Search

In a context such as India, religious differences are the focal point of almost every sociopolitical interaction amid growing religious intolerance. This article proposes comparative theology as a viable approach because it takes religious diversity seriously and accords due respect to other religious texts and practices. But while seeking knowledge that bridges religious boundaries, one may confront the possibility of confronting “logically inassimilable” differences in the form of conflicting truth claims. This article will argue that by using apologetics as a truth-seeking endeavor we can constructively approach such instances of cognitive dissonance. For this purpose, a comparative study of reincarnation from the Bhagavad Gita and the resurrection from Thomistic theology will be used as a case study.

The emergence of the new comparative theology in the west has greatly benefitted from Indian Vedic texts and related ones. Despite their extensive use for western theological reflection, comparative theology, however, has not come to the limelight in India, since most of the western initiatives have been perceived to be camouflaged missionary efforts. This paper proposes the cognitive metaphor theory as a fitting supplement to comparative theology. I argue that combining both has much to offer to study, learn, and relate religions in the multi-religiously coexisting context of India. I explore its possibilities and challenges and address how new comparative theology stays distinct from its nineteenth-century efforts in terms of bridging religious traditions by learning from them. This paper draws much from my own experiences, insights, and studies as a native of Indian culture, brought up in Christian tradition. My studies and researches are focused on comparative theology developed through the lens of cognitive metaphor theory.

Koreans live in a religiously pluralistic and tolerant society, and the idea of an exclusive membership of one religion is still foreign to many. In the first part of this paper, I will explore the development of the concept of “religion” and “religious belonging” or “religious identity” in the West, and its imposition on Asian people. Then I will reflect on the establishment of my own religious identity, that is, becoming a Christian in a religiously pluralistic society. In the second part, I will discuss further how my studying comparative theology as an Asian convert to Christianity is distinguished from the work of western Christian comparative theologians.

Every year various disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons, and floods hit Japan. In the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, approximately 16,000 people lost their lives due to the tsunami and the consequent collapse of buildings. Voluntary groups and religious institutions came to affected areas from every part of Japan to help the recovery of those struck by disasters. Drawing on the idea of “path” that is so prominent in Asia, including in Japan, Tenrikyo and Islam teach their adherents the importance of voluntary activities such as hinokishin in Tenrikyo and ṣadaqah in Islam, as the sure path to salvation. Various motivations are found in the activities and reverential attitudes to God by the adherents in both religious traditions. In this paper, by paying attention to the relationship between religious doctrines and voluntary activities in Tenrikyo and Islam, I try to compare the characteristics of both from the viewpoint of “salvation,” according to the practice of comparative theology.

This paper contends that the methodological tool of comparative theology, arising from and developing in Euro-American academia, resonates strongly with the historical interreligious learning praxis of China. Attention to comparative theology may indeed help us rethink the formation of a Chinese cultural identity vis-à-vis its religious others. A malleable way of doing comparative theology may offer nothing less than the mutual transformation of the interreligious interlocutors in a way consonant with Chinese history. A historical review of the interaction between Chinese Buddhism and Daoism shows that the adoption of Daoist terminology and concepts facilitated the Buddhist entry into the local milieu, while medieval Chinese Buddhism became paradigmatic for the elaboration of Daoist doctrine. The Buddho-Daoist interaction coheres with the enterprise of comparative theology with respect to the nature of interaction between religious traditions, the appropriative yet distinctive religious self-identification, and the transformation of the self and the other.

This paper advances some ways in which Asian perspectives challenge the regnant discourse of comparative theology. It sets out some key aspects of the postcolonial critique of comparative theology, and shows how conceptions of “religion” in the discipline are often based in problematic Western paradigms. However, it also challenges any reified distinction of “Orient” and “Occident”. It is argued that if Asian comparative theology is to fulfil its potential it must not operate within existing dominant Western frames. The author suggests that a hermeneutical basis for comparative theology may be rethought through Asian lenses, and draws on the philosophy of Nāgārjuna to provide an example of this.

