Comparative theology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Comparative Theology is a new form of religious theology , although from a particular confessional emanates standpoint, but this further developed in discussion with other confessional and religious traditions. Its specialty is that it does not look at other religious traditions from an apologetic point of view, but wants to learn from and with them. In contrast to traditional denominational theology, its subject is not just the scientific reflection of one's own faith, but the world of religions as a whole. In contrast to comparative religious studies, it does not strive for neutrality in this regard, but rather asks the question of truth with commitment , in order to trace the secret of an “ultimate reality” in dialogical movements of thought.

history

Even if an examination of comparative theology already begins in modern times and is later influenced by important impulses from Annemarie Schimmel , Rudolf Otto and Aloys Pieri , it does not become a school education in English-speaking countries until the 1990s. Characteristics of this newer comparative theology are the refusal of general judgments and generalizations, the connection of reflection with the practice of interreligious dialogue and the development of a hermeneutics that includes an awareness of one's own normative bases of the conversation as well as the cultivation of the readiness to be critical of them questioning. Two different directions have developed in the English-speaking world under the title Comparative Theology. While Robert Cummings Neville and Keith Ward understand comparative theology as a public theology without religious affiliation and their work focuses on the uncovering of large-scale theological contexts, for Francis X. Clooney, Catherine Cornille and James L. Fredericks comparative theology is firmly established in denominational theology anchored. It is thus closer to inclusivism than to pluralism in terms of the theology of religion, but avoids being laid down on the level of religion theology and instead focuses on theologically informative detailed studies.

Situation in Germany

In the German-speaking area, Klaus von Stosch is one of the most important thought leaders in comparative theology. Similar to James L. Fredericks, he understands comparative theology as a possibility to be faithful to the truth claim of one's own religion without giving up the possibility of appropriately appreciating those of different faiths in their otherness and their beliefs. Comparative theology appears to be the ideal way to achieve a better understanding of the religions among themselves through joint research and interreligious dialogue . In the English-speaking world, comparative theology has so far mainly distinguished itself in the dialogue with the Eastern religions, the Center for Comparative Theology and Cultural Studies at the University of Paderborn is an example of how Muslim theologians also get involved in comparative theology, so that they are not can see more than purely Christian theology.

aims

As a theological discipline, comparative theology is looking for answers to normative questions about ultimate reality. In doing so, she focuses on the question of truth without closing herself off to the multitude of human answers to this question. In doing so, she questions traditional traditions and also allows non-religious perspectives and inquiries. Furthermore, it is the aim of comparative theology "to understand others in their otherness and therefore expose themselves to them in their otherness." Thus, comparative theology rejects prejudices and stereotypes and instead encourages interfaith encounters and dialogue with the other to put one's perspective into it and thus to get to know and understand one's religion. Friendship with the religious other can make such encounters more intense, honest and fruitful, as they facilitate access to the religion of the other and the fair treatment of it. Ultimately, it should be about perceiving and appreciating the religious other as he is and how he sees himself, so that the interreligious dialogue does not just stay on the surface, but is an intensive common path in search of answers. The appreciative perception of another religion can also enable a new understanding of one's own religion. So getting to know the perspective of another religiously and the joint search and weighing of possible answers to questions about God or the ultimate reality can broaden one's own horizon and thus lead to new insights in one's own religion. At this point, however, comparative theology is important not to instrumentalize the other, but to respect his or her own purpose.

Basic attitude in the dialogue of religions

According to the Belgian theologian Catherine Cornille, who teaches at Boston College, five basic attitudes are important, which she describes in her book "The im-possibility of interreligious dialogue", in order to prevent the other from being instrumentalized and to achieve an interreligious dialogue that is fruitful for comparative theology.

Doctrinal or epistemic humility

According to Cornille, humility should determine the relationship to the religion of the other as well as to one's own religion. One should acknowledge that one can never fully understand the other's beliefs and practices and that one's own beliefs and understandings of truth are limited by the limits of human understanding.

“The impulse to dialogue arises from the desire to learn, to increase one's understanding of the other, of oneself, or of the truth. It thus presupposes humble awareness of the limitation of one's own understanding and experience and of the possibility of change and growth. "

Von Stosch also postulates that God can never be fully known and understood by humans. This means that one's own doctrine of faith is always characterized by a provisional nature and fragility, which can be explained by the conditioned nature of human understanding.

Confessional solidarity with one's own tradition

As a second basic attitude, Cornille emphasizes the great importance of being connected to one's own tradition, one's own beliefs and practices. For them only this rooting in their own religion can be the basis for turning to the other. The connection with one's own faith in interreligious dialogue not only protects against New Age syncretism , but also makes a true dialogue and progress on the path of reconciliation between religions possible.

Assumption of commensurability and perception of differences

In order to be able to lead the interreligious dialogue in a profitable manner, it is necessary, according to Cornille, to assume that religions can be understood and compared in principle. Even if they differ greatly in their beliefs and goals, the fact that religions deal with fundamental human problems can repeatedly pave the way for ways of understanding between them. On the basis of a basic comparability, concrete similarities, but also differences in the respective beliefs and practices of the religions can then be perceived. The assumption that it is understandable in principle does not mean that theologians cannot reach their limits in interreligious dialogue and that in certain questions it is inevitable that religious convictions are incompatible.

