Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:02:48.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Universal Religious Experience? Comparative Theology as an Alternative to a Theology of Religions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

James L. Fredericks
James L. Fredericks*
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article examines Liberal Theology's claim regarding a universal religious experience and George Lindbeck's rejection of this claim. Since a universal religious experience is frequently put forth as the basis for the transcendental unity of religions, the theological debate regarding such an experience is very pertinent to the current discussion of religious diversity. The author argues that neither Liberal Theology's appeal to religious experience nor Lindbeck's rejection of this appeal is helpful. In lieu of a comprehensive theology of non-Christian religions based on an appeal to a universal religious experience, the author proposes a comparative theology as the best candidate for dealing responsibly and creatively with the plurality of religions.

Type
Articles
Information
Horizons , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , Spring 1995 , pp. 67 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 1995

References

1 “Der Begriff der Erfahrung scheint mir… zu den unaufgeklärtesten Begriffen zu gehören, die wir besitzen.” See Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Wahrheit und Methode (Tübingen: J. B. C. Mohr, 1960), 329.Google Scholar For the English-language translation, see Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1985), 310.Google Scholar Notice that the German term used by Gadamer in this passage is Erfahrung and not Erlebnis. Although Erlebnis covers the more subjective and emotional aspects of the semantic range of the English word “experience,” Gadamer considers not only Erlebnis but also Erfahrung to be philosophically obscure. For Gadamer's reflections on the historical development of the term Erlebnis in German Romanticism, see Truth and Method, 58-63.

2 For purposes of convenience, the term “Liberalism” in this essay is used in a very general way, referring to the entire tradition, stemming from Schleiermacher, of interpreting religious phenomena with the category “experience.” In this respect, unless otherwise specified, by “Liberals” I include not only theologians, but nontheological interpreters of religion such as philosophers, historians, and psychologists.

3 Nowhere in Schleiermacher do we find the noun “experience” (Erlebnis) or even the then more common verbal form of the word (Erleben). But we do encounter an abundance of synonyms. Examples include eigenes Gefühl (“one's feeling”); Empfindung (“feeling”); Regung als freie Selbstbestimmung des Gemüts (“feeling of the self-determination of the heart”); das ursprünglich Innerliche (“the original inwardness”); etc. For the German text, see Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Über die Religion: Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967).Google Scholar Hans-Georg Gadamer notes the absence of the term “experience” in Schleiermacher as part of his argument that Schleiermacher formed the impetus within German Romanticism which later gave birth to the noun form of the word (Erlebnis). For Gadamer, the link between Schleiermacher and the German Romantics is Wihelm Dilthey (Schleiermacher's biographer). See Gadamer, , Truth and Method, 57–58.Google Scholar

4 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, trans. Oman, John (San Francisco: Harper Torchbooks, 1958);Google Scholar hereafter Speeches. For Smith's comment, see The Meaning and End of Religion (New York: New American Library, 1964), 45.Google Scholar

5 See Speeches, esp. “Speech 2.”

6 Schleiermacher, , Speeches, 41–42.Google Scholar

7 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Christian Faith, 2nd ed., trans. Mackintosh, H. R. and Stewart, J. S. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928).Google Scholar

8 Schleiermacher, , Christian Faith, 16.Google Scholar

9 Proudfoot, Wayne, Religious Experience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).Google Scholar For other arguments against the Liberal category “religious experience” and in support of reductionist theories of religion, see Penner, Hans and Yonan, Edward, “Is a Science of Religion Possible?,” Journal of Religion 52/2 (1972): 107–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPenner, criticizes the Liberal attempt in “The Fall and Rise of Methodology,” Religious Studies Review 2 (1976): 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Schleiermacher, , Speeches, 211.Google Scholar

