Respect for Religious Diversity: Christian Attitudes to Other Religions

Ulrich Winkler

I am glad for the contacts and all the pleasant conversations we have been able to have over the past few days of this conference, since it is often in the first stages of getting to know o~e another that the foundation of sustainable relationships is lald. No matter how small the beginning, such a small seed can grow into a monumental tree. I am especially pleased that six students from Indonesia took part in the 2nd Vienna International Christian-Islamic Summer University that took place last summer at the mon~stery of Altenburg. lt is a wonderful feeling to come to a fore1gn country where one already has some dear friends.

1. lntroduction and Short Biography

I couldn't begin this lecture without a short introduction and a brief glimpse into my biography. This is not because I think so much of myself or am so important. Rather, with this I want to offer a starting point for communication, since a lecture can also be a form of dialogue, albeit in limited form. This morning's schedule also allows us time for discussion afterwards. If you take part in this discussion, I would like to ask you to say a sentence or two about yourself or your biography.

132

Ulrich Winkler

I hope that this first step toward a more unusual topic will help bridge the thousands of kilometres and the cultural gaps between us. But perhaps it is this common ground, our common humanity, which helps build a bridge for enriching encounters despite our differences and mutualiy foreign cultures. The bewildering variety of cultural and religious traditions has made us very uncertain: do our religions have a common essence?1

But what we do know for certain is that we share a common humanity, no matter how different our cultures may be. So I would like to make a start and begin by telling you about myself.

I grew up in a very rural area. My parents owned a smali farm, and the animals on the farm were important friends in my childhood. My parents, now over 80 years old, are both still alive. I just visited them recently, during the last vacation with my children. My parents are simple, religious Christians -Catholics, to be precise.

I attended a parochial grammar school. Up to that point, I had lived in a very homogenous, Catholic environment that

Historically, the essentialism of religion has two roots: Edward Burnett Tylor's (1832-1917) anthropological definition "belief in spiritual beings" (Primitive Culture, 1871) and James G. Frazer (1854-1941) (The Golden Bough. A Study in Magie and Religion, London 1890 /Der goldene Zweig, Leipzig 1928) on the one hand, and all the different approaches to a phenomenology of religion, on the other hand: Leeuw, Gerardus van der, Religion in Essence and Manifestation. A Study in Phenomenology, an Applica­tion of Philosophical Phenomenology to Religion, London 1938 [Phänomenologie der Religion, Tübingen 1933], including: Rudolf Otto's mysterium tremendum et fascinans and ?\1ircea Eliade's experience of the sacred (Traite d'histoire des religions, Paris 1949). - See chapter 3 in McCutcheon, Russell T., Studying Religion. An Introduction, London/ Oak:ville 2007; Figl, Johann, Einleitung. Religionswissenschaft - Historische Aspekte, heutiges Fachverständnis und Religionsbegriff, in: ibid. (ed.), Handbuch Religionswis­senschaft. Religionen und ihre zentralen Themen, Innsbruck/Wien/ Göttingen 2003, 1 S-80. - Critique on essentialism of religion, see: Braun, Willi/McCutcheon, Russell T. (ed.), Guide to the Study of Religion, London u.a. 2000; Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe 1-5, eds. Hubert Cancik, Burkhard Gladigow, Matthias Laubseher, with the cooperation of Günter Kehrer und Hans G. ICippenberg, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln 1988-2001; McCutcheon, Russe!, The Imperial Dynamic in the Study of Religion. Neo­colonial Practices in an American Discipline, in: Richard King (Hg.) Postcolonial Amer­ica, Chicago 2000, 275-302; Nehring, Andreas, Religion und Kultur. Zur Beschreibung einer Differenz, in: ibid./Valentin, Joachim (ed.), Religious Turns - Turning Religions. Veränderte kulturelle Diskurse - neue religiöse Wissensformen (ReligionsKulturen 1 ), Stuttgart 2008, 11-31.

133

Winkler, Ulrich, Respect for Religious Diversity - Christian Attitudes to Other Religions (Yogyakarta Lecture), in: Hammer, Stefan/Husein, Fatimah (Ed.), Religious Pluralism and Religious Freedom. Religions, Society and the State in Dialogue. Contributions to the Austrian-Indonesian Dialogue, Yogyakarta/Vienna 2013, 132-161.

Respect for Religious Diversity

is very typical for Austria. Austria, a very small country with a population of 8 million, has a Catholic majority. Protestants constitute a small minority. This is somewhat different in the German-speaking regions as a whole, which include about 100 million people. In those regions, taken as a whole, the number of Catholics and Protestants are about even.

Although many immigrants came to Austria and Germany as migrant workers up until the 1970s, the public failed to recognize them with their own culture and religion in our society. This topic has received more political attention in our countries in the past few years. In the meantime almost 20 % of our population have immigrant backgrounds. Muslims make up about 4-5 % of the population, amounting to around 400,000 people in Austria and 3.2 million in Germany.

Soon after I started my theological studies, I studied for a year in Jerusalem, where the co-existence of the three monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam made a great impression on me. Since I have always been very interested in political correlations as weil as theology, it was clear to me long before the public debates on religiously motivated terrorism began that the fascination exerted by religions also holds a great ambivalence. Religions can produce saints who selflessly stand up for justice, humanity, and love among human beings. But they can also suppress reason and give in to a fanaticism that spreads blind zealousness, violence, and suffering among human beings.2

People and how they live their faith interested me even more than the teachings of the religions themselves. I made a

2 See, for instance, Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the Mind of God. The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Comparative Studies in Religion & Society 13), Berkeley 2000; Juergensmeyer'. Mark, Global Rebellion. Religious Challenges to the Secular State, from Chnstlan Militias to Al Qaeda (Comparative Studies in Religion & Society), Berkeley 2008; Kitts, Margo/Juergensmeyer, Mark (Ed.), Princeton Readings in Religion and Vio­lence, Princeton 2011;

134

Ulrich Winkler

great many Christian and Muslim friends, especially among the Palestinians, who had very different ways of living their faith and their culture.

Today I teach Dogmatics in the Theological Department at the University of Salzburg. In addition, I have devoted many years of work to founding the "Center for Intercultural Theology and the Study of Religions" at our university. 3 The focus of our work is the topic of plurality: Christianity and the multiplicity of religious traditions around the globe.

When I was still a student, there was not a single lecture or seminar on other religions required in my Catholic Theology degree course programme (this was also the case in Germany). I was determined to get this changed. Ever since our centre was founded nobody can study theology in Salzburg without taking courses in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Chinese religions, African religions, etc. Our centre's curriculum is not optional but is required for every student studying Catholic theology. Our subjects are as important as the Bible or the dogmatic tradition of the Church. Each theologian must be able to account for the relationship between his or her own faith and other religions and be familiar with the esteem in which the Catholic Church holds other religions. There are no longer any priests or teachers who haven't studied this. And it is this very theology of religions that I would like to speak about today.