This article argues for the deep integration of encounters with religious diversity into theological education. Some seminaries and theological schools, like Emmanuel College in the Toronto School ...

The imposed problem by social context, which directly refers to the co-existence of Christianity and Islam, articulates through simple and direct questions: Can Christians and Muslims read the signs of time together, in the world of God they share. Are there common cultural and theological paradigms, which would allow a common analysis of the signs of the historical moment? Could they interpret them together, and finally, could they join together in the process of reaction to the challenges in the purpose of transformation of this kind of world? Can the modern society be understood as a chance, not for these entities each, but as a chance for these two faiths in their eventual joint action in the field of testify of God, protological Creator and eschatological Savior? Simply, can we do it together? In order to answer all of these questions, we will consider the central issue, to what extent is Islam a challenge, and a chance to Christianity, to its word - theology, but to the modern (Christian, western) civilization? At the end, in a form of several examples we shall present our personal opinion, which concerns certain appeals of orthodox dogmatic and comparative theology, which is led by Islam, by its existence, and by its message in the pluralistic society.

Citizenship, meaning belonging to a political community, is a concept of secular origin, fruit of the Western modernity and a key for a healthy distinction between religion and politics. Nevertheless, religious traditions can help to get a deeper understanding of this concept. From a comparative theology perspective, the tradition of secular political thought and Christian and Muslim traditions of political thought have a lot to learn from each other. On the one hand, Christianity and Islam can be enlightened from the secular idea of citizenship as a way to deepen in a just differentiation between religion and politics. On the other hand, both religious traditions, each one in its own way, help the secular tradition to look at the human being as whole, including its religious dimension, as well as to understand the concept of citizenship as open to the reality of the entire human family.

I am grateful to be given the opportunity to read and to respond to these rich reflections on the practice of contemplative pedagogy. Like Maureen Walsh, and possibly Brian Robinette before his sabbatical transformation, I have usually identified myself as a member of the “loyal opposition” of this particular teaching tool. I have tried to remain grudgingly attentive to its strongest advocates in the comparative theology circles in which I travel, while at the same time shaking my head and sighing a bit to myself at what I perceive as a wild-eyed enthusiasm bordering on evangelism. It probably does not help that I am not personally prone to contemplative experience, nor that the Hindu paraṃparā with which I have associated for several decades has, at least in part, constructed its distinctive teaching tradition as a critique of meditative experience (anubhava) as means or end of liberation.

The fields of comparative theology and interreligious dialogue have largely presupposed the possibility of interreligious learning, but there have been few attempts to provide a philosophical framework for such learning. Utilizing the philosophical hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur, I argue that evaluations of religious truth should be understood holistically and contextually. In interreligious engagements, tensions are created in and questions are raised for one's own worldview. If one proceeds to imaginatively enter into another's worldview and finds resources there that enable one to alleviate those tensions and answer those questions, as well as make sense of one's reality in a broad way, then one may properly deem such beliefs to be true. Interreligious learning is thus construed as the recognition of truth that enables one to productively orient oneself to reality. The result is a provisional philosophical framework for understanding religious truth and interreligious learning.

Using the method of the new comparative theology, this essay attempts to take the Indonesian context seriously, where the recent and highly divisive religio-political tension has given rise as well to an inclusive public theological discussion of God as the Merciful, and offers an explicit comparative theological analysis of God as Merciful in the Muslim and Christian (Catholic) traditions. On the structural level, these two traditions agree that Mercy has at least three dimensions, namely ontological (mercy belongs to the very being of God), personal (God’s mercy is made manifest in paradigmatic human person) and social (mercy has a dynamic of reaching out to others in solidarity). While being formulated and expressed within the confines of each theological system, mercy as God’s quality is shown to be at the center of Muslim and Christian naming of God. The two traditions move from philosophical theism to the personal and social dimensions of manifesting God’s mercy in the world. This comparative theological analysis of God as the Merciful will serve as a responsible public theology in the complex and pluralistic Indonesian society.

