Multiple religious belonging

Multiple religious belonging refers to the idea that individuals can belong to more than one religious tradition. While this is often seen as a common reality in regions such as Asia with its many religions, religious scholars have begun to discuss multiple religion belonging with respect to religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[1][2]

Overview

A traditional representation of The Vinegar Tasters, an allegorical image representing Buddha, Confucius, and Laozi

In some religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, those who hold to an exclusivist understanding of religion sees multiple religious belonging as problematic. This is in contrast with countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, whose cultures have a long history of being influenced by different religions.[3] Moreover, in the postmodern period people tend to question their identity, because of the unlimited choices of religions, which leads to the difficulty in defining their identity.[4] Thus, scholars such as Catherine Cornille, Peter C. Phan, Francis Xavier Clooney, Jan Van Bragt, Aloysius Pieris and Devaka Premanwardhana, question the possibility of defining oneself into multiple religions. Here, clearly multiple religious belonging is not a subjective sense of a particular religion but rather, in Cornille’s words, “the recognition of one’s religious identity by the tradition itself and the disposition to submit to the conditions for membership as delineated by that tradition.”[5] Therefore, the purpose of a scholarly discussion on multiple religious belonging is to transform one’s religion through the understanding of other religions.[6]

Jan Van Bragt shows that 79% of Japanese self-identify as Shintoists and 75% self-identify as Buddhists. The reason for the extremely high percentage of both religions is that many Japanese consider themselves as both a Shintoist and a Buddhist and do not consider it a problem to belong to more than one religion.[7][8] This phenomenon, according to Van Bragt, is a “division of labour.” Van Bragt argues that the cause of this phenomenon is that, different from the Western concept of religion, religion in Japan has no moral guidance and only concerns rituals and practices.[9] Thus, the Japanese can belong to several religions that do not conflict with each other in terms of social and ethical issues.

Types of Approaches in Multiple Religious Belonging

Based on Van Bragt’s study, scholars try to investigate the possibility for adherents of a religion such as Christianity to belong to multiple religions. The approach to multiple religious belonging, according to Devaka Premanwardhana, can be divided into two trends: Peter Phan’s approach based on a Christological ground, in which he emphasises on Christ’s “asymmetrically superior status,” and Francis Clooney’s approach rooted in a methodological ground, which tries to cross boundaries into another religion just as religions must have discrete entities.[10] These two approaches are summarised below:

Christological approach

Phan’s approach emphasises on the assymmetricality, in which Jesus is the Logos made flesh and the climax of God dealing with humankind.[11] In an attempt to resonate with one’s cultural identity and tradition, Phan explains that multiple religious belonging is necessary in order for practitioners of multiple belonging to treat other religions as a qualifier of their identity. This approach, according to Phan, does not deny one’s Christian identity, which functions as substantive in relation to non-Christian religion.[12] Also, Phan notes that multiple religious belonging is not a new issue in the twenty-first century but rather the common form of life of the first-century Christians recorded in the book of Acts. In Phan’s comment, it is “a tragic loss to both Judaism and Christianity,” because it leads to the subsequent history of bitter hatred, especially from the side of Christianity.[13]

Methodological approach

As a comparative theologian, Clooney speaks about the diversity in the world nowadays, especially with respect to the flourishing of different religions. For Clooney, reflecting on our religion in this pluralistic world is necessary, so that we can “see the others in light of our own, and our own in light of the other.”[14] Focusing on the study of scriptural and theological texts, Clooney compares them between Christian traditions and non-Christian religions, to “cross boundaries” to other traditions, so that one would re-think his or her theology, which would thus shape his or her identity.[15] Studying more than 40 years on Hinduism, Clooney expresses that he finds the distinctive disciplines of theology and Hinduism are “mutually enriching.”[16] By applying this approach, one can start within his or her “home” tradition, enter a different tradition and return to his or her tradition, which is enriched and reformulated after crossing boundaries.[17]