But before I do so, I would like to teil you another detail about my life. My wife is also a Christian. But she's not Catholic; she's Lutheran. Like me, she's a theologian, but she's also a pastor. You can imagine that not only did we have to discuss many controversial theological topics, which have been issues of conflict between our churches over the last 500 years. We also had to find a way to live our faiths with all their differences,

3 See Winkler, Ulrich, Zentrum Theologie Interkulturell und Studium der Religionen an der Universität Salzburg- theologische Konzeption, in: SaThZ 11 (2007) 58-73.

135

~„„~~'"'~"'' ______ •• „.„,.„„,,_ •• ~„„.„,.,„_,„„, ''"''""'"

1

Respect for Religious Diversity 1

whic~ forms to choose for our spirituality and, not least of all, whicH church we would raise our children in.

1

Nthough the differences between the Catholic and Prote~tant churches appear small when viewed from the outside, theywere, in any case, large enough that Protestant and Catholic armid fought each other 400 years ago, and a true genocide took Jblace in Europe, with almost half of the population in Germ~ny killed. Despite the manifold reconciliations4 between

1

the chµrches, we still carry the burden of this history in ourselves in a dqep and hidden way.

Because of this, it was important to us to proceed espe­cially <±arefully and responsibly while searching for a very per­sonal path for dealing with our different confessions. It became increas,ingly clear to us that mutual understanding does not just mean ~stening but also entering the other's house of faith and living there. In so doing, our respective churches became second homesl for each of us.5 Learning to understand the other does not jus~ mean knowing something about the other but living at least partly ip. the other's house of faith as a guest. Both of us visited the wohhip services of the other's church many times and that

1

4 See, fbr instance, the comprehensive studies „Lehrverurteilungen kirchentrennend": Leh­mann\ Karl/Pannenberg, Wolfhart ( ed.), Rechtfertigung, Sakramente und Amt im Zeitalter der Reformation und heute (Dialog der Kirchen. Veröffentlichungen des Ökumenischen Arbeitskreises Evangelischer und Katholischer Theologen 4. Lehrverurteilungen - kirchen­trenn~nd? 1), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 3rd ed.,1988; Lehmann, Karl (ed.), Materialien zu den qfaverurteil=.gen und zur Theologie der Rechtfertigung (Dialog der Kirchen. Veröf­fentli<jliungen des Okumenischen Arbeitskreises Evangelischer und Katholischer Theolo­gen 5.]Lehrverurteilungen - kirchentrennend? 2), Freiburg/Göttingen 1989 / Justification by faith : do the sixte:n~-century condemnations still apply? New York 1997; Pannenberg, Wolfhtirt (ed.), Matenalien zur Lehre von den Sakramenten und vom kirchlichen Amt (Dia­log def Kirchen. Veröffentlichungen des Ökumenischen Arbeitskreises Evangelischer und KathopscherTheologen 6. Lehrverurteilungen - kirchentrennend? 3), Freiburg/Göttingen 1990; :Pannenberg, Wolfhart/Schneider, Theodor (ed.), Antworten auf kirchliche Stel­lungrn\hmen (Dialog der Kirchen. Veröffentlichungen des Ökumenischen Arbeitskreises Evangelischer und Katholischer Theologen 8. Lehrverurteilungen - kirchentrennend? 4), Freibuirg/ Göttingen 1994.

5 See, f4r instance, Norbert Hintersteiner's stuclies - accorcling to Alasdair C. Maclntyre - on the development of a „second first language: Hintersteiner, Norbert, Traditionen überschreiten. Angloamerikanische Beiträge zur interkulturellen Traclitionshermeneutik, Viennlf 2001.

136

Ulrich Winkler

made the other's church a second home to each of us. Learning to understand the other does not mean just knowing something about him or her but living with him or her to a certain degree in his or her house of faith as a guest. An objective description of the other's beliefs is not sufficient for understanding: understanding demands seeing the other as a believer, taking his or her compe­tence as a participant seriously and also sharing experiences in the

other's faith as much as possible.

Of course, my own personal experiences cannot be sim­ply applied to the differences between religions. But these expe­riences have shaped me deeply with respect to how I approach the topic of other religions as a theologian. In addition to all the knowledge that we must acquire, which understanding can­not do without, understanding one another is a much broader activity in which I want to take the participants' perspective and competence seriously: on the one hand, the participants of other religious traditions and their faith and, on the other, my own perspective as a participant and my own faith.

Two projects that I have been working on for the last few years have emerged from this. One is on the theological level: there I am trying to develop a comparative theology. 6 Theology can no longer be practised in the isolation of one's own church and religion; rather, it is becoming more and more important to listen to the answers of other religions when explaining our traditional theological questions. This will bring about major adjustments in one's own theology that must be accompanied with a great sense of responsibility.

6 See Winkler, Ulrich, What is Comparative Theology?, in: Ch:etham, David/Winkl~r, Ulrich/Leirvik, Oddbj0rn/Gruber, Judith (ed.), Interreligious Hermen_euncs in

Pluralistic Europe. Between Texts and Pe~p~e. (Curr~nts of Encounter. Studies on the Contact Between Christianity and other Religions, Beliefs, ar_id Cultures 40), Amsterdam/ New York 2011, 231-264. - Clooney, Francis X., Comparatlve Theology. Deep Learning Across Religious Borders, Chichester 2010.

137

Respect for Religious Diversity

The other project is directing a voluntary study programme of "Spiritual Theo!ogy in Interreligious Process and Encounter''i. It is a three-year programme that is taught in both Austria and Swit­zerland. Because it is a very successful programme, we are plan­ning more courses for the next few years. In this programme we study theological, philosophical, sociological, and psycho­logical fundamentals of spirituality we become acquainted with sources of spirituality in the history of Christianity, and we study in particular the spirituality of four other religions: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. This programme is important to me because I am convinced that theology is not just an academic field for reflecting on doctrine and dogma. It is also connected to the practice of faith. A practice of faith that encounters followers of other religions will not remain static and unchanged. I do not, however, wish for one's own faith to be levelled, threatened, or dissolved in this process but that it be deepened in the encounter with others. This process must be accounted for. How can I manage it so that I no longer encounter other religious traditions with the hermeneutics of suspicion but with an assumption of truth (in other religions)?

This brings us to straight to the topic of this lecture: How does Christian theology deal with religious pluralism? Is theology even capable of this? This is the question treated by the theology of religions.

2. Theology of Religions 2.1. First of all, 1 will begin with a definition

1) The first task of theology of religions is to determine theologically the relationship of Christianity to other religions.

The adverb "theologically" means that the theology of religions is a theological enterprise in which one is com-

7 See www.uni-salzburg.at/ ztkr-ulg.

138

Ulrich Winkler

mitted to one's own standpoint and the truth of one's own faith. 8

2) The second task is connected to the first: theology of religions asks about one's self-conception on the basis of the relationship to other religions. 9

3) Third, theology of religions provides justification for a respectful spiritual attitude towards other religions that is open to learning from them. 10

2.2. Problems and Questions

I will explain these definitions because there are numerous problems and questions connected with them.

What does it mean to 'determine a relationship theologically'?

2.2.1. Theology of Religions can mean two things, grammatically speaking

1) It could be the theology that religions have. We would then be concerned with the theology of Judaism, of Islam, of Buddhism, etc.

