"Revelation" in other Religions (John Musonda)

A theological evaluation of “revelation” in other religions

(John Musonda)

Ratzinger, Joseph, “The Unity and Diversity of Religions: The Place of Christianity in the History of Religions,” in Truth and Tolerance. Christian Belief and World Religions, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

Comprehension questions

The phenomenon of religious pluralism

1.       Why does Cardinal Ratzinger think that “a phenomenological investigation [of religions] which would not straightaway concern itself with the value of these religions for eternity… needs to precede such theological judgments about other religions” (p. 18)?

-          Indeed there is need to define the entity of religion that is its inner contents as developed over a period of time

-          Otherwise  if that is not discerned one may deny what we do not know in particular religions

2.       Name two possible attitudes towards other religions in the light of the Christian conviction that Christ is the only Saviour and salvation of man?

-          Positive as the first attitude in Christianity take other religions as being provisional religions. In this case they need not convert because in any case they will progress to a rather higher religion thus Christianity

-          Negative as the second Christian attitude see other religions as anti - Christian. In this case there is need for conversion to Christianity

3.       What does the Christian rejection of gods signify? How is it viewed by the secularised man of today?

-          The rejection signifies a revolution towards polytheism. Christianity in its robust gesture of rebellion thereby leading the way.

-          But for many Christianity has taken a partisan stance – purporting to behold the truth

4.       What is the concept of religion held by “the man of today”?

-          Relativism – with the analogy of ‘world religious citizenship’ there are many religions though essentially its one. In my own words I would it’s like a particular pain let’s say headache that has various medical pain killers.

-          The other concept is that of being static meaning to say that one particular religion cannot develop into another religion hence denying the Christian religious provisional concept

5.       What is the “future for religions” according to the thinking of Radhakrishnan?

-          Fundamental unity. All religions will be one thus he makes an appraisal of the concept of provisionality of religions

The Place of Christianity in the History of Religion

6.       What is the first perception of the man of today when he looks at the plurality of religions? What is the next impression?

-          The first impression looking at plurality of religion is the fact of limitless plurality.

-          However, after that one discovers that in fact among multiple religions there is a common shared religious experience hidden in the fundamental symbols

7.       “This mystical interpretation of religion forms the background of the idea of religion of man today.” Elaborate on this statement.

-          Insofar as mystical experience is entirely based on an inner experience or even subjective conviction of the one; then religion must necessarily be understood with that bias. Since religious experiences are hardly articulated without a bias there is need to understand that from the lived experiences of one practising. This calls for new forms of experiencing and handing on religious idea – this will in a long run necessitate adaptation and consequent improvement of religion idea today

8.       According to the mystical interpretation of religion, what is “first hand religion” and what is “second hand religion”?

-          First hand religion is a direct form of mysticism thus exclusively private. This means the experience is confined within the conditions of one experiencing – no need for symbols

-          Second hand religion is indirect insofar as it is passed on as belief. Since its passed on (catechised) then it uses symbols but then it is secondary thus less important

9.       Name and explain the stages of development history of religion.

-          Primitive stage – this is an unthemitised kind of stage since all what’s experienced is scattered, vague and entirely depends on the one experiencing

-          Mythical stage -  the experiences become categorised thus subjected to modification

10.   What are the three ways of moving beyond the myth of religions?

-          Mysticism

-          Monotheism revolution (in this method myths are rejected as being man made while underlining the divine calling)

-          Enlightenment (all things subjected into the canon of reason)

Mysticism and belief

11.   What is the Christian approach to “mysticism” in religions?

-          Scientific approach – where the structure of the knowledge of mysticism is established thereby demonstrating its inferior position to Christian monotheism

12.   Why is the monotheism of Israel a sort of “revolution” in the history of religion?

-          This is so because took a deliberate rejection of polytheism. Therefore, there was a complete overthrow of god

13.   How is the monotheism of Israel different from that of Hinduism or ATR?

-          First it’s because Israel monotheism is directed towards one God (divine), while in Hinduism and ATR though there is a peripheral reference to monism there is no direction approach

-          Secondly, monotheism in Israel was through the rebellion instigated by ‘a few people’ filled with the awareness of religious idea that shattered myths – Hinduism it’s unified under a certain privileged mystic.

14.   How does monotheism and mysticism differ from each other radically? What is the core of their difference?

-          In monotheism there is a complete departure from myths through a revolution while in mysticism any changes are through evolution (complete detachment from the gods)

The structure of the two great ways of Religion

15.   What does Jean Daniélou say about Christianity in contrast to the great non-Christian religions?

-          In Christianity all is historical thus faith experienced in the events. Indeed there was a time when the idea was revealed within history; we can add that the faith was revealed, believed in the particular time and space. It’s through these events that the relationship is established between people and God

16.   Mention the obvious difference between the patriarchs and prophets of Israel and the great founders of East Asian religions. What does this say about the structure of the way of mysticism and belief in one God?

-          Patriarchs and prophets were not great religious personalities: because it was God in the first place who raised them and they only obeyed and acted within the confines of God’s prescription. In the end their personality was not significant as the mission entrusted to them; which they passed on.

-          Unlike in mysticism where the mystic does his will since he is the only one who understands; and so he does not point to anything other than the self. In fact the highest union for the followers is to become like one (himself) e.g. Buddha

17.   Why does Christianity not recognise the distinction between “first hand religion” and the “second hand religion” as viewed by mysticism?

-          This is so because in mysticism there is a glorification of the one who received (mystic) than what has been received (message). In this process some mystics have become gods while the believer in the second hand religion becomes less important.

-          While in Christianity God is the source or simply put it the “first hand”. The rest including the one apparent mystic is a ‘second hand’ since belief is demanded from all. The one who receives is less important than what has been received; which need to be first of all be believed (response) and then passed on (response).

18.   In brief, what is the place of Christianity in the history of religions?

-          Christianity must endeavour to be a living demonstration of genuine religious history. Thus to be ‘a path whose direction we call progress and whose attitude we call hope’. Even more obvious than anything else is to show that in fact ‘we are all part of a single history that is in many different fashions on the way to God’.

However caution must be adhered to because in matters of religion what should be the obvious meeting points are apparently the strong points of religious disunity.