How Useful Is the Christian Theology of Religions? Critical Questions from a Religious Studies and Intercultural Theology Perspective

Abstract

This contribution to the literature regarding the Christian theology of religions presents a critical view from the outside, a meta-reflection primarily from a religious studies perspective considering the conditions and contexts of academic theology on the one hand, and lived interreligious relationships on the other, which are all-too-easily ignored in works of the theology of religions. First, some newer approaches to the theology of religions will be mentioned before critical questions will be addressed from a religious studies perspective. These are observations in discourse theory, the sociology of religion, religious economics and spatial theory. This is followed by observations from the perspective of intercultural theology, which examine approaches to the theology of religions with regard to phenomena within the Pentecostal movement, discursive constellations in Muslim majority societies and cultural–religious aspects within Indian society. Finally, the “theology of interreligious relations” will be proposed as a corrective to the shortcomings of the ordinary theology of religions.

1. An Overview of Newer Approaches to the Theology of Religions

The overview of approaches to the theology of religions presented below distinguishes between three basic patterns, namely (1) dual, (2) monistic and (3) interactionist approaches. This overview is intended to raise questions from the perspective of other scientific approaches that are intended to reveal blind spots. The basic assumption is that Christian theologies of religions should help promote interreligious peace. The question is, however, whether the proposed solutions outlined below reach the level of the practical challenges that can be observed and help to overcome them. The aim of the following comments is therefore to raise awareness of previously little-noticed conditions and challenges in interreligious coexistence at the grassroots level. This may serve as an inspiration for further theological work.

1.1. Dual Approaches

In terms of dual approaches, one should recall a series of theories that have been advocated since the middle of the 20th century. Religions are assigned to different modes of action of the triune God. The German systematic theologian Wolfgang Trillhaas distinguishes between God’s action in revelation and God’s action in the preservation of creation. Through their rites, religions help people to conduct their lives. Therefore, Trillhaas assigns them to God’s action to preserve creation (German: Erhaltungshandeln), but not to God’s revealing action (Trillhaas 1953). Paul Althaus takes a different approach, whereby God’s original revelation (German: Ur-Offenbarung) is expressed in religions, as they articulate questions about the origin, meaning and goal of being human, which find an answer in God’s revelation of salvation (Althaus 1969). For Paul Tillich, religions are located neither in the doctrine of creation nor in the doctrine of revelation, but in pneumatology, since they may contain a “latent church”, from which the “manifest church” based on the confession of Christ can be distinguished (Tillich 1963). The Catholic theologian Jacques Dupuis categorizes religions into Christology by assigning them to the “logos asarkos”, which is opposed to the “logos ensarkos” in Jesus Christ (Dupuis 1997). A more far-reaching perspective is offered by Carl-Heinz Ratschow’s approach, which is based on the duality of God’s world action (German: Welthandeln) in relation to his saving action (Ratschow 1986). This is a perspective that is currently being continued by Martin Repp (Repp 2018). It should be noted that each dual approach endorses a specific way of appreciating elements of other religious traditions.

1.2. Monistic Approaches

Monistic approaches view the respective Christian reference point (Christianity, the church, faith, Christ, Gospel or the kingdom of God) as being in alignment with other religious traditions. These approaches aim to largely overcome the opposition between traditions. This is achieved through different degrees of abstraction. In particular, the designs by Paul Knitter and John Hick, with the concepts of soteriocentrism (Knitter 1985) and the reference to a transcendent “the real an sich” (Hick 1982), assume a transcendent causation common to all religious traditions, an impulse that has found different cultural-religious answers that vary depending on the context.

The most recent discussion on the “Theology without Walls” proposed by Jerry L. Martin extends this line of argumentation even further by demanding to exceed the limitation of communal religious practice and to elevate the individual and his or her religious experience as the sole authority (Martin 2020b). Martin explains the concept of the program in such a way that it is about a “transreligious turn” in the sense that both non-religious people and those who assume a multi-religious identity can be included (Martin 2020a, p. 1). It is about “seeking truth, wherever it can be found” (Martin 2020a, p. 4). An author like Kurt Anders Richardson speaks of an “open field theology” and advocates an open exchange with everyone (Richardson 2020). In general, one can say that several contributions can be regarded as being in the tradition of interreligious theology according to John Hick, but radicalized in such a way that the factor of religious community is either completely ignored or substantially relativized.