2) It could also mean a theology about other religions. It is this second meaning that we have in mind with theology of religions. Christian theology11 deals with other religions and asks what its relationship to other religions is.

8 See Dupuis, Jacques, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, 6"' edition, New York ZOOS [1997]. . .

9 „Also in question here is how Christians will come to comprehend and apprec1ate their own religion and their own personal self-identity in new ways as a consequence of their encounter with their non-Christian neighbours." Gorski, Eugene F., Theology of Religions. A Sourcebook for Interreligious Study, New York/Nahwah 2008, vi.

10 This is a third task of mine in addition to the two very common and highly accepted ones.

11 The theology of religions is a task of Christian theology. "Of religions" is und_erstood as genitive of the object (genitivus obiectivus), a Chrrntian theology about religwns, as distinguished from the genitive of the sub1ect (genzttvus subzectzvus) as the theology that religions have.

139

Respect for Religious Diversity

2.2.2. Can Theology Be Fair to other Religions? Or would Religious Studies be better?

A second decision and a second problem are connected to this first definition. Is theology even in a position to view other religions fairly? 12 If theology is always an enterprise that proceeds from one's own religious standpoint, wouldn't other religions necessarily be portrayed in a false and distorted way? Does not every adherent, after all, want his or her own religion and its theology to appear in the best possible light? This is why other religions are often portrayed in a disadvantageous and condescending/ deprecatory way.

This is a major problem. I can speak only for my own religion and church here: almost the entire history of Christianity is marked by this depreciation of other religions13

and the unquestioning partiality for one's own faith.

This is why, in the 19th century, the study of religions developed as a separate academic field alongside and over

12 A fair representation of other religions in Christian theology is a central concern of Robert Cummings Neville at Boston University: Neville, Robert Cummings, Behind the Masks of God. An Essay Toward Comparative Theology, Albany 1991; Idem, On the Scope ~nd Truth of Theology. Theology as Symbolic Engagement, New York 2006; Idem, Ritual and Deference. Extending Chinese Philosophy in a Comparative Context, Albany 2008. - See also Hetzel, Peter G./Yong, Arnos (Ed.), Theology in Global Context. Essays in Honor of Robert Cummings Neville, New York/London 2004; Winkler, Ulrich, Grundlegungen komparativer Theologie(n) - Keith Ward und Robert C. Neville, in: Bernhardt, Reinhold/Stosch, Klaus von (ed.), Komparative Theologie. Interreligiöse Vergleiche als Weg der Religionstheologie (Beiträge zu einer Theologie der Religionen 7), Zürich 2009, 69-98.

13 The 17'h Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-1445) crowns this sad tradition in the Bull Cantate Domino (Pope Eugene IV): "It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic church before the end of their Jives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian rnilitia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church." Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714 / DH 1351.

140

Ulrich Winkler

against theology14, which set itself the goal to study religions in as objective and neutral way as possible. We know now that there is no such thing as a neutral standpoint. Even the scholar of religions adopts a certain perspective that has been strongly influenced by scientific ideals. Thus, many religious scholars have chosen empirical methods. 15 The study of religions has 14 The pioneer of comparative religion, Friedrich Max Mülle~, .had ~,very. clear notion of

the theologians' perfidious partiality representmg. other relig10ns: .No 1udge, lf he had before him the worst of crirninals, would treat him as most histonans and theolog1ans have treated the religion of the world. Every act in the Jives of their founders which shows that they were but men, is eagerly seized and judged w1thout mercy; . every doctrine that is not carefully guarded is interpreted m the worst sense that lt will bear; every act of worship that differs from our own way servmg God lS held up to ridicule and contempt. And this is not clone by acc1dent'. but with a set purpose, nay, with something of that artificial sense of duty whICh stlmulates the counsel for the defence to see nothing but an angel in his own client, and anything but an angd m the plaintiff on the other side. The result has been - as lt. could not be otherwise -a complete rniscarriage of justice, an utter rrusapprehens10n of the real character and purpose of the ancient religions of mankind; and, as . a necessary consequence, a failure in discovering the peculiar features which really distingmsh Chnstiaruty. from all the religions of the world, and secure to its founder his own peculiar place m the history of the world, far away from Vasishtha, Zoroaster, and Buddha, from Moses. and Mohammed, from Confucius and Lao-tse. By unduly depreclatlng all other relig1ons, we have placed our own in a position - which its founder never mtended foot; we have torn it away from the sacred context of the history of the world; we have lgnored, or wilfully narrowed the sundry times and divers manners m \Vhich, m tlmes past, God spake unto the fathers by the prophets; and instead of recogmsing Chnstiaruty. as commg in the fulness of time, and as the fulfilment of the hopes and [148/149] des1res of the whole world, we have brought ourselves to look upon its advent as the only broken link in the unbroken chain which is rightly called the D1vme government of the world. N ay, 'worse than this: there are people who, from mere ignorance of the anc1ent relig10ns of mankind, have adopted a doctrine more unchnstian than any that could be found m the pages of the religious books of antiquity, viz. that all the natlons of the earth, before the rise of Christianity, were mere outcasts, forsaken and forgotten of their Father. in heaven, without a knowledge of God, without a hope of salvatlon. If a comparatlve study of the religions of the world produced but this one r.esult, that lt drov~ this godless heresy out of every Christian heart, and made us see agam m the whole history of the world the eternal wisdom and love of God towards all His creatures, lt would have clone a good work." Müller, Friedrich Max, Introduction to the Science of Religion. Four Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution in February and May 1870, London [1873] New Edition 1882, 148f. . . . .

15 Especially since the cultural turn in religious studies. See Bonnell, V1ctona E./füernacki, Richard (ed.), Beyond the Cultural Turn. New Directions in the Study of Soc1ety and Culture (Studies on the History of Society and Culture 34), Berkeley 1999; Bachmann­Medick, Doris, Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in d.en K~lturw1ssenschaften,

3'd, reworked edition, Reinbek bei Hamburg 2009; Sadz10, Maik, Kulturenwende. Transkulturelle und transreligiöse Identitäten, München 2010; Lynch, Gordon, Livmg with Two Cultural Turns. The Case of the Study of Religion, in: Roseneil, Sasha/Frosh, Stephen (ed.), Social Research after the Cultural Turn, New York 2012, 73-92. - For

141

Respect for Re/igious Diversity

great merit for religions. But the question remains: Shouldn't the perspective of the participant also be taken more into account for an adequate understanding of religions?

Despite the unpleasant history of theology with other religions, I pin my hopes on theology.

1. In the first place, theology and the church have abandoned their earlier path and recognized their faults. 16

Theology has changed.

2. Second, I believe that theology can develop competence and sensitivity not just for its own faith but also for other faiths.

2.2.3. On the Notion of Religion

Furthermore, it must be critically asked if it is at all possible to determine a relationship to such a complex entity like another religion. Does it make sense to speak of "the"

a critical discussion in the German-speaking context see: Nehring, Andreas/Valentin, Joachim (ed.), Religious Turns - Trning Religions. Veränderte kulturelle Diskurse - neue religiöse Wissensformen (ReligionsKulturen 1), Stuttgart 2008.