Challenges and Controversy

While scholars studying multiple religious belonging attempt to appreciate other religions’ traditions besides their own, the conservative segment of Christianity tend to question the inclusivistic view of multiple religious belonging because it accepts that salvation can be found from somewhere else other than Jesus Christ.[18][19] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, a systematic theologian, questions the approach of “othering” those that have traditions different from Christians’ because God is the one who offers salvation; Christians only witness it. It is out of humility that Christians can say that salvation belongs to God, and God only.[18] On the other hand, scholars studying multiple religious belonging such as John B. Cobb see this as an opportunity rather than a threat: “I do not see multiple religious belonging as the primary way into the future. The primary way is the transformation of the particular religious traditions, at least in the Christian case, through their new encounter with other traditions.” For Cobb, engaging in interfaith dialogue helps smooth the tension between Christianity and Judaism and avoid misunderstanding toward Islam.[20]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Cornille, Catherine (2002). Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. ISBN 1608994538.
  2. ↑ Phan, Peter C. (2003-09-01). "Multiple Religious Belonging: Opportunities and Challenges for Theology and Church". Theological Studies. 64 (3): 495–519. doi:10.1177/004056390306400302. ISSN 0040-5639.
  3. ↑ Phan, “Multiple Religious Belonging,” 498.
  4. ↑ Aylesworth, Gary (2015-01-01). Zalta, Edward N., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 ed.).
  5. ↑ Cornille, Many Mansions, p. 6.
  6. ↑ Cornille, Many Mansions, p. 5.
  7. ↑ Whether this statistic is correct is arguable. According to Mark R. Mullins’s figures, there are only 30–33% of Japanese consider themselves as having “personal faith,” while others usually see themselves as “without religion” (mushukyo). For further discussions, see Mark R. Mullins (2011). "Japan". In Phan, Peter C. Christianity in Asia. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 197–198.
  8. ↑ Van Bragt, Jan (2002). "Multiple Religious Belonging of the Japanese People". In Cornille, Catherine. Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. p. 8. ISBN 1608994538.
  9. ↑ According to Van Bragt, while Buddhism and Shintoism govern the rituals and practices of Japanese, Confucianism is regarded as the authority for morality and the source of principles of social life. See Van Bragt, “Multiple Religious Belonging of the Japanese People,” 9.
  10. ↑ Premawardhana, Devaka (2011). "The Unremarkable Hybrid: Aloysius Pieris and the Redundancy of Multiple Religious Belongings". Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 46: 77. ISSN 0022-0558.
  11. ↑ Phan, “Multiple Religious Belonging,” p. 503.
  12. ↑ Phan, “Multiple Religious Belonging,” pp. 509–510.
  13. ↑ Phan, “Multiple Religious Belonging,” pp. 504–505.
  14. ↑ Clooney, Francis X. (2010). Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 13. ISBN 1405179740.
  15. ↑ Clooney, Francis X. (2004). "Neither Here nor There: Crossing Boundaries, Becoming Insiders, Remaining Catholic". In Ignacio Cabezón, José; Greeve Davaney, Sheila. Identity and the Politics of Scholarship in the Study of Religion. New York and London: Routledge. pp. 99–111. ISBN 0415970660.
  16. ↑ Clooney, Comparative Theology, pp.16–17.
  17. ↑ Premawardhana, "The Unremarkable Hybrid,” pp. 87–88.
  18. 1 2 Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. "Dialogue, Witness, and Tolerance: The Many Dimensions of Interfaith Encounters". Fuller Studio. Retrieved October 6, 2016.
  19. ↑ For definitions of traditional typology such as exclusivism and inclusivism, see Daniel L. Migliore (2004). Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 306–307. ISBN 978-0-8028-2787-6.
  20. ↑ Cobb, John B. (2002). "Multiple Religious Belonging and Reconciliation". In Cornille, Catherine. Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. p. 27. ISBN 1608994538.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/1/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.