Development II: Religious Pluralism and society Flashcards
1
Q
reasons for development into a multi-cultural society
A
Migration:
- first eg of migration: months before ww2, jews migrated from EU to Britain
- following ww2, Uk was short of labour and provided incentives for migration to increase labour (e.g. being granted free entry) - this prompted families from the Caribbean
- 1950s-60s: Hindus from the Gujarat region, Sikhs from the Punjab, Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh
—> in many locations, people tended to live in the same area as those with a shared culture/religion: eg sparkhill is predominantly Muslim
2
Q
figure for multi -faith society
A
2021 consensus: 46% Chr, 37% no religion, 6% muslim, 2% Hindu
3
Q
What is interfaith dialogue
A
process of adherents from different religions coming together to develop a deeper understanding of each others’ beliefs, practises, values and ways of living.
4
Q
Aims of interfaith dialogue
A
Aim that a mutual understanding will enable diff faiths to exist together, thus eliminating prejudice, racism, persecution…
—> to know and understand those who are ‘other’, difference from oneself
—> to overcome prejudice
—> note that aims are diff depending on your theological position: an exclusivist will look for a diff outcome compared to a pluralist BUT there’s still an overall aim to promote/try to bring about a better society
5
Q
the CofE, Sharing the Gospel of Salvation, recognises 4 levels of IfD, what are they?
A
- dialogue of daily life- encounters on doorstep at checkout
- dialogue of the common good- engagement together in tasks beneficial to community
- dialogue of mutual understanding- more formalised structures/conversations e.g. Scriptural Reasoning
- dialogue of spiritual life- encountering each other at prayer and worship
6
Q
issues with IfD
A
- if the aim is differance, this may undermine the faith of each ppt because it implies everyone’s beliefs are temporary and no one may claim the truth
- IfD can be superficial- people may be unwilling to say where others are wrong or where diff are irreconcilable
- can become too theological or too focused on leaders, and then marginalise ordinary members of faith communities
7
Q
what is Sharing the Gospel of Salvation
A
the CofE response to Interfaith dialogue
- looks at the issue of mission in modern british society and the question of what one must do to share the Gospel of Christ with those of other faiths
8
Q
Aims of SGS
A
- encourage Christians to speak boldly about their faith and not be hindered by the past of Christian mission - this is bc Chr in 21st century find the idea of evangelism a cause of anxiety so this shows them how to best interact with those of other faiths
- Chr should engage in IfD to promote social cohesion, and adds that conversion is an important part of dialogue- but conversion should be done in a respectful way
- ifd will only work if motivated by a shared sense for the common good for society as a whole, not personal interest
9
Q
key quotes for SGS:
A
- “legacy of the Crusades have continued to overshadow Christian-Muslim relations” —> recognises past errors have been made,
- “our motive is always rooted in love for God”
- “evangelism starts in the holiness … of Christian’s, but must then include all manner of communicative actions”
10
Q
-ve eval of SGS
A
- many would criticise the idea of conversion as insensitive and encouraging of social tensions
- Christianity is still benefitting from that history of forced conversion because it now has lots of countries which arte predominantly Chr e.g. in Africa and South America — therefore if Chr really want to apologise for their history, they should stop trying to convert people completely —> Giles Fraser (English Anglican priest) states himself he would not try to convert Jews to Chr because of past history
- CA: would be wrong to an all missionary activity bc it helps people- e.g the Christmas shoe box aid
11
Q
+ve eval of SGS
A
- supports Chr doctrine to evangelise, esp as their aim is to “express the overflowing love of God”
12
Q
what is Redemptoris Missio
A
The catholic response - purpose to revitalise and encourage Christian’s in their mission to non-Chr
13
Q
key points in RM
A
- talks about how Christ is the universal saviour
- To spread the gospel is to love, and how this can be done without any coercion or undesirable elements
- states that inter-religious dialogue is part of the church’s evangelising mission
- dialogue is possible because all religions provide spiritual riches - but dialogue must be motivated by respect + honesty + and desire to overcome injustice
- “the Church sees no conflict between proclaiming Christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue”
- “For missionary action renews the Church, revitalises faith”
- “To serve man by revealing to him the love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ”
14
Q
how does RM emphasise need for mission?