Richard Oxenberg also argues in this direction in his reflections on “spirit and truth” (Oxenberg 2020). The question of religious authority is thus assigned solely to the individual when Oxenberg points out: “Ultimately, then, it is we who must function as the locus of authority for the truth claims we accept; that is, our intuitions, our discernment, our analyses, our honest assessments of what is true and good—which, ideally, we do not adhere to uncritically, but submit to the dialectical process through which we hope to make them progressively better” (Oxenberg 2020, p. 21).

1.3. Interactionist Approaches

In contrast, the interactionist approach focuses here on the theological justification patterns of a particular religious formation, namely the biblical witness and the church confessional traditions, to derive impulses for constructive interreligious interactions. Worth mentioning is the Pentecostal theologian Amos Yong with his theology of hospitality (Yong 2003, 2008). Yong understands Jesus Christ as the paradigm of God’s “saving hospitality”, since Jesus Christ both received and bestowed hospitality. As a Christomorphic space, the Christian community allows the theology of hospitality to take on a physical, communal and therefore tangible form. Yong does not see this as a harmonious model, but rather, identifies the dangers and limits of hospitality and emphasizes the importance of spiritual gifts in providing and receiving hospitality. The point is that it is precisely the exclusive, Christomorphic shape of the Christian community that facilitates an inclusive community of hospitality.

My own approach, A Theology of Interreligious Relations, can also be described as an interactionist approach. The fundamental conviction is that it is not the relativization of theological truth claims, but, conversely, the orientation towards theological patterns of ultimate legitimization (German: theologische Letztbegründungsmuster) that is brought into discussion as a potential approach to shaping constructive interreligious relations (Wrogemann 2019). However, this requires a detailed understanding of those dimensions and aspects that are of particular importance for the phenomenon of interreligious relations. For instance, these include questions such as what exactly is meant by terms such as recognition, dialog, exclusivity/inclusivity and plurality, how to think about power constellations, and the relationship between closeness and distance.

My thesis is that conventional theologies of religion are not adequately suitable for addressing the specific conditions of interreligious relationships, since neither in-depth knowledge of other religious traditions nor the results of religious, social and cultural science research are sufficiently taken into account. It remains on the level of abstract relationship determinations with the aim of “solving” the problem through a “theological innovation”.

Another interactionist approach comes from Stefan S. Jäger, who uses a discourse and resonance theory perspective to trace the interrelationships between Christian and Buddhist interlocutors in their respective discourse spaces (e.g., certain political, social, cultural or national constellations) (Jäger 2024). This approach explains the dynamics of interreligious interactions and their actors as well as their reflection in doctrinal statements, it corrects tendencies towards essentialization and thus provides important aids to understanding, whereby the importance of the respective patterns of ultimate religious truth claims remains clearly distinguishable.

2. Questions from a Religious Studies Perspective

The questions formulated below relate to the viability of theological theory formation, which (in addition to its actual scientific value) must prove itself, not least in the context of the actual conditions of interreligious interactions in different societies.

2.1. Breaking Taboos on Principle—Questions from a Discourse–Theoretical Perspective

It was above all the American religious scholar Russel T. McCutcheon who made the academic business of religious studies itself the subject of critical analysis (McCutcheon 1997). Applied to the field of the theology of religions, one must ask about the conditions in the academic arena. The freedom of research and teaching openly invites us to ask every conceivable question and thus to question any kind of religious tradition. Academic competition is about attracting attention through pithy and catchy formulas, a provocative character and sometimes breaking a taboo. In the competition for external funding, the factors that count are novelty, easy recognition and relevance, as well as the gesture of a groundbreaking innovation, often referred to as a “turn” in recent decades (Bachmann-Medick 2009).