The article considers the original classification of four types of interreligious dialogue as follows: 1. Intention (the motivation to come into contact with a representative of another religion); 2. Goal (tasks and goals pursued by the participants in the dialogue); 3. Principles (the starting points, which determine the interaction); 4. Form (participants in the dialogue, meeting form). Among the most important criterion is intention, which identifies the types of polemical, peacemaking, cognitive and partnership dialogue. These types of dialogue are aligned respectively around the following questions: Who is right?, How can we live together peacefully?, Who are you? and What can we do to improve the world?. The place of theology in each type of interreligious dialogue is examined. In the context of religious pluralism, the spread of new religious movements, as well as a tendency towards convergence of religions, theology has not lost its importance as a tool to protect one’s faith and provided a reasoned justification of its benefits. In the framework of cognitive dialogue, the significance of theology is analyzed in such areas as theology of religions, the formation of attitudes towards followers of other religions, comparative theology, and spiritual dialogue. One of the main strategies for peacemaking dialogue is to identify the similarities of religious worldviews in dogma and ethics.Three areas of cooperation of religions in partnership dialogue are distinguished: “individual,” “society,” and “environment.” The role of theology is to identify possible paths and comprehend the conceptual grounds for interreligious cooperation. The author comes to the conclusion that the place of theology in the field of interreligious relations is wide and diverse. Consideration of this complex problem requires specification, that is clarification of the role of theology in various types of interreligious dialogue — polemical, peacemaking, cognitive and partnership, as well as their subspecies.

This article explores the post-tenure challenges and opportunities for Asian American scholars of religion. Although the pressure of service can be a burden on mid-level faculty, service can offer a fulfilling way to integrate one’s scholarly work and one’s commitment to Asian American communities. Moreover, even as excellence in teaching often is not given much (if any) weight in promotion to full professor, it can be mutually illuminative to experiment with teaching at the same time as one is also reassessing one’s field and place within it. Indeed, the mid-career offers a unique standpoint from which one can bring teaching and research together in a synergistic way. Revised approaches to courses in comparative theology and Hinduism both enhanced the author’s scholarship as well as allowed her to better serve her students. Integrating teaching, scholarship, and advocacy can be deeply productive for Asian American scholars of religion after tenure.

One version, albeit in many circles the dominant one, of the scholarly study and teaching of religion interfaces with theological ideas of religious traditions usually only at the descriptive level. Yet the study and teaching of religions also involves evaluation of such, whether implicitly or intentionally, and these usually occur at the ideational level. This essay seeks to illuminate these operations from a comparative theological perspective, suggesting how the study, teaching, and evaluating of religious traditions in their multi-facetedness works both comparatively and theologically. We will spring off The Comparative Religious Ideas project from almost two decades ago both because of how it presented a marked improvement over prior approaches to religious comparativism and because of its prescience then in charting the terrain. From there, however, we will explore how the studying, teaching, and evaluating of religions involves engaging the realm of religious ideas with their concomitant (embodied) practices and from that perspective, the comparative task is both complexified and deepened. Our conclusions propose how to nurture comparative methodologies at both the cognitive and affective domains in order to further discussion in the study, teaching, and evaluation of religion.

