(Tina)Theresa Hannah-Munns
RLST 380AA - 001
Jan. 30/04
Reference: Coward, Harold. (2000) Pluralism in the World Religions: A Short Introduction. Boston; Oneworld.
The future of religion rests on the ability of people opening up to change that results from honest and respectable dialogue. Change requires people to be vulnerable to having their emotions stirred, thinking before speaking, opening their hearts to empathetic relationships, and adjusting how they view the world, both the world of human nature and of the transcendent. Coward’s book was a jewel for me as an Irish woman who lives with Celtic, Christian, Buddhist, and Cree First Nations beliefs. Living in a blended family, belonging to cross-cultural interests, and having an open mind, I responded most strongly to the last chapter, calling for specific actions in order to produce the proper dialogue that accentuates my personal experience. Coward’s explanation of practical techniques moved me to realize I will have to work harder in order to add to this dialogue.
I enjoyed the emphasis on how pluralistic dialogue among religions can increase understanding of both human relationships and their relationships with the Sacred. By learning, and hopefully experiencing, other religions the boundaries of spiritual understanding will expand, allowing more tolerance and empathy to flow into other areas of cross-cultural dialogue. Moving towards a global community does not have to mean watering down the experience of being human through the process of assimilating everyone into one culture with shared beliefs, but of respecting and accentuating the natural expressions of diversity into a unified human family. This can only be accomplished with individuals taking responsibility for their reactions to change.
Coward moved through the recognized world religions one at a time, allowing an understanding of the effects and responses to pluralism to take hold before summing up his call to action. Judaism has dealt with pluralism throughout their history and can extend the concept of ‘their God’ into a One God that can have many manifestations working through the other religions (14). The Jewish are mainly concerned with the understanding of One God (they have trouble with Buddhist not having a transcendent God), and their concept of idolatry that they judge is within the other religions. Jewish theologists will have to keep an eye on the resurgence of Zionist separatists that could complicate Judaism’s relationships with other religions.
Christianity is explored with the “exclusivist missionary approaches” (16) being forefront, with “both theoretical and concrete realities … forcing these theologians to question the exclusivist claims of their Christian faith” (16). Some denominations refuse to open up to an honest dialogue, insisting that Christianity is the one and only religion, using Barth’s exclusivism and the Bible to back up their claims. The Christology around God’s only begotten Son and salvation only through him is being transformed through various theological models, with the dialogical approach being “the most promising of all, emphasiz(ing) both the universality of God and the human need for complete commitment to the particular truth of the worshipper’s religion” (59). Yet, Buddhism and some Hinduism remains hard for Christians to understand in their “rejection of God as ultimate reality” (59).
I really enjoyed the Baha’I Faith chapter, since I know, very little about their religion. What I read touched me to want to experience and learn more about their beliefs and the way they deal with the world. With all religions acknowledged as having divine origins, the Baha’I’s rejection of exclusivism and inclusivism, their taking account of historical context, and accounting for human interpretation and levels of understanding, the Baha’I Faith seems to be on the right track. I especially responded to their criterion of truth: that revelation guides people to ethical and spiritual considerations, it has a long-lasting impact, it effects large populations, and it inspires a new worldview (92). They allow paradox to exist instead of absolutism, allowing diversity to have its natural place. The main concern of other religions is that Baha’I ’s emphasize pluralism, yet have a missionary aspect to their practice. Conversion tends to hinder honest dialogue.
Hinduism has had even more experience than Judaism with pluralism, using more of an inclusive strategy throughout history, while Judaism was more exclusivist. Hinduism has many paths to liberation, some of which can be seen as adaptive from encountering other religions in the far past. Hinduism is not the only religion transformed in this way; Hinduism simply has an easier time to do this within its varying philosophical structures. Since Hinduism recognizes the diversity of human personalities and experiences, adaptation comes easier to this religion; there is an intrinsic acceptance of many forms of human and divine experiences, and the recognition of liberation and union with the Source as the final goal (108). Radhakrishnan sees how “different religions must develop the spirit of mutual comprehension that characterized Hinduism even in its earliest age” (117). This comprehension has allowed Hinduism to adapt and succeed throughout its long history. Unfortunately, this adaptation must be monitored by the other religions, or at least be recognized as a challenge, lest it become “absolutiz(ing) the relativism” (125). Hinduism needs to give more recognition and acceptance of differences within all religions.
Buddhism seems to be unique in both assisting dialogue and challenging other religions in dialogue. The concept of critical tolerance, compassion, and wisdom brings forthright and honest views of reality without the personification of a deity or God. The Buddhist emphasis of doctrines being illusions, or fingers pointing to realizing Reality, will benefit many of the world religions, while challenging them to look at what is really important in their beliefs. The Buddhist can share their philosophies of faith, of selflessness, and of the reality of interdependence and interrelatedness. Tolerance can be a gift if the other religions can get past the linguistic conceptions of what is sacred. Buddha also taught that, whether within Buddhism or in a different religion, personal experience is the test of faith and value for oneself. This can help balance an overly theoretical discussion and bring honest dialogue to fruitation. Madhyamika Buddhism will use logic to reduce arguments to absurdity, thus helping other theologists to work at strengthening their rationales and beliefs, or altering them if necessary. Some, I am sure, will simply refuse to take part in further dialogue. The challenge for Buddhists is to remain compassionate and respectful, keeping their unique missionary style under control.
One of my favourite quotes and analogies is Mendelssohn’s words: “It is not necessary for the entire flock to graze on one pasture or to enter and leave the master’s house through just one door. It would be neither in accord with the shepherd’s wishes nor conducive to the growth of his flocks.” Coward continues with: “To require a union of religions is not tolerance but the very opposite. The exercise of reason and freedom of conscience requires pluralism in religious experience” (8). I now know that pluralism is what I want to focus my academic efforts on and will be returning to Coward’s book for further inspiration and study. Furthermore, I will be refreshing myself with the new techniques Coward subscribed to in the last chapter.