This dynamic encourages the development of one scholarly “catch-word concept” after another in relatively rapid succession, which benefits scientific progress and one’s own project, including in monetary terms. This may also apply to the field of theologies of religion, for example, to the Theology Without Walls project. In addition to researchers’ interest in knowledge, an inherent scientific organizational and economic logic can be assumed behind the tendency to break taboos. It is the demarcation from the existing, namely the religious, traditions, however socially constituted, that guarantees full attention here. The taboo-breaking of the maximum relativization of religious truth claims a function as a novelty factor in the academic arena. However, the novelty value will be “exhausted” when any form of limitation is negated. The Theology Without Walls project seems to have arrived at this point.

The question from a religious studies perspective is as follows: Who are the particular recipients that contributions in the field of the theology a religions are aimed at? It seems that some contributions are influenced by certain scientific organizational interests in addition to the interest in scientific knowledge. It seems questionable whether such approaches are of interest to religious communities and individuals who see themselves as part of a particular religious community.

2.2. Limits of Self-Relativization—Questions from a Religious Economics Perspective

The religious economist Lawrence R. Iannaccone has shown the benefits that intensive religious community with sharp inside/outside distinctions can provide for the individuals belonging to it (Iannaccone 1997). When individuals join a religious group with very intensive community ties, the costs of intensive temporal, spatial and social interactions and possible stigmatization from the majority society are offset by multiple benefits. The benefits of a community with comprehensive solidarity can include various aspects such as the marriage market, pastoral care, the “capital” to be trustworthy and professionally beneficial networking. In terms of religious economics, it is assumed that individuals consciously or unconsciously orient themselves toward such a cost–benefit relationship and maintain, terminate or change their membership accordingly. In any case, the religious we-formation in question is dependent on having to repeatedly make clear to all other providers on the religious market the special nature of their message and the gained value of belonging. From a religious economics perspective, it is therefore unlikely that a religious we-formation that, in terms of the theology of religions, explicitly refrains from postulating a religious surplus value that is exclusive to it will be able to assert itself on the religious market in the long term.

This results in a question from a religious economics perspective, particularly regarding church pronouncements on questions of the theology of religions, since large religious organizations like mainline churches generally tend to take moderate positions to do justice to the diversity of their members. However, if the extensive relativization of Christian theological truth claims is derived and communicated from a theology of religions point of view, this leads to further erosion to be expected from a religious–economic perspective, since the particular value of joining the church compared to other religious providers is more difficult to justify.

2.3. Free-Floating Religiosity—Questions from a Sociology of Religion Perspective

From a sociology of religion perspective, it is obvious that the approaches of a pluralistic theology of religions and a Theology Without Walls are unable to justify the formation of a religious community. Where there is no longer a common religious language, and there are no conventions that are considered binding by a number of individuals, the religious individual remains a monad with his experience of the transcendent, which he considers as valid. An individual with free-floating religiosity or openness to transcendence will select and combine elements from the wealth of symbols, texts and rites guaranteed by communal traditions in their distinctiveness. From a sociological perspective, the majority of such individuals could be described more as a milieu than as a group, community or movement. One example is the esoteric scene that has been sociologically tangible for decades through publications, seminars and other formats.

The approaches of a pluralistic theology of religions or a Theology Without Walls can be located at the interface between religious we-formations and individuals with free-floating forms of transcendence experiences. Of course, the latter also exist as members of mainline churches, as there are various reasons for being or remaining a member of a church.

From a sociology of religion perspective, the question is to what extent such approaches can be understood as an opportunity for interreligious dialog and interaction. In relation to individuals who feel that they belong to a specific religious “we”-formation, the gesture of a Theology Without Walls would probably be to question the meaningfulness of such a “we” bond. A religious community would be unnecessary. Furthermore, it is questionable what a religious conversation could contribute if someone were to take a consistently individualistic view, since each individual remains his or her own point of reference.

2.4. Proximity as a Guarantee for Peace—Questions from a Spatial Theory Perspective

From a spatial theoretical perspective, some basic assumptions must be critically assessed, which are usually assumed without reflection in many theologies of religions (Cyranka and Wrogemann 2018). Micro level: It is initially assumed that a change on the micro level, i.e., an individual who accepts an option that is as “open” as possible in terms of the theology of religions, will lead automatically to more peacefulness. Proximity: Interreligious closeness in these approaches is usually preferred over distance. The idea is that the reduction in theological exclusivity leads to more closeness, which means that theologically exclusive patterns are seen as potentially contributing to religious strife (for a critique cf. Wrogemann 2021b).