Sve prisutniji kulturalni i religijski pluralizam neminovno postavlja pitanje odnosa kršćana prema rastućoj religioznoj pluralizaciji društva u kojem žive. U ovom tekstu pokušava se ukazati na teoretski i praktični doprinos koji teološka refleksija može dati kako bi se izazov religijskog pluralizma mogao vidjeti u ispravnom svjetlu tako da iz teoloških razmišljanja može slijediti konkretna politička i religijska praksa u društvu. Polazeći od činjenice da kršćani svagdje u svijetu žive u sva­ko­dnev­nom egzistencijalnom kontaktu sa sljedbenicima drugih religija, Katolička Crkva, počevši od Drugoga vatikanskog koncila, intenzivno raspravlja o teološkom vrjednovanju fenomena religijskog pluralizma i samoshvaćanju kršćanstva naočigled religijske povijesti čovječanstva. Budući da je religijski pluralizam objektivni teološki problem, u prvom dijelu rada autor analizira tri uobičajena religijsko-teološka nacrta ili modela koje nudi današnja teologija religija u pokušaju da odgovori na pitanje kakav bi trebao biti stav Crkve i kršćana prema religijskom pluralizmu: pretkoncilsko stajalište prema drugim religijama (ekskluzivistički ekleziocentrizam), pristup Drugoga vatikanskog koncila i poslijekoncilske teologije (inkluzivistički kristocentrizam) te pogled na druge religije predstavnika takozvane pluralističke teologije religija (pluralistički teocentrizam). U kontekstu religijskog pluralizma Crkva je kao zajednica vjernika pozvana potvrđivati vlastiti kršćanski identitet u dijalogu s postojećim religijama i kulturama u kojima kršćani žive. Stoga se u drugom dijelu rada, osim opisane trostruke klasifikacije pristupa teologiji religija, sažeto predstavljaju religijsko-teološki nacrti dvojice njemačkih katoličkih teologa. To su Klaus von Stosch i njegovo promišljanje o komparativnoj teologiji religija i Karl-Josef Kuschel koji prakticira teološki međureligijski dijalog unutar triju monoteističkih religija (takozvane ‘abrahamske ekumene’). U trećem i završnom dijelu rada, polazeći od relacijskog razumijevanja zahtjeva jedinstvenosti i univerzalnosti kršćanske objave, autor donosi neka zapažanja o naravi misijskog naloga Crkve u ozračju religijskog pluralizma i dijaloga., Progressingly present cultural and religious pluralism inevitably raises the question of the attitude of Christians towards the growing religious pluralization of the society in which they live. This text tries to point out the theoretical and practical contribution that theological reflection can offer so that the challenge of religious pluralism can be seen in the right light and so that concrete political and religious practice in society could follow from theological reflections. Starting from the fact that Christians everywhere in the world live in daily existential contact with followers of other religions, the Catholic Church, starting from the Second Vatican Council, intensively discusses the theological evaluation of the phenomenon of religious pluralism and self-understanding of Christianity in the face of religious history of mankind. Considering the fact that religious pluralism is an objective theological problem, in the first part the author analyzes three common religious-theological drafts or models offered by today's theology of religions trying to answer the question of what should be the attitude of the Church and Christians towards religious pluralism: pre-Council attitude towards other religions (exclusivist ecclesiocentrism), the approach of the Second Vatican Council and post-Council theology (inclusivist Christocentrism) and a view of other religions of the representatives of the so-called pluralistic theology of religions (pluralistic theocentrism). In the context of religious pluralism, the Church, as a community of believers, is called to affirm its own Christian identity in dialogue with the existing religions and cultures in which Christians live. Therefore, in the second part of the paper, aside from the described triple classification of approaches to the theology of religions, the religious-theological plans of two German Catholic theologians are summarized. These are Klaus von Stosch and his reflections on the comparative theology of religions and Karl-Josef Kuschel who practices theological interreligious dialogue within the three monotheistic religions (the so-called ‘Abrahamic ecumenisms’). In the third and final part of the paper, starting from a relational understanding of the requirement of the uniqueness and universality of Christian revelation, the author presents some observations about the nature of the missionary mandate of the Church in an atmosphere of religious pluralism and dialogue.

[Figure: see text] This article was originally part of a panel at the Toronto Parliament of the World’s Religions on the legacy of Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1916–2000). A Toronto native, Professor Smith was the most important Canadian scholar of religion in the twentieth century. He founded the Institute of Islamic Studies at McGill University and directed the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard University. In this article, I examine his legacy with respect to the study of Islam and Muslims, and how that work helps us to move forward in the twenty-first century.