11 See Heiler, Friedrich, “The History of Religion as a Preparation for the Cooperation of Religions” in Eliade, Mircea and Kitagawa, Joseph, eds., The History of Religions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), 142–53;Google ScholarOtto, Rudolf, Mysticism East and West: A Comparative Analysis of the Nature of Mysticism, trans. Bracey, Bertha L. and Payne, Richenda C. (New York: Macmillan, 1932);Google Scholar Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion; Smith, Huston, Forgotten Truth (New York: Harper, 1976);Google ScholarHick, John, “Whatever Path Men Choose Is Mine” in Hick, John and Hebblethwaite, Brian, eds., Christianity and Other Religions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 60–78Google Scholar, Problems of Religious Pluralism (New York: St. Martin's, 1985)Google Scholar, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982)Google Scholar, and An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989);Google ScholarSchuon, Frithjof, The Transcendent Unity of Religions (New York: Harper & Row, 1975);Google ScholarTroeltsch, Ernst, The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religions (Richmond: John Knox, 1971);Google Scholar and Toynbee, Arnold, An Historian's Approach to Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), 262–64, 272–77.Google Scholar

12 See Staal, Frits, Exploring Mysticism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975);Google ScholarUnderhill, Evelyn, Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Man's Spiritual Consciousness (London: Methuen, 1911);Google Scholar and Zaehner, R. C., Mysticism, Sacred and Profane (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957).Google Scholar

13 See Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 106–59;Google ScholarRahner, Karl, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Seabury, 1978), 24–43;Google ScholarLonergan, Bernard, Method in Theology (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), 109;Google Scholar and Panikkar, Raimundo, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1964), 1–30.Google Scholar

14 For the most part, neo-Hindu thinkers trace their intellectual heritage within the Indian tradition to Vedantic thought. For a discussion of the influence of European ideas regarding religious experience on neo-Hindu interpretations of religious pluralism, see Halbfrass, Wilhelm, India and Europe (Stonybrook, NY: SUNY Press, 1988), 378–402.Google Scholar

15 Mukerji, Bithika, “Christianity in the Reflection of Hinduism” in Griffiths, Paul J., ed., Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990), 232–33.Google Scholar

16 Nishida, Kitarô, An Inquiry into the Good, trans. Abe, Masao and Ives, Christopher (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

17 For Talbi, see “Islam and Dialogue—Some Reflections on a Current Topic.” For Rahman, , see “The People of the Book and the Diversity of Religions.” Both essays are in Griffiths, , ed., Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes, 102–10.Google Scholar To be included with these two Islamic figures is Seyyed Hossein Nasr, editor of a collection of essays by Frithjof Schuon and a considerable body of his own works which suggest an esoteric turn to mystical experience in the face of religious pluralism. See The Essential Writings of Frithjof Schuon, ed. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (Amity, NY: Amity House, 1986)Google Scholar, and Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, Knowledge and the Sacred (New York: Crossroad, 1981).Google Scholar

18 For an argument supporting this interpretation of Rahner's controversial theology of “anonymous Christianity” see Boutin, Maurice, “Anonymous Christianity: A Paradigm for Interreligious Encounter?,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 20/4 (1983): 602–29.Google Scholar

19 See, for instance, Rahner's, article “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions” in Theological Investigations 5 (Baltimore: Helicon, 1966), 118–21.Google Scholar

20 The equation of ineffability with universality can reach comic as well as cosmic proportions. Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead once reported to an approving Joseph Campbell on the analogy between the ancient Greek mysteries and modern rock concerts: “They didn't know what they were saying, and we don't know what we're saying either, but we think we're saying the same thing.” See Wendy Doniger's decidedly disapproving review of A Fire in the Mind: The Life of Joseph Campbell by Larsen, Stephen and Larsen, Robin in The New York Times Book Review, 02 2, 1992, p. 8.Google Scholar

21 Lindbeck, George, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984).Google Scholar

22 Ibid., 16-17.

23 Ibid., 16-17, 31-32.

24 Ibid., 32-34.

25 See Gerrtz, Clifford, “Religion as a Cultural System” in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 73–125Google Scholar, and de Saussure, Ferdinand, Cours de linguistique générale (Paris: Payot, 1971).Google Scholar

26 Based on this analogy, Lindbeck goes on to develop what he calls a “rule theory” of doctrine. See Lindbeck, , The Nature of Doctrine, 73–90.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., 39-40.