From a religious studies perspective, conflict research studies show that religious conflicts are difficult to explain on both the micro and macro levels (Bauman 2020, pp. 27–64). Rather, it is the meso level, the level of religious organizations, that plays a crucial role (Gorski and Türkmen-Dervisoglu 2013; Hirsch-Hoefler et al. 2016; Bauman 2020, pp. 115–214). However, the meso level plays no role in approaches to the theology of religions because they aim at abstract relationship determinations. The pathos of religious pluralistic approaches in particular derives from the desire to overcome exclusions and to establish the proximity that is viewed as the ideal through revisions of theological traditions (e.g., universalization of the doctrine of logos; interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity as a cosmic principle; deletion of the “propter Christum” in the doctrine of grace).

The question from a religious studies perspective is whether the inclusion of findings from conflict research, spatial theory and power theory can contribute to increasing awareness of the problem. It would then be about reflecting on the relationship between closeness and distance among different religious actors and community formations.

3. Questions from the Perspective of Intercultural Theology

The field of intercultural theology is about the diversity of expressions of Christian presence in different continents, countries, cultures and local contexts. In the following, three examples are selected.

3.1. Experiences of Strength, Healing and Spiritual Battles—About the Pentecostal Movement

In comparison to phenomena within the global Pentecostal movement, it is striking that conventional theologies of religions mostly focus on the cognitive level. An attempt is made to value expressions of other religious traditions in such a way that they are granted (to varying degrees) either truth, revelation or salvation. The thesis is that the kingdom of God, the divine logos and the Holy Spirit also work in them, that there are also experiences of grace in them, and that there is also a potential latent church in them.

Totally different, however, are the prayer, worship and life practices of many Pentecostal churches, understood as the spiritual battle between the powers of Satan and his demons and the Spirit of God, the name of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible (Kalu 2008; Heuser 2015). It is less about theoretical assumptions than about tangible experiences of healing, well-being, expelling evil spirits, enduring hostility, understanding dreams and visions, interpreting spaces through spiritual mapping, and identifying evil forces in the environment of one’s own family, the neighborhood, the city or landscape, certain buildings, and certain people (Währisch-Oblau and Wrogemann 2015).

Other religious traditions are often identified with demonic powers, which raises the question of what consequences arise from such attributions. Based on observations over the last two decades, I am of the opinion that such interpretations often do not have any negative social effects on site, as a clear distinction is made between a person who is under/suffers from a demonic power and this power itself (Kahongya Bwiruka 2016; Hiller 2015). However, this means that the assumption of many approaches to the theology of religions, which consider rather exclusive religious theological relationship determinations causing eo ipso socially detrimental consequences, is not true in the majority of cases.

Basically, one can say that in Pentecostal Christian contexts, it is often the power effect that authenticates the religious option in the eyes of people. Salvation is understood as something that helps people here and now. The truth also takes place through the manifestation of signs seen in dreams and visions, signs that are considered crucial to one’s life. It is therefore the aspects of power, the physical effects, and the direct experience of a relevant religious power (e.g., God, Christ, the Spirit) that are of central importance here.

This leads to the question of whether a focus on the cognitive, although understandable in the context of secularized societies, requires a broadening of perspective. How compatible are designs that ignore dimensions which are probably of considerable importance for many people? Pentecostal Christian phenomena remind us that for many people, religion is not just about questions of meaning, but is seen as a comprehensive benefit for their lives in the here and now.

3.2. “Confirmation” as Repeal—Muslim Majority Contexts

Some theologies of religion demand that Christians should “grant truth” to other religious traditions. It seems that advocates of this demand adhere to a certain understanding of generosity in their minds. Christians should be generous in that they expect and recognize religious truth in other religions. From my perspective, these advocates must ask themselves the question of whether they are even aware of the discursive contexts of the other religious traditions in different countries and contexts (Wrogemann 2024). To give an example, in recent years, individual texts have been developed in German mainline churches that have proposed a far-reaching theological relativization of Christian witness to Muslims. A look at the unbroken apologetic traditions of Muslim provenance could have acted as a corrective here (Abdelmassieh 2020). Even though there are now a number of reform Islamic approaches, it is important to ask critically how great their influence in Muslim majority societies is.