16 See the confessions in the Second Vatican Council's Nostra aetate on the Jews and Muslims in article no. 4, 7 ("Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, tnindful of the patrin:10ny she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti­Semitism, ditected against Jews at any time and by anyone.") and no. 3,2 ("Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as weil as to promote together for the benefit of all mank:ind social justice and moral welfare, as weil as peace and freedom."). See also Pope John Paul's II "confessions of sins and ask:ing for forgiveness" on March 12, 2000. "IV Confession of the Sins Against the People of Israel: Let us pray that, in recalling the suffermgs endured by the people of Israel throughout history, Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the Covenant and the blessings, and in this way will purify their hearts. . .. V Confession of Sins Committed in Action Against Love, Peace, the Rights of Peoples, and Respect for Cultures and Religions: ... Let us pray that contemplatingJesus, our Lord and our Peace, Christians will be able to repent of the words and attitudes caused bv pride, by hatred, by the desire to dotninate others, by enmity towards members of oth;r religions and towards the weakest groups in society, such as immigrants and itinerants." http:/ /\VW\V.Sacredheart.edu/pages/12654_pope_john_paul_ii_asks_for_forgiveness_ march_12_2000_.cfm

142

Ulrich Wink/er

world religion17 of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism? Hinduism would be a good example here: one can easily show that "Hinduism"18 is a term scholars of religions invented to identify the numerous religious cultures on the other side of the Indus River. Wi!fred Cantwell Smith19 and - weil known here in Indonesia20 - Clifford GeertZ}1 andJZ. Smith22 have essentially postulated that the term "religion" is an invention from o~tside that is not necessarily consistent with the self-understanding of the believers within that religion. lt is impossible to reduce the diverse traditions of Hinduism to a single concept of religion.

This is precisely what is being attempted with Islam. But this is clearly a polemic, since Islam is not a uniform religion but

17 See for instance, Auffarth, Christoph, „Weltreligion" als Leitbegriff der Rehgionswissenschaft im Imperialismus, in: H.eyden, Ulrich van der/Sto·~·cker, Holger (ed.), Mission und Macht im Wandel politischer. Onentlerungen .. Europaische :Missionsgesellschaften in politischen Spannun.gsfeldern m Afrika ~nd Asien zwischen 1800 und 1945 (Missionsgeschichtliches Archiv 10), Stuttgart 200:i, 17-36; Fitzgerald, Timothy, The Ideology of Religions Studies, New York/Oxford 2000; Masuzawa, Tomoko The Invention of World Religions. Or, How European Uruversalism was Preserv;d in the Language of Pluralism, .Chicago/London 2005. . , .

18 See K:ing, Richard, Orientalism and Religion. Po.stcolorual Theory, India and The Mystlc East', London/New York 1999; Sharma, Arvmd, What is Hmdmsm'. m: Idem (ed.), The studv of Hinduism, Columbia 2003, 1-19; Nehrmg, Andreas, Onemahsmus und :i'vlission. Die Repräsentation der tamilischen Gesellschaft und Religion durch Leipziger Missionare 1840-1940, Wiesbaden 2003; Flood, Gavm ( ed.), The Blackwell Comparuon to Hinduism, Oxford/Malden 2005; Malinar, Angelika, Hinduismus (Studrnm Religionen), Stuttgart 2009. . .

19 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, The Meaning and End of Religion, New York 1963. 1

20 The most popular essay on Indonesia / Bali: Geertz, Clifford, Deep play. Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, in: Daedalus 101/1 (1971) 1-38'. reprmt: Daedalus 134 (2005) 56-86; Geertz, Clifford, Deep play. Beiträge zum balinesischen Hahnenkampf, m: ibid„ Dichte Beschreibung. Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Sy.steme'. Frankfurt 1987 202-260. See also: Gottowik, Volker, Clifford Geertz m der Kntik. Em Versuch, seine~ Hahnenkampf-Essay „aus der Perspektive der Einheimische.n" zu verstehen, rn: Anthropos 99 (2004) 207-214. -See also: Geertz, Clifford, The. Religion of Java, Chicago 1960; Idem, Agricultural Involution. The Process of Ecological Change m Indonesia, Berkeley 1963; Idem, Peddlers and Princes. Social Change and Econon:uc Moderruzatlon in Two Indonesian Towns, Chicago 1963; Geertz, Hildred/Geertz, Clifford, Kinship rn Bali, Chicago 1975; Geertz, Clifford, Negara. The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali, Princeton 1980. . .

21 See Geertz, Clifford, Religion as a cultural system, rn: Banton, Michael (Ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, London.1966._ 1966, 1-46 [r~prmt 2004] / Geertz, Clifford, Religion als kulturelles System, rn: ibid„ Dichte Beschreibung. Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Systeme, Frankfurt 1983, 44-95. .

22 See Smith,Jonathan Z„ Imagining Religion. From Babylon to Jonestown, ChKago 1982.

143

Respect for Religious Diversity

is made up of the abundance of Arab, African, Indian, Persian, and, clearly, also Indonesian traditions. Islam herein Indonesia23

itself is already an example of a wonderful diversity, which is in turn distinguished from other Islamic cultural traditions.

This is why I use the term "religion" only seldom and speak rather of "religious traditions". The individual participant's perspective of each follower of a specific period of time in a specific cultural group can be taken into account better in this way.

A theology of religions will not be able to assess the relationship of 2,000 years of Christianity to 4,000 years of Hinduism · or to 1,300 years of Islam following empirical methods. A theology of religions can, however, give a theological justification of a general attitude towards other religions, which must then be applied to the respective individual questions and fields of relationship. This is the task of comparative theology, which I mentioned briefly above.

2.2.4. Determination of the Relationship on the Basis of Common Ground

A simple philosophical reflection already shows that two things can be meaningfully compared with each other only if there is some common point of reference. Philosophical speculations on a common "essence" of religions have become problematic today. Does a common religious primal experience of dependency24 serve as the basis of religions? Do all religions

23 See the important works of Clifford Geertz to the history of religion quoted below. More recent see: Assyaukanie, Luthfi, Islam and the Secular State in Indonesia (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), Singapore 2009; Hadi, Umar u.a. (ed.), Islam in Indonesia. A to Z Basic Reference (National government publication. Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia : / Centte for Dialogue and Cooperation among Civilisations),Jakarta 2009; Azra, Azyumardi/Dijk, Van Kees/Kaptein,J. G. Nico (ed.), Varieties of Religions Authority: Changes and Challenges in 20th Century Indonesian Islam, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore 2010.

24 See D.F.E. Schleiermacher's (1768-1834) notion of religion as „Gefühl der schlechthinni­gen Abhängigkeit" (Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsät­zen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhang dargestellt (1821/22), hg. v. Hermann

144

Ulrich Winkler

adhere to a common transcendent final basis25 of all reality? Is the connecting factor common humanity, which I talked about above? These are a few of the many answers so far.

