To what extent does scriptural reasoning relativise religious beliefs? Flashcards
(14 cards)
Introduction
- Context
- Scriptual reasoning
- core debate
- LOA
• Context: In a modern, pluralist society, interfaith engagement is increasingly common due to globalisation, immigration, and communication technologies. Christians and followers of other religions now frequently interact with people of different beliefs. This has led to the emergence of initiatives like Scriptural Reasoning.
• Scriptural Reasoning (SR): A method of interfaith dialogue where participants from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam discuss scripture on common themes, aiming not at conversion or agreement, but mutual understanding and respect. • Core Debate: Does this process, by treating diverse religious scriptures as equally valid conversation partners, relativise religious belief, suggesting no single religion holds absolute truth? • Line of Argument: While Scriptural Reasoning could be seen to relativise religious belief by treating all faiths as having equal conversational weight, in practice, it can deepen personal faith commitments while enhancing interfaith respect—provided clear doctrinal boundaries are maintained.
Paragraph 1: Scriptural Reasoning and the Risk of Relativism
A01
Definition and method: SR involves faith groups reading scriptures on shared themes (e.g. marriage, justice), discussing them in light of their own traditions. Conversion and agreement are not goals—respectful engagement is.
Core ethos: Emphasises openness, equality, and mutual understanding—each religion’s texts are treated as serious sources of wisdom, even if doctrinally incompatible.
Paragraph 1: Scriptural Reasoning and the Risk of Relativism
A02: Risk of relativism
• Critics argue SR implicitly endorses the idea that no one religion has a monopoly on truth. If each religion is treated as equally valid in discussion, does this not reduce truth to a matter of perspective?
• This can conflict with traditional exclusivist or inclusivist positions (e.g. Redemptoris Missio), which assert that salvation comes only through Christ, even if non-Christians can unknowingly receive Christ’s grace.
• Evangelical Christians may fear this undermines the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) to “make disciples of all nations”, by implying that proclaiming Christ is not necessary if all religions are seen as equally valuable.
Paragraph 1: Scriptural Reasoning and the Risk of Relativism
A02: Counterpoint – Subjective enrichment
• Proponents argue that SR does not relativise belief, but encourages participants to better articulate and reflect on their own faith.
• It supports deep particularity: participants speak from their own tradition, not as neutral philosophers. This means Christians can affirm Christ as the unique path to salvation without undermining dialogue.
• Christian thinkers may view it as relational apologetics—where understanding other beliefs better can strengthen one’s commitment and improve evangelism through respect rather than coercion.
Paragraph 1: Scriptural Reasoning and the Risk of Relativism
A02: Judgement
Judgement: The risk of relativism exists, especially for those who conflate respect with agreement. But this is not intrinsic to SR—it depends on how participants frame and engage in the process.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2: Pluralism, Evangelism, and the Function of Dialogue in Society
Paragraph 2: Pluralism, Evangelism, and the Function of Dialogue in Society
A01 content
• Redemptoris Missio (1990) affirms interreligious dialogue as part of the Church’s mission—acknowledging truth and holiness in other traditions, while maintaining that the Church has the “fullness of means of salvation”.
• Sharing the Gospel of Salvation (2010) takes a similar line: evangelism should be respectful and dialogical, not coercive. Christianity’s truth should be “proclaimed” through both word and deed.
• SR provides a platform for this kind of respectful interaction—highlighting differences without aggressive proselytism.
Paragraph 2: Pluralism, Evangelism, and the Function of Dialogue in Society
A02: Supportive of Christian ethics in a pluralist society
• In a society where religiously motivated conflict (e.g. in Gaza or broader interreligious tensions) can deepen division, SR contributes to social cohesion by promoting peaceful understanding across faith lines.
• It aligns with Jesus’ teaching of neighbourly love and the Church’s role as a reconciliatory body (2 Corinthians 5:18).
Paragraph 2: Pluralism, Evangelism, and the Function of Dialogue in Society
A02: Not a compromise, but a necessity
• In the modern world, where faith diversity is unavoidable, not engaging risks alienation and misrepresentation.
• SR, when grounded in strong doctrinal identity, enables dialogue without dilution. One can be confidently Christian and respectfully interfaith.
Paragraph 2: Pluralism, Evangelism, and the Function of Dialogue in Society
A02: Limits to cohesion
• Critics argue that SR may be superficial, glossing over fundamental contradictions between belief systems (e.g. the divinity of Christ vs. Islamic tawhid).
• This might create an illusion of agreement while concealing unresolved theological tension.
• Still, the goal is not to harmonise beliefs but to live peacefully and justly alongside one another—a practical social goal distinct from theological relativism.
Paragraph 2: Pluralism, Evangelism, and the Function of Dialogue in Society
A02: Judgement
Judgement: In practice, SR offers a model of robust pluralism rather than relativism, encouraging constructive engagement without eroding core Christian doctrines—provided the Church remains clear on where dialogue ends and doctrine begins.
Conclusion
Summary
• Summary: Scriptural Reasoning does open up questions about truth claims across religions, but does not necessarily relativise belief. Rather, it fosters deeper theological reflection and mutual understanding in a pluralist context.
Conclusion
Final judgement
• Final Judgement: The extent to which SR relativises religious belief depends entirely on the attitude of its participants. If entered with a clear commitment to one’s own faith and an openness to listen, it serves as a powerful tool for deepening belief—not diluting it. In this way, it is more of a threat to arrogance than to orthodoxy.
Conclusion
LOA
Line of Argument Reasserted: Scriptural Reasoning does not intrinsically relativise religious belief. Instead, it challenges believers to articulate and affirm their truth more rigorously within a respectful and pluralist framework. It is only when doctrinal confidence is lacking that relativism might result.