In terms of a Christian theology of religions, it is important that in the case of Muslim approaches to the Islamic theology of religions, the proximity to Christian traditions is only apparent, since the intersection of elements and motifs through the qur’ānic axiom of “confirmation”, which the qur’ānic message claims to be, leads to the abolition of practically all central Christian teachings (the cross, the resurrection, the Son of God, the trinity, the doctrine of grace, the Holy Spirit, the church and salvation) (Wrogemann 2022). To give but one qur’ānic reference, “To thee [Muhammad, HW] We sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them [Jews and Christians, HW] by what Allah hath revealed [the qur’ānic message, HW], and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to thee” (Sura 5:48). The claim to confirm the older writings means that the qur’ānic message sees itself as the ultimate standard of what is right or wrong in the writings of Jews and Christians. Since the qur’ānic message denies that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was crucified by men and raised by God and much more, the “confirmation” also means the cancelation of the New Testament message (Wrogemann 2021a).

It is obvious that comparative work in religious studies is of direct importance for determining relations in the field of the Christian theology of religions. In addition, more comprehensive knowledge of the life contexts of religious minorities within Muslim majority societies is an important element in order to better understand the semantics of Muslim actors in the past and present (cf. Hansen 2015, pp. 154–260; Eric 2023). Especially in Western countries, naivety and a lack of knowledge among Christians in this area are of great concern.

The question is whether Christian theologies of religion that advocate Christian self-relativization as an offer of dialog to Muslims undermine the foundations of the Christian faith itself and thus do not act “dialogically” but simply engage in a form of self-denial. Since these attempts are either understood by a number of Muslims as a Christian conversion process to Islam or interpreted as a Christian tactic, one would have to ask what the dialogic appeal of such a position should be if Christians pretend that they do not want to say anything different than Muslims anyway. It seems much more likely that it is precisely the image of God in the New Testament that arouses the interest of Muslims, because it is strikingly different from the image of God drawn from the qur’ānic message (Wrogemann 2021c).

3.3. Dharma and Etherealness: Religious–Cultural Phenomena in India

Further aspects that are relevant to actually existing interreligious relations but are not taken into account in conventional Christian theologies of religions are indicated by the following examples. Where approaches to the theology of religions refer to the Hindu doctrine of non-duality (Sanskrit: advaita), as, for example, with Michael von Brück in his work “The Unity of Reality” (von Brück 1991), problematic aspects are left out, such as the consequences of the aspect of subtlety (Michaels 2003). In contemporary India, which is strongly influenced by the Hindu nationalism of the Hindutva movement (Six 2001), it is the reference to the all-determining “cosmic” order of the dharma that Hindu nationalists use to sanction the existing social conditions. The Hindu nationalist truth claim is as follows: Since the eternal law of the dharma encompasses everything; since everything that “is” is thought of as “material”, which is why looks or thoughts are viewed as subtle material; and since different degrees of “salvation” are tied to ritual purity, it follows that the existing caste order with its manifold social consequences is to be preserved and to be accepted.

To give an example, spatial proximity can be perceived as subtle contamination even without touching each other, so that a higher-caste passenger on the bus refuses to allow an obviously lower-caste fellow traveler (name, appearance) to have a free seat next to him.

However, a Christian theology of religions that only thinks in the familiar Christian categories of “inwardness”, which secondly always presupposes the difference between matter and spirit, and which thirdly understands religion as a space separated from other areas (e.g., politics, economics) must ask itself whether it is able to adequately understand the structures of another religious tradition (here, the Hindu traditions) and to recognize the resulting consequences for human coexistence. The doctrine of non-duality would then not only have to be considered with regard to the meditative experience (as with von Brück), but also with regard to the social consequences, such as the manyfold forms of discrimination associated with the caste system or the problematic scientific–theoretical consequences underpinning the thesis of a “Vedic science” (Nanda 2001a, 2001b, 2016).