As a theologian whose ideas are grounded in my own faith I understand all of humanity to have been created by a be~evolent God who bestowed an unalienable dignity on humans, who created the world with good and salvific intent, who speaks his word to the world so that it can become just and holy, and who generously gives his spirit to the w~r~d, .to humanity, and their cultures.26 I do not assume Chnstiaruty to be the onlv form that God's self-expression takes but hold that God als~ speaks and acts in other religions.27 No single religion in history has realized God's call faithfully and without fault, so also today we must critically assess where people and religions truly let themselves be moved by proper guidance an~ forgiving mercifulness, and where they sin against God, their fellow human beings, and also against creation.

I will end this discussion on the definition of a theology of religions with a quote from the Catholic Magisterium. The International Theological Commission writes in the document "Christianity and the Religions" [1996], Nr. 102: The "respectful confrontation with this . „ truth claim of the religions cannot be a marginal or partial aspect of theology . „ [ but] must play a

Peiter (Kritische Gesamtausgabe I,7 /1-2), Berlin/New York 1980; 2na edition (1830/31), ed. Rolf Schäfer (Kritische Gesamtausgabe I, 13/1-2), Berlin/New York 2003). -See ai.so S. Wendel's notion of religiousness as a sense of being owed; religtousness „als Gefühl der Verdanktheit von einem Unbedingten zu bestimmen, das im Selbstbewusstsem auf­kommt". Wendel, Saskia, Die Wurzel der Religionen, in: FZPhTh 53 (2006)_21-38: 31; Wendel, Saskia, „Sinn und Geschmack fürs Unendliche" (Schleiermacher). Religios1tat als Existenzial bewussten Lebens, in: Bijdragen 65/ 4 (2004) 442-460.

25 See Heim, Mark, Salvations. Truth and Difference in Religions, Maryknoll 199~. 26 These are the theological stepping stones of the Second Vatican Councils s Nostra

aetate. f f hi (pl li 27 See the discussion by J. Dupuis of the religious pluralism as _"a act_o st,ory _ ura ~1;;

de facto)" versus "as ... a raison d' erre in its own nght (pluralism de 1ure o~h m prmc1ple ) Dupuis, Jacques, Toward a Christian Theology of Relig10us Pluralism, 6 pnnting New York 2005 [1997], 11, see also 208.312.386f.

145

Respect forl Religious Diversity

role in the center ef the dai!J work ef theo!ogy .... This respect before the 'otHerness' of the different religions is at the same time condition~d lry one's own truth c!aim."

My own Christian faith demands that I recognize the truth of othe:t religions. That is why the Catholic Church has also establis4ed the "Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue" at the v~ry highest level.

3. Mod~ls for a Theology of Religions 3.1. Differentiations

i

For my next point, I would like to present a few important discussitjns within the theology of religions and provide some clarificatjons. The models of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralistlf have become the most weil known. First of all, there is a majqr debate on if these models are sufficient for classifying positions in the theology of religions. 28 Second, another discussion is if the !position of inclusivism or pluralism provides the best view of ione's own faith. I admit that the church leadership is foilowing this discussion with great concern.29

i

Te~ms are often used differently and confused in these discussiops, causing a great many misunderstandings. Because of this, I:will start off with a very important differentiation.

Th~ terms exclusivism, incluslvism, and pluralism can be used in two different ways: 1) as epistemological terms or 2) as terms in llieology of religions.

!

28 See Scrurpdt-Leukel, Perry, Theologie d;r Religionen. Probleme, Optionen, Argumen­te (Beiträge zur Fundamentaltheologie und Religionsphilosophie 1), Neuried 1997, 65-97; Ideml Grundkurs Fundamentaltheologie. Eine Einführung in die Grundfragen des christlich)!n Glaubens, München 1999, 181-204; Idem, Zur Klassifikation religionstheo­logischer !Modelle, in: Catholica 4 7 (1993) 163-183; Gott ohne Grenzen. Eine christliche und pluralistische Theologie der Religionen, Gütersloh 2005, 62-71.

29 During tl:ie last two decades some proponents of the theology of religion were examined or accuse~ by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: 1995 Anthony de Mello ~J (1931-1987); 1997 Tissa Balasuriya O.M.I. (*1924); 1998 Jacques Dupuis SJ (1923-2004); 2000 Roger Haight SJ (*1936); 2004 Peter C. Phan (*1946).

146

Ulrich Winkler

In my opinion, most problems arise when the epistemic and theology of religions decisions are confused.

In theology of religions the terms mean the foilowing:

Exclusivism: there is only one true religion;

Inclusivism: there are many religions that contain truth, but my religion is superior to all others;

Pluralism: there are many religions of equal value.

One must choose between these positions. I will show how I represent the pluralist position.

3.2. Epistemological Usage

These positions within the theology of religions must not be confused with epistemological processes30, since the latter are completely different from the theological positions.

1. Anyone who wants to have a rational discussion must foilow exclusivism regarding the theory of truth. This theoretical or logical exclusivism requires that I do not hold the opposite of my assertions to be true as weil.

2. 'Epistemic inc!usivism' is likewise necessary for every philosophy and worldview, since each consistent understanding / every theory can only grasp the world within one's own horizon and from one's own standpoint. This epistemic inclusivism does not, however, mean that one must adopt an inclusivist position in the theology of religions, since viewing the world from one's own standpoint does not mean in any sense that I claim an exclusive highest validity for my own religion and that all others are only of lesser salvific quality.

3. As one can plainly see, pluralism would be nonsense in the context of epistemology. This is exactly the accusation

30 See also Schmidt-Leukel, Gott ohne Grenzen 64ff.

147

Respect for Religious Diversity

made against pluralists - namely, that each statement has the same validity and thus all religions would be true for them without any differences. This is a typical confusion be~een pluralism in the sense of theology of religions and m that of epistemic pluralism. Pluralists by no means claim that all religions are true in the same way.

3.3. Classic Models of the Theology of Religions

148

: . Exclusivism means that revelation and salvation exist only m one single religion, specifically mine. All other religions are lies and sin. Actually, they aren't even religions.

The Catholic Church held this model of exclusivism for a long time but today emphatically rejects it. Nonetheless . . ' lt 1s popular in fundamentalist circles in all religions. Evangelical movements in particular, which are also very active in Asia, follow this model.

2. In the model of inclusivism, revelation and salvation are present in many religions, but they exist in a unique highest validity in only one religion, which is mine. The other religions remain deficient.

The official Catholic doctrine follows this model. However, decisive advances beyond this were made by Pope John Paul II in most recent decades before his death.

I call these two models ( exclusivism and inclusivism) "models of competition". They fight a struggle to maintain relig~ous identity by mutually denying the true and saving relation to God through a philosophy of exclusion.

I assume that lying behind them is too simple a concept of language and of the function of signs. Signs are not just a simple communication between sender and receiver

Ulrich Winkler

for passing on information as is the case in technology.31

This concept completely neglects the role of the speaker and his or her context, on the one hand, and the role of the participant, the receptor32, on the other, and, in the case of theology, of believers, who believe within the context of their whole life histories. I will come back to this when explaining pluralism.

