Gross Article
The three major points that stand out in Gross’s article are concerning the problem of diversity that has lead to contention; genuine pluralism as a adequate technique for dealing with diversity and lastly how to foster Genuine pluralism.
Gross first stipulates diversity between religions has been a platform for contention rather than building a community. In each Monotheistic religion the particular claim of superiority above all other monotheistic or non monotheistic religions has been a major ingredient in creating contention rather than a sense of community amongst the vast religious community.
Gross puts forward the concept of ‘genuine pluralism’ as a viable answer to building a genuine sense of community amongst much religious diversity. ‘Genuine pluralism’ offers a safe environment for the world religions to be autonomous and distinct since it does not reduce all the religions to the same thing or try to create a singular religious system out of the plurality of the world. However, it does require that it be acknowledged, by religion, that there is no longer a possibility in our modern age to maintain the belief that a ‘unique nonhuman origin’ is the source of the founding of your religion.
There is one viewpoint in Gross’s article that I want to analyse. It is a contradiction of the concept of ‘genuine pluralism’s’ idea of diversity. The idea of diversity and acceptance of differences in different religions is key to ‘genuine pluralism’ and a positive thing, but Gross writes that diversity is also a stumbling block of contention amongst the various religious communities, particularly monotheistic traditions. His solution is to cut out the belief in a transcendent, nonhuman source. His solution is in opposition to the concept of diversity and acceptance that ‘genuine pluralism’ holds dearly to. This seems to represent a contradiction in his expounding of ‘genuine pluralism’s’ idea of diversity.
Gross first stipulates diversity between religions has been a platform for contention rather than building a community. In each Monotheistic religion the particular claim of superiority above all other monotheistic or non monotheistic religions has been a major ingredient in creating contention rather than a sense of community amongst the vast religious community.
Gross puts forward the concept of ‘genuine pluralism’ as a viable answer to building a genuine sense of community amongst much religious diversity. ‘Genuine pluralism’ offers a safe environment for the world religions to be autonomous and distinct since it does not reduce all the religions to the same thing or try to create a singular religious system out of the plurality of the world. However, it does require that it be acknowledged, by religion, that there is no longer a possibility in our modern age to maintain the belief that a ‘unique nonhuman origin’ is the source of the founding of your religion.
There is one viewpoint in Gross’s article that I want to analyse. It is a contradiction of the concept of ‘genuine pluralism’s’ idea of diversity. The idea of diversity and acceptance of differences in different religions is key to ‘genuine pluralism’ and a positive thing, but Gross writes that diversity is also a stumbling block of contention amongst the various religious communities, particularly monotheistic traditions. His solution is to cut out the belief in a transcendent, nonhuman source. His solution is in opposition to the concept of diversity and acceptance that ‘genuine pluralism’ holds dearly to. This seems to represent a contradiction in his expounding of ‘genuine pluralism’s’ idea of diversity.
Howell Article
There are two main issues examined in Howell’s article. The first is the growing trend to draw a distinction between being ‘spiritual’ and being ‘religious’ in the Western Europe, North America and Australasia. The second is the emergence of the term ‘spirituality’ to designate a new religious arena called ‘depth spirituality’ in the East.
Howell first explains the growing trend amongst people in western Europe, North America and Australasia who do not want to be identified as ‘religious’, but as being ‘spiritual’. Howell breaks down the distinction between religion and spirituality in two different ways. Howell states that an individual who identifies themselves as being ‘spiritual’ places emphasis on ‘subjective-life forms of sacred’ as opposed to ‘life-as forms of sacred’ identified with being ‘religious’. ‘Subjective-life forms of sacred’ means that the individual places great weight on inner sources of significance and authority. ‘Life-as forms of the sacred’ means that what is considered sacred and to be attained is a life that fits in with the ‘prescriptions’ set by the religious authorities.
The second main issue in Howell’s article is the rise in usage of the term ‘spirituality’ in the east, drawing mainly on examples from Indonesia. The use of the term ‘spirituality’ in the East is linked with the idea of ‘inwardness’. Its emphasis is upon personal experience with the ‘Divine’. The emergence of this new ‘depth spirituality’ is tied to the increased interaction with Western spirituality literature, education, satellite TV., growing work in trans-national companies, etc and their new western values of critical thinking and personal development with the desire to be a ‘better Muslim’. It is also emerging from anti-colonialism. The hope is to reassert their Muslim faith in internationally creditable terms which are transferable in the western, i.e. ‘spirituality’.
The significance of the article is the acknowledged commonality between individuals in the East and the West who are seeking a new 'spirituality'.
Lechner Article
Lechner’s article is concerned with religion in the global age, its identity and its role within globalisation.
Lechner’s first point is that definitions are useless and unhealthy in defining the identity of religion in a singular universal sense. This is because there is no unified universal religious view or one singular religious phenomenon that encapsulates a singular universal concept of religion. The result of any definition is restrictive and one that distorts the many different concepts of religion to produce a single definition. Lechner does admit, however, the important role that definitions do play in creating theories of religion and providing a platform from which important enquiry and research can be conducted into issues and agendas surrounding religion.