The question from a religious studies perspective is whether a post-Reformation concept of religion is too often assumed in Christian approaches to the theology of religions. This concept of religion focuses on inwardness (experience) at the expense of external dimensions; it regards religion as a separate sphere, i.e., politics and economy, and it presupposes the distinction between spirit and matter. Talal Asad’s criticism of Clifford Geertz’s concept of religion should be remembered here. (Asad 1983) The following point is of particular importance here: It is not the legitimacy of this concept of religion that is in question, but rather the hermeneutical narrowing that arises when this concept of religion is used as an interpretive scheme for interreligious relations.

4. Summary and Outlook

My points of criticism of conventional approaches to the theology of religions are as follows: Especially in such approaches that demand a far-reaching relativization of Christian truth claims, stereotypes about interreligious relations are spread that have no basis in reality. These stereotypes are products of the imagination, and cannot be empirically proven. Which stereotypes are meant? (1) Focusing on the cognitive: the thesis that someone who gives up their claim to ultimate justification acts more peacefully than someone who does not. (2) The focus on closeness: the thesis that interreligious relations are more peaceful the closer you get to one another. (3) Focusing on one-line explanatory patterns: the thesis that it is only the religious attitude that determines relations.

These stereotypes lead to erroneous perceptions because they ignore the multitude of factors that are important for real, existing interreligious relations. What factors are these? (1) First, there is the factor of social integration into clientele systems or authority structures that significantly determines how people behave in real existing contexts. (2) Second, there is the factor of somatic power that is expected and experienced by people in the context of religious rites and actions. (3) Third, there is the factor of the indefinability of religion that makes it difficult to understand interreligious interactions, since each religious tradition considers other phenomena to be religiously significant.

These few points are only intended to indicate the wealth of questions and challenges. In my opinion, new approaches to the Christian theology of religions will do well to seriously engage with the results of scientific research in other disciplines. This includes research in conflict studies, anthropology, spatial theory, discourse theory, resonance theory, religious esthetics, media theory and many others. It is about recognizing the factors relevant to interreligious relations in order to be able to formulate sustainable theological answers. In my own approach to the theology of interreligious relations, I have attempted to do exactly this (Wrogemann 2019).

Finally: The aim of this contribution was simply to raise awareness of the real conditions and challenges of interreligious relations in different countries and contexts. In conventional Christian theologies of religions, these conditions and challenges are usually not taken into account. As an alternative, I have therefore proposed a theory and a theology of interreligious relations. The questions are as follows: If for many people, when it comes to religious questions, it is about gaining life, about power, about physicality and about ritual performance, which biblical motifs offer orientation and convey certainty? When interreligious relations are about power in the medium of social behavior patterns; hierarchies in public space; the boundary between private and public; the boundary between religion, politics, economics and culture; and the interpretation of what is “physical” or “spiritual”, which Christian patterns of ultimate truth claims are those that are sustainable and provide orientation in constellations of competition, dissent and conflict?

In any case, a Christian theology of religions that, for example, suggests recognizing Muhammad as a prophet forego any possibility of taking a stand against qur’ānic theology and Muslim practice, since the recognition of Muhammad as a prophet would eo ipso give theological recognition to the qur’ānic message. This would amount to a theological capitulation. It would implicate the rejection of the core ideas of the biblical message and the entire doctrinal tradition of the church.

Christian theologies of religions which, to give a second example, focus only on the spiritual and do not take into account the physical and social consequences of the Hindu doctrine of the materiality of everything that is (primarily the discrimination against people of lower castes or without castes) find themselves in an ethical dilemma. The conclusion is that Christian theologies of religions in the mode of self-relativization prove to be unsustainable.

Completely different, however, are biblical patterns of ultimate truth claims, which are deliberately spoken of here in the plural, such as the implications of a theology of the cross, the rejection of the religious meaning of purity regulations, the interpretation of creation or theological motives of a pneumatological nature. As ultimate legitimizations, they represent patterns of orientation that, introduced in a constructive and critical manner, enables Christian positions in the area of interreligious relations. This applies to both the religious claim to validity and the mode in which this claim to validity is made. I have commented on this in more detail elsewhere. It is hoped that in the future, there will be a return to biblical patterns of ultimate legitimization as well as to church confessional traditions, with the understanding that these offer a viable basis for constructive-critical contributions in interreligious relations on the Christian side.