3. The best-known exponent in the world of a pluralist theology of religions is John Hick33• His most important assumption is that all religions are in epistemological solidarity with one another because it is impossible for humans with their limited knowledge to recognize God in His infiniteness. God cannot be grasped directly, as He is in Himself but can only be made accessible through our experience. Our experience is always an "experience as," meaning we use our different cultural contexts to express this experience of God. Subsequently, Hick explains the diversity of religious answers to this experience.

Hick wants to unify the personal and impersonal religious

31 In manifold variations a binary notion of sign was effective form Aristotle until Ferdinand de Saussure. Most linguistic concepts were higher sophisticated tban the simple aliquid-stat-pro-aliquo-model. They reflected tbe detour from notion to the thing via imagination. But tbe relation between tbe signified and the signifier remains binarily related. - See Meier-Oeser, Stephan/Frank, Hartwig, Zeichen, in: Ritter, Joachim ( ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 12, Basel 2004, 1155-1179; Nöth, Winfried/ Meier-Oeser, Stephan/Hermes, Hans, Semiotik, Semiologie, in: Ritter, Joachim (ed), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 9, Basel 1995, 602-610.

32 Charles S. Peirce's (1839 - 1914) pragmatism and semiotic introduced „tbe third", tbe interpreter, and developed a triadic notion of sign. " Semiosis - he defined as "„an action, an influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into action between pairs". Peirce, Charles Sanders, Pragmatics and Pragmaticism (Collected papers 5, edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss), Cambridge 1960, 484. - See Pape, Helmut, Charles S. Peirce zur Einführung, Hamburg 2004. - Eco, Umberto, Einführung in die Semiotik [La struttura assente 1968]. German edition by Jürgen Trabant, Paderborn 9th ed. 2002 [1972]; Eco, Umberto, A Theory of Semiotics, Bloomington 1976; Idem, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, London 1984.

33 See Hick, John, An Interpretation of Religion. Human Responses to tbe Transcendent, New Haven 1989.

149

Respect for Religious Diversity

concepts34 in the ground of all reality by using a common term; he thus speaks of the REAL.

In order to apply this impressive model to the different religions, religions must be freed of their exclusivist ideas. Thus, Hick makes formidable changes in the case of Christianity in the area of Christology. He has great admiration for the historical person of Jesus and praises his trust in God and his humanity. But he eliminates all parts of the Christian faith that profess a divine nature in Jesus alongside his human nature. 35 There are many objections to Hick for this reason. Similar theological "disarmaments" must also be required of other religions.

I personally consider it important to develop a bettet model of a plutalistic theology of religions. I will demonstrate this in my last section.

4. A Differential Hermeneutical Model of a Christian and Pluralist Theology of Religions

I will begin with a quote by Nurcholish Ma4Jid (1939-2005), who died too soon in 2005 at the age of 66 and was an important forerunner of Islamic Neo-Modernism in Indonesia:

"If you know who you are, you can understand others and learn from them. But if you are nobody in particular, or just anybody at different times, you can neither learn from others nor teach them."36

34 See Hick, John, The Real and It's Personae and Impersonae, in: Tessier, Linda (ed.), Concepts of the Ultimate, London 1989, 143-158. ----

35 In order to show the absurdity of the Christological dogma Hick calls the for;;_.;ula of the Chaldecon's council a quadrature of a circle: „that the historical Jesus of Nazareth was also God is as devoid of meaning as to say that this circle drawn with a pencil on paper is also a square", Hick,John,Jesus and the World Religions, in: Idem (Ed.), The Myth of God Incarnate, London 1977, 178.

36 Simone Gröschl, Islamische Reformdiskurse in Indonesien. Vom Neo-Modernismus zum "Netzwerk Liberaler Islam", Saarbrücken 2010, 36; Taheri, Amir, A man of light passes away in Indonesia, 2005, in: Asharq Alawsat http:/ /www.aawsat.com/ english/print. asp?artid =id 1615 [07 .05 .2009], http://www.freerepublic.com/ focus f-news / 1481048 / posts [05.01.2012]

150

Ulrich Winkler

The quote contains everything that I would like to add to

the pluralistic theology of religions.

The quote begins: "if you know who you are". Prerequisite for a theology of religions is the examination of one's own standpoint. It is not about giving up one's own convictions in

encountering others.

Therefore, I propose the following changes to John Hick's

plutalist model.

4.1. God, Not the REAL I do not speak of the REAL, but of God, whom I believe

in andin whom Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammed believed.

4.2. True Knowledge of God despite our Ultimate Finitude

Although I do share the epistemological insight that we cannot captute the unfathomable in out finite language and that all language about God is marked with the signatute of time, exactly because it is so I am more optimistic than Hick that God at times expresses himself truly and in a concretely salvific way, as when he freed the people of Israel from Egypt, when he came close to humans through Jesus, and when he spoke through Mohammed in Arabia. lt is always a concrete message in a concrete time as an answer to concrete questions.

The Infinite does not fall to earth like a fireball and destroy everything finite, but expresses itself concretely and understandably in time in finite reality. lt is out responsibility as humans to pass on his word in out time in an understandable

way.

Islam especially emphasizes the human ability to reason, which makes independent thought possible. The human being is a halifa - God's representative on earth37• Because of this

37 See Gröschl, Reformdiskurse 52.

151

Respect for Religious Diversity

the process of igtihdd was developed in the Islamic historv of law, serving to upd_ate norms in each period. This concep; has been taken up agam by contemporary Muslim theologians m Indonesia.

Abdurraham Wahid (1940-2009), also a father of Neo­Modernism in Indonesia, endeavoured to translate this c~nt.extu_ality and concreteness of the message of the Koran for his time lnto the concrete context of the Indonesian present.38 ~s Maqjid says, "the Quran doesn't come down to the Prophet 1n a vacuum. So one of the ways to understand the message is to understand the context."39

. Because of this, I am much more optimistic than Hick. I beheve that the Infinite really does reveal Himself in finite concrete time, that we can experience him and that he guides u; and leads us to justice and love.

4.3. Differences between Religions as God's Praise

Because of this, the belief in one and the same God even within o~e religion can only be realized in the diversity of cultures and t1mes. Even more, all religions are not the same. In fact, real differences remain, despite all the successful dialogues

38 See Mujiburrah~1an, Islam and Politics . in Indonesia. The political thought of Ab~urrahman \Xah1d, m: Islam and Chnst1an-Muslim Relations 10-3 (1999) 339-352· Groschl, Reformdiskurse 52. - Wahid Abdurrahman Islam PolitJ.cs d D ' · l ,... , . . ' ' , an emocracy m t1e 19:i0s and 1990s, m: Bourchier, David (ed.), Democracv in Indonesia: 1950s and 1990s, Clayton 1994, 151-155; Idem, Religions Tolerance i~ a Plural Societv in: I<:.i.ngsb1ury, Darmen/Barton, Greg (ed.), Difference and Tolerance. Human Rights I;~ues m Soutneast Asia, Geelong 1994, 38-43.

39 S~eed, Abdullah, Ijtihad and innovation in neo-modern.ist Islarnic thought in Indonesia, m. Islam and ChnstJan-Muslim Relations 8-3 (1997) 279-29' 28r· G·„ hl

152

R j) cli k ~, :i, see rase . e orm s. un:e 56. - Madj.id, N;ircholish, The Issue of Modernization among Musli.J.~; m Indonesia. From a part!c1pant s Point of View in: Ibrahinl Ahm d (E ') R di I ] · s h . · . ' , a a. , ea ngs on s am 1n out east Asia. Instttute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore 1985, 379-387;

Idem, falam1c Roots of Modern Pluralism, in: Studia Islamika 1-1 (1994) r 5„ 77 ·b d Th Ne in. f R . , l . Th :i . , i i „ e

cess ·/ o enewmg is anuc ought and Reinvigorating Religions Understanding in· Kurzman, Charles (Ed), Libernl Islam. A Sourcebook, New York 1998, 284-289; ibid.: Islam 1s a Hybrid Rebg10n, Jar!ngan Islam Liberal 2001. http:/ /islamlib.com/ en/ article/ ~slam-1s-a-hybnd~rehg10n [05.01.2012]; ibid„ Indonesian Muslims Enter a New Age, n. Hooker, V1rgrn1~/Sa1kal, Armn (ed.), Islamic Perspectives on the New Jlvfillenn.ium.

Institute of South East As1an Studies, Singapore 2004, 7 4-88.

Ulrich Winkler

between them, and that should not be explained away. These spaces between religions are not just a problem, but can also be understood as loci of theology. I will return to this subject of differences as loci of theology.

All religions are silent in the face of the unfathomable mystery of God. It is a silence, a stillness that arises out of awe, not out of contempt. It points to the greatness of God and carries within itself the knowledge that we cannot exhaust the mystery of God with all our talking, thinking, and praying.

Therefore, I assume that the differences between religions can bring us to this silence or stillness where we literally no longer know what we should say. Even with this perplexity, with this dumbness, we can become witnesses to the infinite God with our differences. This stillness then becomes our silent prayer before God when we endure these differences in mutual respect towards one another, when we do not want to proselytize them away, and when we do not use violence. Our differences can become a blessing from God. With our silence we can praise the Almighty.

4.4. Different Proximity to other Religions

Religions are not all the same, and Christianity is not related to all other religions in the same way. We are connected to the family of monotheistic religions through a common history.

Judaism, Jesus' religion is especially close to us. Jesus was not a Christian but lived as a Jew, remained a Jew his whole life, and died as a Jew. Jesus never intended to leave Judaism. His Bible is the Holy Scripture of the Jews, and it is the Holy Scripture of the Christians. Christians incurred grave guilt by consideringJews tobe rejected by God for almost two millennia

153

Respect for Religious Diversity

and actively persecuting them or tolerating their persecution.40

Jews are our brothers41 and sisters. Theology must learn to understand this. Also, every theology of religions that does not often take due note of this close relationship to Jews and Muslims, must learn from that.

Our next closest relatives are Muslims. Since our sources of the New Testament came into existence before Mohammed

' we cannot extract any message directly from those Scriptures. Thus, it is highly significant that the Catholic Church clearly made a statement on this subject for the first time in the Second Vatican Council.42

I quote a short passage by the Council from the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church Lumen Gentium:

"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind." LG 16

40 See. for instance the 4 volumes of Heinz Schreckenberg: Schreckenberg, Heinz, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld [1]. 1.-11. Jh. (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/172), Frankfurt 4. Aufl. 1982 [1999]; Idem, Die chnstlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11.-13. Jh.), (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/335), 2. Aufl., Frankfurt/M. 1991; Idem, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (13.-20. Jh.) (Europäische Hochschul­schriften 23 / 497), Frankfurt/M. 1994; ibid., Die Juden in der Kunst Europas. Ein histo­rischer Bildatlas, Göttingen u.a. 1996.

41 "I am Jpseph Your Brother" (Gen 45,4), these were Pope John's XXIII words greeting a delegation of Jews prior to the Second Vatican council. Pope John Paul II visiting the Jewish Synagogue m Rome 1986 addresses the Jews as "the older brothers" too.

42 See the most extensive collection of official documents of the catholic church encountering Islam: CIBEDO (ed.), Die offiziellen Dokumente der katholischen Kirche zum Dialog mit dem Islam. Zusammengestellt von Timo Güzelmansur. Mit einer Ein­leitung von Christian W Troll, Regensburg 2009. - See also Vöcking, Hans (Hg.), No­stra Aetate und die Muslime. Eine Dokumentation, Freiburg/Basel/Wien 2010; Gioia, Francesco ( ed.), Interreligious Dialogue. The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church from th.e Second Vatican Council to John Paul II (1963-2005), Boston 2006; Secretariat for Non-Christians, Guidelines for a dialogue between Muslims and Christians, Roma 1969; Waardenburg, Jean Jacques, Muslim-Christian Perceptions of Dialogue Today. Experiences and Expectations, Leuven 2000.

154

Ulrich Winkler

Christians and Muslims share a common belief in the one God to whom we pray together, in God the creator and the merciful judge. Christians and Muslims are the heirs of the faith of Abraham. Thus Pope Gregory VII greeted the Emir of Mauretania Al-N asir in the 11 th century as "Brother in Abraham." 43

The Council's second text is significantly longer and is found in Article 3 of the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. Nostra Aetate:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God." (NA 3)

The Council places belief in one God at the centre: not just that He exists somewhere, but that He is God the Almighty and Merciful Creator, who turns to humans and to whom humans submit. The Council uses here the term that the word islam means: submit. The Church holds this faith in high esteem.

This is not a matter of course and it was not always so. That's why the Council mentions at the conclusion of this article the past and enmity that must come to an end:

"Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely

43 See Troll, Christian W, Nostra Aetate. Mehr als konziliare Judenerklärung. Das Verhält-nis zum Islam und die vom Konzil angestoßenen Entwicklung der katholischen Lehre über den Islam und den christlich-islamischen Dialog, in: Henrix, Hans Hermann (ed.), Nostra Aetate - Ein zukunftsweisender Konzilstext. Die Haltung der Kirche zum Juden­tum 40 Jahre danach (Aachener Beiträge zu Pastoral- und Bildungsfragen 23), Aachen 2006, 83-109, here 85.

155

Respect for Religious Diversity

for mutual understanding and to preserve as weil as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as weil as peace and freedom." (NA 3)

Pope John Paul II began the period of Lent in 2000 with a large confession of sins of the Catholic Church.44

He spoke of "pride and hatred,'' "the desire to dominate others," and of "enmity towards members of other religions." Christians have thus "often denied the Gospel; yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions."45

There is nothing more that can be added to this clarity. Some conservative circles in the Catholic Church were shocked about this. But this pope meant it seriously, which is why he is going down in history as the holy pope of reconciliation with religions.

4.5. A Single History of Salvation

These quotes and this entire lecture are too short to present the theological grounds for a theology of religions, so I will only discuss one point briefiy.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims confess the One God who , does not remain within Himself but turns outward, brings forth creation, expresses Himself to humans through his word, and gives us abilities and spiritual gifts so that we can use them for a just world.

Even if Jews, Christians, Muslims, and the many other religions view and believe this relationship between the Infinite and the world in very different ways, we do not assume that

44 See footnote no. 16 above.

45 http:/ /www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12654_pope_john_paul_ii_asks_for_forgiveness march_12_2000_.cfm [05.01.2012] -

156

Ulrich Winkler

many different gods and many paths of salvation isolated from one another. Instead, the One God acts in all of creation and in the whole history of humankind. It is a single history of salvation that unfolds in many human answers. Christians associate God's speaking and healing with Jesus, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit. Muslims understand this speaking through Mohammed, and Jews, in turn, through the Torah. Other religions have other answers.

This is a Christian theological concept: to conceive of a unity of salvation history in the plurality of religions. Every religion with its own theology develops its own concept for this. Theology of religions is not about everybody sharing the Christian conceptions of God, Jesus, and the Spirit; instead, each theology conducts its own theology of religions out of its epistemological inclusivist position. The next step is the exciting discussion between these different theologies of religions must now take place.

So theology of religions is not a disguised proselytizing of others. The Second Vatican Council thus declares a completely different task awaiting the Church. It is written at the very beginning of the Council's Nostra Aetate text:

"In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship. One is the community of all peoples". (NA1)

The new calling of the Church is not to spread the Catholic Church but to facilitate community and love among the peoples and thus also the religions. Christians need to make an effort at this. So the Church should not look at what separates but is to begin with what we have in common. Here the Church and the religions have truly entered a global era that, all over the globe, places us before the challenge of living together in peace as a

157

Respect for Religious Diversity

community.

I found a very similar notion in N urcholish lviacf;id, who says that the Muslim faith (iman) and reason ( 'aq~ must be applied to cultivate the human community of all peoples (maslaha). 46

4.6. Participant Perspective and Comparative Theology

Nonetheless, this general theological perspective of a salvation history and the general task of cultivating the human community should not be misunderstood in such a way that ~fferences and detailed perspectives are erased. The opposite 1s the case. Because we can draw upon a common basis and follow a common goal, we cannot treat the questions at issue at the general level of world religions but must instead turn to the p~rticipant perspective of the believers. I have already pointed this out. ,Encountering the belief of the believers is part of understanding another religion. It is known that John Paul II was deeply and personally moved by the heartfelt witness of the faith in the encounter with Muslims in many audiences.

The theology of religions must thus take the next step and turn to the concrete questions of details between religions. This is the duty of comparative theology, which no longer practices theology with the status of an observer but with the largest possible participation in another faith. The main pillar is firmly rooted in one's own faith, the other in a deep encounter with another faith.

The large position of points of the theology of religions must pass the practical test in concrete situations and with concrete questions.

4. 7. Hermeneutics of Differences

Why do I consider the position of the participant / the believer to be so important? First of all, the general reason is 46 See Gröschl, Reformdiskurse 56.

158

Ulrich Winkler

that religions never exist for themselves but only exist because people believe. The other reason has to do with the peculiarity of our language, since language does not only have an informative function. That would be only a very simple, primitive, and technical concept of language.47 If one understands the language of religions in this way, then one can do nothing else but fight about who received the correct information from God. Unfortunately, many fundamentalist arguments function in this way.

But in order to understand language or a sign, it is necessary to have, along with the signified and the signifier, a third instance, which is the recipient or the participant.48 A sign only works in interaction, in this triangle of signified, signifier, and interpreter.

There is something else as well: semiotic communication can never be mothballed or closed down, because signs receive their meanings through the designation via other signs. This process modifies their meaning, along with other things. A sign thus only functions in difference from and in relation to other signs. Umberto Eco calls this process the "process of unlimited semiosis" .49

Other philosophical branches have also confirmed this semiotic theory of language. The language game theory discovered that there is never an objectively right language. Rather, one can only understand language within a system of

4 7 See the theories of speech acts, the concepts of performative language and language games: Austin, John Langshaw; How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge 1962; Searle, John R., Speech Acts, Cambridge 1969; Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, Maiden 1953, part 1, § 23. - Recently: G:ilvez,Jesus Padilla/ Gaffal, Margit ( ed.), Forms of Life and Language Games. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag 2011. - See also footnotes no. 31 and no. 32.

48 See the third of C.S. Peirce, footnote no. 32. 49 Umberto Eco's term "unlimited semiosis", see footnote no. 32; see C.S. Peirce: "series

of successive interpretants" ad infinitum; J. Derrida "difference"; "Aufpfropfung" / "grafting" in recent cultural studies stands for the hybridity of knowledge.

159

Respect for Religious Diversity

rules. Languages are always embedded in a reference framework that determines its meaning. When one speaks of a dog, for example, the meaning is completely different in the reference framework of biology than it is in the reference framework of an Arabian argument.

Semiotics has made a specific contribution to showing that signs never generate their meaning as direct copies of reality but instead use other signs, which are altered in turn by this application.

Diverse and lively traditions in the religions have emerged from this process. And so I return to the quote from Nurcholish Ma4Jid that I cited above:

"If you know who you are, you can understand others and learn from them. But if you are nobody in particular, or just anybody at different times, you can neither learn from others rior teach them."

The person who stands secure in his or her faith can engage in these processes of change. The person who is uncertain in his or her identity or, as Macfjid expresses it, is a nobody, will want to statically hold on to his or her identity forcibly. Here, the fundamentalist overlooks the fact that his or her identity vanishes through this very attempt. Belief is not about fighting over the right information about God. In fact, talk of God uses perforniative language. Belief brings change. It is not as if we receive the information that God is all powerful, merciful, and whatever else, and then go back to our daily business, and this information has no effect whatsoever. No, language of faith is performative. Talk of God is a message that brings something about, that changes something and urges us to change ourselves and our lives for a more just world.

160

Ulrich Winkler

Whoever understands their own faith in this vital performance is able to learn from other faiths as weil as learning

from their own, as Macfjid says.

4.8. The Spiritual Attitude of Valuing Other Religions

I wanted to make it clear by this understanding of theology of religions that cultivating thriving relationships with other religious traditions is not just something demanded by tolerance and world peace. Rather, that theology of religions arises out of an attitude of an innermost personal conviction of faith. My own faith commands me to value other.s'.I no lon~er encounter the other with condescension and susp1c1on but wlth an assumption of truth because I am convinced on the ba.si~ of my own faith that God also acts salvifically in other. re~g1ous traditions. True and false, good and evil is no longer distnbuted between my religion and other religions. Instead, I am called to critically examine, to recognize the good, to name the bad, and

to confess my own guilt or sin.

Encountering other religious traditions and people of different faiths with an openness to learning issues from an attitude of faith. I call it a spiritual attitude. The foremost task of a theology of religions is to substantiate and enabl~ .this spiritual attitude for encountering other believers and r~~g1ons with a high sense of responsibility, in order to, as Ma4Jzd says,

obtain identity.

161

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Religions, Society and the State in Dialogue

Contributions to the Austrian-Indonesian Dialogue

Stefan Hammer and Fatimah Husein (eds.)

miversität w1en