First parliament of the world religions

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first Parliament of World Religions ( First Parliament of the World's Religions ) was an international interreligious Congress, to 27 September 1893 in of 11 Chicago , Illinois, was in session. The meeting of representatives of all major world religions in one place had never been seen before and was unique. The primary intention was the peaceful dialogue between the major world religions Judaism , Christianity , Islam , Hinduism , Taoism , Confucianism , Zoroastrianism , Shintoism , Buddhism and Jainism .

Attendees

History of origin

The Parliament of the World's Religions was part of the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893. This international event was decided by the US Congress in 1890 and scheduled for a period of six months, starting on May 1, 1893. As expected, there was initially no direct connection to the topic of world religions. This was first brought up by Charles Carroll Bonney , a lawyer from Illinois . His vision of the World's Fair included a gathering of intellectual representatives from all over the world as the "crowning achievement" of the event. In his opinion, such a series of up to twenty world congresses would be far more important than the usual, purely material representation of human progress at the exhibition: "Something higher and nobler is demanded by the enlightened and progressive spirit of the present age." On the one hand, Bonney showed the necessary commitment to implement such a plan and, on the other hand, had the talent to convey his ideas well, and so he quickly found approval from the organizers. The World's Congress Auxiliary was created as an official part of the overall exhibition and Bonney himself was appointed President of the same. With slogans such as "Not Things, but Men" or "Not Matter, but Mind", this organizing committee established itself rapidly, and with it the implementation of the planned series of congresses, the individual congresses of which should each last a few weeks. Thus, under Bonney's control, an elaborate organizational apparatus developed that planned all events in detail.

The subject of religion was Bonney's primary concern in relation to these supplementary conventions. He himself belonged to the New Jerusalem Church and all of his congress ideas clearly showed the character of the teachings of Swedenborg , the ideal forerunner of this church: a relative openness to other religions and a tendency towards universalism can be discovered in the entire concept of parliament. According to Swedenborg, God's revelations are by no means limited to Christianity, but can be found all over the world at all times. Furthermore, he worked hard to bring religion and science into harmony. Here at the latest it becomes clear that the world exhibition offered an almost perfect opportunity to set such an example. This explains why Bonney was able to give parliament a universalistic structure and at the same time was a deeply religious person who saw his calling in this project.

The visionary needed another planning committee that dealt exclusively with the Parliament of Religions. This is how the sixteen-member General Committee of Organization on Religious Congresses came into being . It was chaired by John Henry Barrows , pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Chicago, who proved to be very suitable for the implementation of parliament and complemented his planning partner Bonney surprisingly well with energy. The committee also provided a cross-section of many denominations ; its members, all from Chicago, were representatives of the Presbyterian , Reformed Episcopal , Unitarian , Protestant Episcopal , New Jerusalem , Congregational , Baptist , Methodist and Lutheran Church as well as a Quaker , the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago and a rabbi. After about four years of planning, the agenda for the parliament was set and during this time it was published in the so-called Preliminary Address and two other letters and sent around the world. Here, too, Barrows did an immense amount of work by sending more than 10,000 letters and 40,000 documents according to his own account. These messages set the guidelines for Parliament, the motto of which has since been based on a quote from the Old Testament: "Don't we all have a father? Didn't a God create us?" (( Mal 2,10-16  LUT )) It is astonishing that even leaders of other religions were invited to contribute ideas to the program.

The general tenor of Parliament can be exemplified very well by the statements of its organizers. In his opening speech in front of the assembled audience, Bonney dealt with the concept of religion:

“In this Congress the word 'Religion' means the love and worship of God and the love and service of man. We believe the scripture that 'of a truth God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him.' We come together in mutual confidence and respect, without the least surrender or compromise of anything which we respectively believe to be truth or duty [...]. We meet on the mountain height of absolute respect for the religious convictions of each other; and an earnest desire for a better knowledge of the consolations which other forms of faith than our own offer to their devotees. The very basis of our convocation is the idea that the representatives of each religion sincerely believe that it is the truest and the best of all; and that they will, therefore, hear with perfect candor and without fear the convictions of other sincere souls on the great questions of the immortal life. [...] we seek in this Congress' to unite all religion against all irreligion; to make the golden rule the basis of this union; and to present to the world the substantial unity of many religions in the good deeds of religious life. ' Without controversy, or any attempt to pronounce judgment upon any matter of faith or worship or religious opinion, we seek a better knowledge of the religious condition of all mankind, with an earnest desire to be useful to each other and to all others who love truth and righteousness. "

Course of the meetings

construction

The Parliament of the World's Religions met at the Art Institute of Chicago , whose main hall ( Hall of Columbus ) could seat up to 4,000 spectators, a number that was pushed to the limit every day. Every day Parliament was opened with the prayers of a common Our Father . The language of the congress was English.

The General Committee of Organization on Religious Congresses initiated a tripartite structure of the congress. On the one hand there was a general ( World's ) Parliament of Religions , which was used to find interreligious similarities through registered speeches on certain topics, to present the progress of religion in the 19th century and to present religions firsthand; this part had a certain lecture character and took place in the Hall of Columbus . At the same time, there were presentations in the Hall of Washington on certain religions given by their representatives. On the other hand, there was an independent congress for individual denominations and ecclesiastical, or rather religious, organizations, at which different groups could present themselves and, in contrast to the main congress, discussions took place. There should have been around forty denominations represented at these presentations. Due to the large number of visitors, a Scientific Section was opened at short notice , where more scientific approaches were presented and discussed. All events together thus resulted in the Parliament of the World's Religions . The first day of Parliament was devoted only to a welcome event and entirely welcoming speeches. For the remaining 16 days there was the following rough topic plan, which was not strictly adhered to:

day 2 God
Day 3 The human being
Day 4 Religion as a characteristic of humanity
Day 5 Religious systems
Day 6 Holy books of the world
Day 7 Religion and the family
Day 8 The religious leaders of mankind
Day 9 Religion and its relationship to the natural sciences and to art and writing
Day 10 Religion and its relationship to morality
Day 11 Religion and social problems
Day 12 Religion and civil society
Day 13 Religion and philanthropy
Day 14 The current religious state of Christianity
Day 15 The religious association of the entire human family
Day 16 Elements of perfect religion

regulate

Certain rules applied to all participants in order to maintain peaceful interactions. There were therefore no debates during the congress, as direct criticism of lectures held was officially excluded. The parliament had thus become a pure presentation event and was intended solely to gain information. Bonney believed that this would take the wind out of the sails of many critics, but it also brought with it a fundamental problem: The lack of a dispute also ruled out constructive discussions and led to the pent-up energy of the opponents almost only discharged outside Parliament. Instead of avoiding criticism, this rule alone attracted the hatred of many critics or was at least recognized as a problem: "According to the conditions of the Parliament, the principles of each faith were to be set forth by special advocates, without reply, rejoinder , controversy, comparison, or any form of counter attack, so that, as every mouth was muzzled, there was no room on that platform even for the exposure of error, sophistry, fallacy, or even falsehood. " To its own disadvantage, the parliament remained practically inconclusive, not least for this reason: "The Parliament was more an example of 'international good manners' than of an inductive theological enterprise", summed up the religious scholar Kenten Druyvesteyn.

Critical reception

The reception of the Parliament of the World Religions was largely positive. But it was also sharply condemned from some religious camps. With the great question of the relationship between Christianity and other world religions, the core of Christianity was at stake for many, namely its superiority and ultimate claim to truth over other religions.

Swami Vivekananda

In Christianity it was above all the problems of indifferentism , exclusivism and ecumenism that upset both conservative Catholic and evangelical camps. Arthur T. Pierson was the most vehement opponent of Parliament among evangelicals. As editor of the Missionary Review of the World , he published numerous writings against parliament and was also very much influenced by anti-Catholicism . A fundamental fear of possible compromises with non-Christian faiths can be felt in all outlawing evangelical scriptures. This is not a reaction to a first encounter with other religions. In the 1890s there was already a network of missions that dealt with exactly this problem every day. Rather, it was the face-to-face presence in front of a lay audience on American, native soil and at the invitation of the USA that gave the topic such a new explosiveness. Such concerns were compounded by the exuberant sensationalism of the reporting media (especially the Chicago Daily Tribune ) and the great interest shown by the American public in visitors from distant lands. Swami Vivekananda , as a Hindu representative from India , enjoyed great popularity and popularity with a large part of the American audience; This created skepticism and distrust among some conservatives.

The Catholic Church only expressed rejection afterwards, after key Liberal officials had actively participated, including prominent clergy such as James Gibbons , the highest-ranking representative of Catholics in the United States, as well as Archbishops John J. Keane (Rector of the Catholic University of America ) and John Ireland from Minnesota. It was not until 1895 that Pope Leo XIII revised . the prior silent approval in an official letter and said Francesco Satolli , his representative in the USA, that he does not endorse such congresses in the future. Within Christian denominations in particular, the conflicts were mainly based on disputes between liberal and conservative clergy.

The Anglican Church under the Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward White Benson , officially declined to participate for the above reasons.

The Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid II even forbade his subjects to participate and leave the country, so that Islamic participation was difficult to organize.

Furthermore, the lack of direct representatives of Africa and the North American Indian peoples was criticized in some places.

Effects

Although the Parliament of the World's Religions was viewed as a momentous event at the time, there were no direct, noteworthy aftereffects. The discrepancy between the contemporary commentaries describing Parliament as the “Second Pentecost” and the most important event since the birth of Christ, and today's mention in historiography is remarkably large. It is true that parliament initiated the Haskell Lectures , for example , which were donated as a result of parliament at the University of Chicago . It thus made some indirect contributions in the field of religious studies , which was becoming an institutionalized science at the time. This can be seen, among other things, from the fact that Friedrich Max Müller , a pioneer in religious studies, followed Parliament with great interest. Although he was not there himself, he kept making comments. More generally, the Parliament of the World's Religions also stimulated the American reception of Far Eastern religion and philosophy.

Kenten Druyvesteyn explains the apparent lack of major aftermath that the First Parliament of the World Religions was so rooted in its epoch by symbolically summarizing the problems of the time that it could only have a special relevance for this epoch.

Contrary to his assessment that such a parliament could not take place again for this reason, it was repeated exactly 100 years later, also in Chicago. From 1993 until today further parliaments of the world religions followed in Cape Town , Barcelona and Melbourne about every five years .

literature

Primary Sources: Unedited Sources

  • Barrows, John Henry, "The Parliament of Religions at the World's Fair." The Missionary Review of the World 5, No. 6 (1892): 451–456.
  • –––, “Ten Interesting Facts about the Parliament of Religions.” Lend a hand 11, No. 3 (1893): 221–223.
  • –––, “Results of the Parliament of Religions.” The Forum , No. 9 (1894): 54–67.
  • Bonney, Charles C., “THE WORLD'S PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS.” The Monist 5, No. 3 (1895): 321-344.
  • Hewit, AF, "Christian Unity in the Parliament of Religions: Evils of Disunion recognized by Protestants." Catholic World 59, No. 350 (1894): 152-163.
  • “PEACE IN THE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS.” The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920) 56, No. 2 (1894): 38-39.
  • Pierson, Arthur T., "Hindrances to Missions Found in the Working Force." The Missionary Review of the World 7, No. 9 (1894): 641-648.
  • –––, “IV.-Editorial Department.” The Missionary Review of the World 7, No. 1 (1894): 59-61.
  • –––, “The Columbian Exposition at Chicago.” The Missionary Review of the World 7, No. 1 (1894): 1-10.
  • –––, “The Parliament of Religions: A Review.” The Missionary Review of the World 7, No. 12 (1894): 881–894.
  • Snell, Merwin-Marie, "An Exhibit of Religions." Science 22, No. 551 (1893): 99-100.
  • Stead, William Thomas, "THE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS." The Review of reviews , 2043-5894 (1895): 425.
  • Trumbull, MM, "THE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS." The Monist 4, No. 3 (1894): 333-354.