A
- The consensus where % of Chr decreased from 59% in 2011 to 46% in 2021
15
Q
Difference between SGS and RM
A
- RM states evangelism should be carried out by proclaiming Christ as saviour, conversion and baptism, forming local churches
- Catholic Church is more clear that you need to carry the word of Christ
16
Q
ifd and restricted access exclusivism
A
- they would see it as an opportunity to offer the gospel to others in hope of conversion
- in RAE some are selected for salvation and others are damned- but bc we dont know who the elect are, as long as you are bringing people into contact with the faith, ifd is possible
17
Q
ifd and universal access exclusivism
A
- would say that Chr need to hear the gospel
18
Q
overview/general for ifd and exclusivism
A
- Michael Barnes: dialogue is a risky option because it means others with question the teaching of the church
- struggle between treating non-Chr with respect but also believing only Chr can be saved
- Karl Barth (protestant) argues that in ifd christians must enter with humility and openness because humans cannot dictate where God reveals himself
19
Q
ifd and structural inclusivists
A
- David Ford: ifd works effectively once common ground has ben established- then differences can be discussed with a spirit of collegiality
- David Ford: Believes all 3 religions (chr, isl, jud) are united under the biblical covenant and have much to tell each other — seen in these 2 publications:
—> ‘dabru emet’: jewish statement on Chr- signed by over 150 rabbis- calls for jews to ‘learn about the efforts of Chr to honour judaism’
—> ‘a common word between us and you’: from muslim scholars to chr- saying the common is the love of god — this generated much interfaith discussions
20
Q
restricted inclusivism and ifd:
A
- different to structural inclusivism because its ifd work is more individual based rather than dabru emet
- ri balances finding the common ground whilst respecting differences
- BUT for it to be truly effective, christians must not assume any privileged position on the truth
21
Q
pluriform pluralism and ifd
A
- Keith Ward: ifd is significant for developing a global faith - an attitude of openness by faiths to understand other traditions — by developing this global faith you are not looking for a common ground but actively enjoying differences and thus this avoids the tendency to treat all religions as being the same
22
Q
universal pluralists and ifd
A
- they do think all religions are part of one underlying reality, so ifd allows the possibility of establishing world please
- they use ifd to develop and promote a global theology
23
Q
ethical pluralists and ifd
A
- too abstract
- Paul Knitter: the purpose of ifd is not theological but practical — religions must resolve common problems like combatting extremism and then discuss theology
24
Q
overall/general for pluralism and ifd
A
- issue is for ifd to work everyone would need support the pluralist model— problematic bc this would mean abandoning their faith + seeking a common world religion —> firmly rejected by all christians
25
what is the scriptural reasoning movement
- where different religions and members of other faiths meet in groups to reason about their respective scriptures
- anyone can participate, but works best when there’s 2+ of each religion to prevent discussions feeling one-sided
26
key features of SRM
- “development of strong bonds across faith communities” - this is reinforced bc anyone can participate
- it is pragmatic: “practised globally…including places affected by religious-related tensions”
- underlines the link between the 3 abrahamic religions so can “share the blessings God has given them”
27
aims of SRM
- aim to reduce prejudice
- has an aim to recognise differences not resolve
- does NOT aim to convert/convince one’s scripture is better
- aim is to look deeply into each others’ faiths and dismantle barriers
- aim is not to arrive at a consensus but increase wisdom and understanding of the common good
- 3 key aims
—> 1. wisdom: members are committed to a common quest for knowledge and wisdom
—> 2. collegiality: interpretations are presented and discussed equally in groups
—> 3. hospitality: texts are read and interpreted without value judgement— must be a spirit of openness and allow for views and opinions to be exchanged
28
methods of SRM:
- those involved do not seek to represent their faith in any way
- lack of ‘official’ scripture + heavy reliance on individuals interp
- “reading scriptures… [that] are inexhaustibly rich… [and] can therefore sustain collegiality among… different faiths”
- open and interactive discussion, where ppts can reflect on possible meanings of the text
- no method involved in trying to solve differences —> shows that a pluralist society could work
- group may have a facilitator whose job it is to propose questions and ensure all members are fully involved
- starting point may be shared problems or theological ideas e.g. purpose of worship
- note: there is no set method
29
+ve of SRM: aim to grow understanding of diff religions, whilst recognising differences instead of attempting to resolve them
- aim to grow an understanding of diff religions, whilst recognising differences instead of attempting to resolve them
—> a useful tool to maintain some form of respect
—> anyone can ppt
—> aim is not to convert/convince of another texts’ authority
—> underlines the link between the 3 abrahamic religions, allowing them to”Share the blessings God has given them”
30
-ve of SRM: no official interp
- no ‘official’ interpretation
—> interp all down to individual- lack of authority + can allow for differences to emerge
—> involves too few people and is not representative of the faith
—> a person does not need religious education/academic background to ppt SO (although this is more inclusive) are the interpretations reasonable?
—> too much reliance on trust: Chr + muslim relations shadowed since the crusades - so sacred texts could be used for political agendas
31
-ve of SRM: not realistic
- would the same success (of trying to link the 3 abrhamic religions in SRM) be met if Western religious scripture was compared to Eastern religions like Hinduism / Buddhism —> these religions have different roots and textual traditions/interps
32
+ve of SRM: sense of cooperation and collegiality
- no person is to assume authority, but share their own interp
- meeting point is usually a neutral academic space e.g. universities
- sense of collegiality bc disagreements and debates are welcomed -the aim is to look deeply into each others’ faiths and dismantle barriers
33
-ve of SRM: issue of revitalising Chr
- ppts able to reflect on possible meanings of the texts - presents all religions as equally valid —> invalidates religious truth of Chr, especially bc there are some truths like ‘files ex audito’ and ‘sola christ us’ that are specific to Chr
- religious people inevitably going to conflict on sensitive issues like life after death and what that looks like for each religion
- exclusivist would argue Chr is the only truth so time would be better spent helping other religions realise this —> Adrian Thatcher: SRM “may indicate… the further erosion of Christocentric biblical interpretation”
—> CA: pluralists arg relativising Chr may be a good thing as it helps clarify there are many equally valid paths to salvation
- THEREFORE: as diff theological positions conflict, this alone shows the difficulty and unrealistic nature of SRM
34
list of evals for SRM
1+ aim to grow understanding of diff religions, whilst recognising differences instead of attempting to resolve them
1- no official interpretation
2+ sense of cooperation and collegiality
2- relativises Chr
3- not realistic