28 Ibid., 40.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid., 113 ff.

31 Perhaps this point can be clarified by comparing Lindbeck's notion of intratextuality with the position of another member of what has been called the “Yale School.” In The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, Hans Frei calls for the restoration of the primacy of the biblical worldview for Christian theology. Prior to the modern period, the world of the scriptural text was the prime reality for the Christian believer. Life was interpreted by the more encompassing reality of the biblical worldview. The rise of Enlightenment rationalism and historical criticism in the seventeenth century brought with it the “eclipse” of biblical narrative as a comprehensive framework for interpreting life religiously. Scripture, once the framework for interpreting the world, gradually became an object within the world to be interpreted. Lindbeck's call for an intratextual understanding of texts and a grammatical model of doctrine is fundamentally in accord with Frei's views regarding the inappropriateness for Christian theology of judging Scripture by extrabiblical criteria. In Frei's view, theology should not use worldly value-systems to interpret scriptural texts. Rather, the scriptural text is the broader framework within which the world is to be interpreted. Similarly for Lindbeck, Christian texts (including doctrinal statements) do not express an experience lying beyond the text. For this reason, they are not to be judged by extratextual standards. Instead, Christian doctrine forms a basic grammar for understanding Christianity as a symbol-system within which all of life is to be interpreted by the believer. See Frei, Hans, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

32 For a discussion of Lindbeck's Postliberal program for theology as “confessionalism,” see Tracy, David, “Lindbeck's Program for Theology: A Reflection,” Thomist 49 (1985): 461–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Lindbeck, , The Nature of Doctrine, 49.Google Scholar

34 For a discussion of a parallel problem for a Jewish theology of religions, see Novak, David, Jewish-Christian Dialogue: A Jewish Justification (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar, and Levinson's, Jon review article of this work, “Must We Accept the Other's Self-Understanding?,” Journal of Religion 71/4 (1991): 558–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 For examples, see footnotes 16 through 19 above.

36 For the threefold typology of theological interpretations of non-Christian religions see Knitter, Paul, No Other Name? (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985)Google Scholar, and Race, Alan, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1982).Google Scholar

37 For a discussion of these factors, see Gilkey, Langdon, “Plurality and Its Theological Implications” in Hick, John and Knitter, Paul, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987), 37–40.Google Scholar

38 Clooney, Francis X., “The Study of Non-Christian Religions in the Post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 28/3 (Summer 1991): 482–94.Google Scholar

39 For a well-argued account of the importance of the study of non-Christian religions as a necessary component of an adequate Christian theology of non-Christian religions, see Noia, J. A. Di, The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992).Google Scholar

40 Take as examples, Hick's “reality centeredness,” Rahner's “Holy Mystery,” or W. C. Smith's “faith.”

41 See Clooney, Francis X., Theology after Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993);Google ScholarKeenan, John P., The Meaning of Christ: A Mahayana Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989);Google Scholar and Abe, Masao, “Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata” in Cobb, John B. Jr. and Ives, Christopher, eds., The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990).Google Scholar

42 Gadamer, , Truth and Method, 272–74.Google Scholar

43 For Lévinas, Emmanuel see his Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans. Lingis, Alphonso (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1969).Google Scholar For Tracy, David see his Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).Google Scholar For a Pure Land Buddhist approach to the transformative power of the Other, see Hajime, Tanabe, Philosophy as Metanoetics, trans. Yoshinori, Takeuchi (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).Google Scholar

44 See, for instance, Tracy's comments on James, William in Dialogue with the Other: Interreligious Dialogue (Louvain: Eerdmans/Peeters Press, 1990), 30.Google Scholar

45 See Shin'ichi, Hisamatsu, “Zen as the Negation of Holiness” in Franck, Frederick, ed., The Buddha Eye: An Anthology of the Kyoto School (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 169–78.Google Scholar

46 See Clooney, , After Vedanta, 4–5.Google Scholar

47 Faure, Bernard, Chan Insights and Oversights: An Epistemological Critique of the Chan Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 8.Google Scholar

48 For the hermeneutical implications of resistance and hope, see Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity.