewish response was enabled by the rejection by Christians, after the Holocaust, of their belief that Judaism was only important because it was ‘merely’ a preparation for Christianity and that God’s covenant with the Jews was thereby defunct. Dabru Emet was written as a challenge for individual Christians as well as the religion of Christianity to rethink its doctrines, and how it reads the Jewish scriptures, as well as how it uses language in worship, politics and education.
Inter-faith dialogue, social cohesion and impact
-One of the primary aims of inter-faith dialogue is to promote the common good. The common good refers to all elements of a fair, just, cohesive and functioning society. The question as to whether inter-faith dialogue contributes in any significant way is very hard to measure, but those who consider that it does contribute positively do so for two reasons:
- First, religions have a powerful sense of community through traditions, foundational texts and formulated beliefs. A religious community has a far clearer sense of its own values than a purely secular one and , therefore, when there is co-operative inter-faith work and dialogue, then there are likely to be very great advances in social cohesion.
- Second, even if inter-faith dialogue has little national impact compared to other social cohesion initiatives, in some communities where there is a greater density of religious groups the effects are very significant even though they are localised.
-It is hard to measure impact. For example, A Common Word for the Good has generated over 600 articles on Muslim-Christian relations and has been sufficiently significant that leaders such as Prince Ghazi of Jordan have publicly endorsed it. It has encouraged many Muslims and Christians to delve deeper into their shared beliefs and removed mistrust and built up trust.
-On the other hand, inter-faith dialogue is not considered an effective tool when dealing with religiously conservative communities and leaders. Dialogue only occurs because there is already a willingness to participate. For very conservative religious leaders inter-faith work is a sign of weakness and lack of commitment to the truth of one’s faith. Extreme conservatism or fundamentalism is especially attractive to those who feel that society has marginalised them or that society is morally corrupt.
-However, radicalisation and fundamentalism have provided inter-faith dialogue organisations with even more incentive to reconsider their methods and aims. There are more reasons than ever to be persistent and to adopt multi-faceted approaches through the creative use of social media, sports and media personalities.
-Most urgent is the need for each religion to provide its followers with better religious education and understanding of its traditions.
-Inter-faith work can support this by sharing good and effective practice between the different religions.
Should Christians have a mission to those of no faiths?
-Traditionally, Christians understand themselves to have a mission to those of no faith, as well as to anyone else who is not explicitly Christian. The Catholic Church, the Church of England and many other Christian denominations encourage their members to act as ambassadors for Christianity and make deliberate attempts to convert non-believers.
-Often, Christianity and make deliberate attempts to convert non-believers.
-Often, Christians try to do this in ways that are non-confrontational. For example, they may run weekday coffee shops on church premises where people drop in for refreshment and may have their attention drawn to church events and community activities at the same time. They might also offer ‘Alpha courses’, which are introductions to Christianity for people who want to explore what Christianity means. Non-Christians are invited to these, but the courses are not forced on them.
-It tends to be the manner in which mission is conducted that influences whether or not people find it objectionable.
-Most people of no faith do not have a problem with religious believers, except when they try to force their opinions on them in a strident manner.
Should Christians have a mission to those of other faiths?
-Some Christian individuals and groups will say ‘yes’ to this question. They are likely to argue that we live in a society based on persuasion not coercion, on free speech not censorship.
-Christians feel their religion has been very beneficial to them, they have experienced God’s love and forgiveness, entered a community of friendship and support, and want to share those things with others.
-Exclusivists will see conversion as the most important thing in life, because without it people cannot be saved by God’s grace.
-Other Christians will say ‘no’. They will argue that it is often damaging to family relationships when people convert out of a religion.
-The history of anti-Semitism, anti-Islamic feeling and colonialism make it inappropriate to continue to try and convert people; it cuts against social cohesion; inclusivists and universalists can encourage people to be better members of their own religion rather than try to convert them, believing that God will still save them through Christ.
-Also, many Christians believe that God is the only God, so will save members of religions other than Christianity.
What is the Scriptural Reasoning movement?
-The scriptural reasoning movement began to try to provide a new way of approaching inter-faith dialogue. Small groups of religious believers from different faiths meet regularly. A common theme is chosen and then each religion brings a text relating to this theme to the group. The texts are read carefully and then a discussion follows.
-By Christianity and Islam for their sources of authority. Although it began with these three religions, it has successfully held sessions with other religious communities.
-Deepening understanding of other faiths as well as their scriptures helps participants to understand not only key beliefs of the faith but also more about the motivation for these beliefs.
-The focus is on this understanding so that participants can understand why they disagree, rather than desperately trying to find some form of agreement.
-In addition to understanding and exploring differences, strong relationships form between participants, which leads to positive practical work within communities. Scriptural reasoning takes place all over the world in a range of different types of community, including in those affected by religious conflict.
The methods of the Scriptural Reasoning movement
The texts are examined at two levels
-Firstly, the text itself, read at a level appropriate for the participants (they might be a group of academics or a group of schoolchildren). The original language is available alongside the local language, although the guidelines for running sessions are clear that the original language should never be used to prove a point.
-The text is then examined as a text that is lived out in life- beyond a superficial level. Participants are encouraged to be honest about their reading of texts and not to feel that they need to be an expert in their faith tradition. They are also encouraged to avoid generalisations about beliefs held in a tradition: “Christians believe” is seen as a very different phrase to the preferred: “as a Christian, I think this text is saying…”.
-Each group is made up of representatives from each of the religions being explored- it is suggested that there is more than one from each religion so that nobody feels the burden of ‘representing’ their faith on their own.
-There is also a facilitator in the group who maintains the focus on the texts, on the subject matter and on open dialogue. The facilitator’s job is also to maintain the sense of collegiality and also of hospitality- everyone is a guest when presented by someone else’s scriptures.
The aims of the Scriptural Reasoning movement?
-David Ford states that a key advantage of reading texts together is the fact that what is promoted is a long-term conversation and collegiality, which gives it an advantage over other inter-faith movements, which are more short term or one-off encounters.
-Collegiality is the idea that the group together learn to have shared goals and shared experiences- they share responsibility for the success of the process.
-The inspiration for scriptural reasoning comes from the way that Jews have read the Scriptures for thousand of years. It was through observing a Jewish group of philosophers and theologians in dialogue about a text that the inspiration for reading texts from different traditions emerged.
-It is important to remember that it is the discussion that is the focus- the process of discussing, rather than any statement of truth, which makes it very different from other theological approaches to inter-faith dialogue.
-A key Christian challenge to scriptural reasoning depends of whether or not its approach suggests that other faiths are equally valuable and there is no absolute truth.
-If respecting other religions means accepting that they are equally valuable or if learning from someone means that they must be an authority from God, then it is fair to say that the approach to scriptural reasoning does relativise religious belief- and suggest that there is no one absolute religious truth.
-However, not all people would accept this interpretation of the movement.
Has the Scriptural Reasoning movement relativised religion?
Yes:
- Exclusivists might suggest that any suggestion that truth is to be found separately from Christ does relativise religious belief and is dangerous.
- Some might acknowledge that glimpses of that truth can be found in other religions but this is not in the spirit of scriptural reasoning. Some might feel that any deeper engagement might lead to relativising religious beliefs.
- Some inclusivists believe that after encountering the Christian message you can no longer be an anonymous Christian. They might say that the fact that there is no conversion to the normative path to salvation (Christianity) in scriptural reasoning does relativise religious beliefs.
No:
- The richness of the texts promotes collegiality rather than relativity through the emphasis on discussion
- The aim of scriptural reasoning is never to resolve debates not to talk about truth but to engage with the discussion so there is no question of whether or not religious belief is relativised.
- Scriptural reasoning does not try to join together all religions but to recognise that there is wisdom in all traditions and to use that wisdom for each individuals to develop in their own tradition.
Many advocates of scriptural reasoning would observe that the point of the movement is to keep away from categories such as exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist.