Lechner then advocates the idea that the only hope to bringing the identity of religion under a single banner is pluralism. The reason for this is that it maybe the only label that can incorporate the many differing complexities of the various different religious phenomena under one universal umbrella.
His last major point concerns the role religion has played as a source, component and interpreter or affecter of globalisation and how it fits into the various frameworks surrounding different understandings of globalization. Lechner then goes on to describe how he believes religion will have to change to fit into what demands globalism will place on religions that desire to be recognized as institutions in a global polity.
One significant point in Lechner’s article is it acknowledges the important role religion plays in the lives of individual’s and the wider society. It views religion’s role within a global polity as possibly a positive thing. It puts forth a vital role that religion could play as a global institution supporting a world polity.
The one issue I want to analyse in Lechner's article is the contradiction between Lechner's views on definitions and pluralism and the requirements that religion will be required to adhere to if it seeks a future as a global institution support by a global polity.
Lechner's article does well as an advocate of pluralism and as an article that tries to place religion in an increasing globalised world.
There are two main issues examined in Howell’s article. The first is the growing trend to draw a distinction between being ‘spiritual’ and being ‘religious’ in the Western Europe, North America and Australasia. The second is the emergence of the term ‘spirituality’ to designate a new religious arena called ‘depth spirituality’ in the East.
Howell first explains the growing trend amongst people in western Europe, North America and Australasia who do not want to be identified as ‘religious’, but as being ‘spiritual’. Howell breaks down the distinction between religion and spirituality in two different ways. Howell states that an individual who identifies themselves as being ‘spiritual’ places emphasis on ‘subjective-life forms of sacred’ as opposed to ‘life-as forms of sacred’ identified with being ‘religious’. ‘Subjective-life forms of sacred’ means that the individual places great weight on inner sources of significance and authority. ‘Life-as forms of the sacred’ means that what is considered sacred and to be attained is a life that fits in with the ‘prescriptions’ set by the religious authorities.
The second main issue in Howell’s article is the rise in usage of the term ‘spirituality’ in the east, drawing mainly on examples from Indonesia. The use of the term ‘spirituality’ in the East is linked with the idea of ‘inwardness’. Its emphasis is upon personal experience with the ‘Divine’. The emergence of this new ‘depth spirituality’ is tied to the increased interaction with Western spirituality literature, education, satellite TV., growing work in trans-national companies, etc and their new western values of critical thinking and personal development with the desire to be a ‘better Muslim’. It is also emerging from anti-colonialism. The hope is to reassert their Muslim faith in internationally creditable terms which are transferable in the western, i.e. ‘spirituality’.
The significance of the article is the acknowledged commonality between individuals in the East and the West who are seeking a new 'spirituality'.
Lechner Article
Lechner’s article is concerned with religion in the global age, its identity and its role within globalisation.
Lechner’s first point is that definitions are useless and unhealthy in defining the identity of religion in a singular universal sense. This is because there is no unified universal religious view or one singular religious phenomenon that encapsulates a singular universal concept of religion. The result of any definition is restrictive and one that distorts the many different concepts of religion to produce a single definition. Lechner does admit, however, the important role that definitions do play in creating theories of religion and providing a platform from which important enquiry and research can be conducted into issues and agendas surrounding religion.
Lechner then advocates the idea that the only hope to bringing the identity of religion under a single banner is pluralism. The reason for this is that it maybe the only label that can incorporate the many differing complexities of the various different religious phenomena under one universal umbrella.
His last major point concerns the role religion has played as a source, component and interpreter or affecter of globalisation and how it fits into the various frameworks surrounding different understandings of globalization. Lechner then goes on to describe how he believes religion will have to change to fit into what demands globalism will place on religions that desire to be recognized as institutions in a global polity.
One significant point in Lechner’s article is it acknowledges the important role religion plays in the lives of individual’s and the wider society. It views religion’s role within a global polity as possibly a positive thing. It puts forth a vital role that religion could play as a global institution supporting a world polity.
The one issue I want to analyse in Lechner's article is the contradiction between Lechner's views on definitions and pluralism and the requirements that religion will be required to adhere to if it seeks a future as a global institution support by a global polity.
Lechner's article does well as an advocate of pluralism and as an article that tries to place religion in an increasing globalised world.
References:
Gross RM, Religious Diversity: Some Implications For Monotheism, Cross Currents, Via BB Week 2. Article first appeared in Wisconsin Dialogue: A Faculty Journal for the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire 11, 1991, 35-48.
Howell J. 2006. The New Spiritualities East and West: Colonial Legacies and Changing Patterns of Globalisation, Australian Religion Studies Review, 19, 1. Via BB Week 3 (or LC)
Lechner F, 2003, Defining religion: a pluralistic approach for the global age. In Greil, AL. & Bromley, DR. (Eds.), Defining religion: investigating the boundaries between the sacred and secular, Amsterdam, JAI. 67-84. Via RL
No comments:
Post a Comment