Primary sources: Edited sources

Secondary literature

  • Bishop, Donald H., "Religious Confrontation, a Case Study: The 1893 Parliament of Religions." Numen 16, No. 1 (1969): 63-76.
  • Cleary, James F., "Catholic Participation in the World's Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893." The Catholic Historical Review 55, No. 4 (1970): 585-609.
  • Druyvesteyn, Kenten. "The World's Parliament of Religions." PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1976.
  • Feldman, Egal, "American Ecumenicism: Chicago's World's Parliament of Religions of 1893." Journal of Church and State 1967, No. 2 (9): 180-199.
  • Kittelstrom, Amy, "The international social turn: unity and brotherhood at the World's Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893." Religion and American Culture 19, No. 2 (2009): 243-274.
  • Lüddeckens, Dorothea, The World Parliament of Religions of 1893: Structures of Interreligious Encounters in the 19th Century . Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 2002.
  • Seager, Richard Hughes, "Pluralism and the American Mainstream: The View from the World's Parliament of Religions." The Harvard Theological Review 82, No. 3 (1989): 301-324.
  • Seager, Richard Hughes, The dawn of religious pluralism: Voices from the World's Parliament of Religions, 1893 . La Salle, Ill: Open Court, 1993.
  • Ziolkowski, Eric Jozef, eds., A Museum of faiths: Histories and legacies of the 1893 World's Parliament of Religions . Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Kenten Druyvesteyn, "The World's Parliament of Religions." (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1976), 9.
  2. ↑ Kenten Druyvesteyn, "The World's Parliament of Religions." (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1976), 10.
  3. ↑ Kenten Druyvesteyn, "The World's Parliament of Religions." (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1976), 14.
  4. ↑ Dorothea Lüddeckens, The World Parliament of Religions of 1893: Structures of Interreligious Encounters in the 19th Century (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2002), 149.
  5. ↑ John Henry Barrows, ed., The World's Parliament of Religions: An illustr. and popular story of the world's 1. parliament of religions, held in Chicago in connection with the Columbian exposition of 1893 . 2 volumes (Chicago: The Parliament Publ. Comp., 1893), 44.
  6. ↑ John Henry Barrows, ed., The World's Parliament of Religions: An illustr. and popular story of the world's 1. parliament of religions, held in Chicago in connection with the Columbian exposition of 1893 . 2 volumes (Chicago: The Parliament Publ. Comp., 1893), 68–72.
  7. ↑ cf. Kenten Druyvesteyn, "The World's Parliament of Religions." (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1976), 52.
  8. ↑ Arthur T. Pierson, “The Columbian Exposition at Chicago.” The Missionary Review of the World 7 , No. 1 (1894): 2 and Arthur T. Pierson, “IV.-Editorial Department.” The Missionary Review of the World 7 , No. 1 (1894): 60-61.
  9. ↑ cf. Kenten Druyvesteyn, "The World's Parliament of Religions." (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1976), 175.
  10. ↑ see James H. Moynihan, The life of Archbishop John Ireland (New York: Arno Press, 1976, c1953), 43.
  11. ^ Jenkin Lloyd Jones, A Chorus of Faith: As heard in the Parliament of Religions held in Chicago, Sept. 10-27, 1893 (Chicago: The Unity Publishing Company, 1893), 323-24.
  12. ↑ cf. LP Mercer, Review of the World's Religious Congresses: of the World's Congess Auxiliary of the World's Columbian Exposition (Chicago: Rand, McNally & Company, 1893), 325 and John Henry Barrows, eds., The World's Parliament of Religions: An illustr. and popular story of the world's 1. parliament of religions, held in Chicago in connection with the Columbian exposition of 1893 . 2 volumes (Chicago: The Parliament Publ. Comp., 1893), 60, 160 "
  13. ↑ Max Friedrich Müller, "The Real Significance of the Parliament of Religions." In Ziolkowski, Eric Jozef, ed., A Museum of Faiths: Histories and legacies of the 1893 World's Parliament of Religions . Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993, 149-162.