Empathy and loving attention

Another basic attitude of interreligious dialogue called for by Cornille is empathy, openness and sensitivity for the religious other. They make it easier to get involved in the other person's perspective and thus also to understand his way of thinking and perceiving from within. Empathy for the other and his or her beliefs can also influence which aspects of the other's religion affect the dialogue partner and change his or her way of thinking. Without it, the affective dimension of religion cannot be perceived and valued, which underlies many beliefs and beliefs and thus expands them to include their spiritual dimension. Such an attitude also calls for attention to be paid to who is excluded from the dialogue, whether for religious or social reasons. The marginalized in particular should be integrated into the interreligious dialogue.

Hospitality for the other's possible truth

"This attitude of generous openness to the (possible) presence of truth in the other religion may be called hospitality." To give the other a place in their own thinking, to welcome them as a guest and also to acknowledge that something in their own is made through them Thinking can change are attitudes that should shape the interreligious dialogue and are described by Cornille, von Stosch and other representatives of comparative theology with the concept of hospitality. It is an essential prerequisite for an appreciative and insightful interreligious dialogue. On the other hand, there is the “pilgrim basic orientation and willingness to think and live in new contexts”, which can make a true interreligious encounter possible.

Methods

Micrological approach

According to Francis X. Clooney, the micrological approach is the outstanding characteristic of comparative theology. She therefore places very specific characteristics or contents of religions in very specific contexts in the focus of her research. Since beliefs can only be understood and thus compared in such specifically formulated situations and contexts, this turn to specific theological, literary and other texts or also to specific rituals and beliefs is necessary. Contributions from music and art can also be included in the investigation and thus enable a comprehensive comparison regarding a specific topic, as emphasized by Robert C. Neville, for example. The difficulty here can be to find adequate comparison categories.

Central questions

The questions that should be examined in comparative theology are, as is particularly important to Klaus von Stosch , not arbitrary, but are based on the topics that move people of our time. These investigations should help to find solutions to current problems and to work together for these solutions on the side of the marginalized in the spirit of liberation theology . In this way, it is not competition but rather cooperation that is at the center of interreligious dialogue.

Mutual involvement

On the one hand, the dialogue partners should be ready to learn from the other in interreligious dialogue, to learn their language and understand their thinking and, on the other hand, in the spirit of hospitality according to Cornille, they should also be ready to be touched and also changed by the other. Even if slipping into the religious other's perspective can never be completely successful, openness to the other's world and open-mindedness for one's way of thinking enables meaningful insights.

Third instance

In the interreligious dialogue between two representatives of certain denominations, there is always the risk that they will close themselves off from certain problems or trivialize them because of shared convictions. In order to counteract this danger, Klaus von Stosch recommends that a third instance or perspective of a third interlocutor be included. This third interlocutor should primarily be characterized by the fact that he or she has other convictions in relation to the question in focus and thus, with his critical perspective, can question and test the mutual appointments of two dialogue partners. Depending on which question is being investigated, this can be ensured through an atheistic or agnostic perspective or through the perspective of a representative of a third religion or another denomination.

Return to religious practice

So that comparative theology and its results from the interreligious dialogue can make a contribution on the way to a peaceful coexistence of religions, the interlocutors should repeatedly show to what extent the questions discussed are relevant in their respective religious practice. This connection to the life of believing and non-believing people makes it possible for people to approach and learn from one another in dialogue to have an impact on the actual coexistence of people. Comparative theology thus works from the practice of religious life and interreligious dialogue, that is, from the concrete dialogue with the religious other, into the practice of faith and life.

Awareness of one's own vulnerability and reversibility or fallibility of their judgments

Comparative theology should always be aware of the provisionality and contextuality of its judgments. A real dialogue with the religious other can only take place through a fundamental openness to changes and corrections of one's own convictions. Comparative theology never comes to an end and is always ready to put the answers it has found to the test. Exactly this approach is also in the eyes of James L. Frederick the strength of comparative theology, since it is trustworthy through this vulnerability of its own judgments and - from a Christian point of view - appropriates the vulnerability of God in Christ.

literature

  • Reinhold Bernhardt , Klaus von Stosch (eds.), Comparative Theology. Interreligious comparisons as a way of theology of religion . Zurich, 2009 ( contributions to a theology of religions ; 7).
  • Francis Xavier Clooney: Comparative theology. Deep learning across religious borders . Malden / MA-Oxford, 2010.
  • Catherine Cornille: The im-possibility of interreligious dialogue . New York, 2008.
  • James L. Fredericks: Faith among faiths. Christian theology and non-Christian religions . New York, Mahwah / NJ 1999.
  • Albertus Bagus Laksana: Comparative Theology: Between identity and alterity . In: Francis X. Clooney (ed.), The new comparative theology. Interreligious insights from the next generation . London, New York 2010, 1-20
  • Robert Cummings Neville : Ritual and deference. Extending Chinese philosophy in a comparative context . Albania NY 2008.
  • Klaus von Stosch: Comparative theology as a guide in the world of religions . 2012.
  • Klaus von Stosch: Comparative theology as a challenge for the theology of the 21st century . In: ZKTh 130 (2008) 401-422.
  • Keith Ward : Religion and revelation. A theology of revelation in the world's religions . Oxford, 1994.

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Klaus von Stosch: Comparative Theology as Guide in the World of Religions, p. 149.
  2. ↑ Catherine Cornille: The im-possibiltiy of interreligious dialogue, New York 2008, p. 9.
  3. ^ Catherine Cornille: The im-possibiltiy of interreligious dialogue, p. 177.
  4. ↑ A. Bagus Laksana: Comparative Theology: Between identity and alterity, p. 18