This article explores Ernst Troeltsch’s potential contribution to a Christian public theology. It does so by way of a case being made for a public comparative theology. For this purpose I reconsider investigating Troeltsch’s sociological method through a critical hermeneutic lens provided by Hans G. Gadamer’s hermeneutics and Jürgen Habermas’ sociology of a lifeworld. Through this hermeneutical mediation I propose a more comprehensive understanding of Troeltsch’s project, and how it can bring relevancy to a public theology that takes into account the comparative study of religions in our pluralist context. Troeltsch’s work will thus be hermeneutically refined in a socially responsible manner in keeping with the reality of multiple modernities and the religious humanism in our contemporary context.

In his new book, Paden argues that evolutionary theory creates new and fertile ground for the comparative study of religion. I suggest that extending Paden’s argument to embrace new theories of cultural evolution will continue to broaden our ability understand the origins of both the similarities and differences in religions across societies. Religions are cultural systems and as such an understanding of our shared biology can only explain a limited amount of what religion is and does. I discuss how new cultural evolutionary theories that examine cultural variation and cultural change based on how humans learn and transmit cultural content and can improve the theoretical foundations of comparative studies of religion. Exploring different mechanisms of cultural learning can help explain why certain features of religion are found across a wide variety of religions while others are only found in specific groups.

Responding to Paul Hedges’ paper earlier in this volume, I discuss the consequences of the deconstruction of ‘religion’ for the ‘interreligious.’ First, I bring Paul Hedges’ ‘soft’ deconstruction into conversation with John Thatamanil’s comparative theology ‘after’ religion. While the former argues that religion, while always contextually situated, clearly still has ‘reality’, Thatamanil rather argues that the social reality of those practices and collectivities dubbed ‘religions’ is much more blurry and difficult than what the discourse on religion assumes. Far from a purely academic endeavour, taking seriously the deconstruction of ‘religion’ means taking seriously the violent history that has taken place under its name. Then I argue, drawing on John Caputo’s ‘religion without religion’, that instead of relying on fictions of solid or ‘pure’ foundations, of ‘religions’ as clearly delineated representative systems, interreligious engagement ought to embrace this blurring of boundaries and the inherent instability of their languages. Finally, however, I propose that Caputo as well as Hedges leave uninterrogated the underlying assumption that ‘religion’ precedes ‘religious difference’. Rather than finding some definition of ‘religion’ to understand or define religious difference, it may be necessary to trace how religious difference is employed to understand and define ‘religions’, most significantly how some collectivities and practices come to be defined as ‘other religions’.

Comparative theology generally begins from a study of texts, scriptural texts that have been canonized, and commentaries on these texts—as well as philosophical, theological and mystical treatises. Though this textual focus gives us access to some of the most subtle and nuanced reasonings developed in various traditions, I am concerned that this textual focus may limit our understanding of religion, and I am convinced that broadening the scope of comparative theology beyond texts will also contribute to the theological creativity of this approach. I hypothesize that, depending on the sort of source from which we theologize, different questions will come to mind relating to different theological problems. Indeed, turning to material and ritual practices, in addition to textual sources, will reveal aspects of the divine that remain invisible when one stays within the limits of textual study. I do not, in any way, want to turn this into an either/or story in which reading texts is placed over against engaging ritual and material practices. What I envision is a complementarity between textual and ritual comparison, not a privileging of one over the other.

John Shook’s paper Are People Born to be Believers? raises many questions, for the scientific study of religion and for philosophy and theology. For reasons of convenience this response distinguishes in the target article between three quite different issues and deals with them separately: first issue concerns the supposed innateness of religious beliefs, or some precursor of them; second, the possible theological application that such thesis could entail; and third, a more general and methodological issue, concerns the feasibility of a scientific knowledge about religion that can be disentangled from other sources of religious insight

The concept of grace has, in the psychology of religion, been largely neglected as a legitimate topic for empirical inquiry. We define grace here as a gift given unconditionally and voluntarily to an undeserving person by an unobligated giver, the giver being either human or divine. We explore the c

This article has three aims. First, it attempts to identify the exact problem religion poses to those developing an account of the evolution of human social life, and of the cognitive capacities that sustain that life. Having done that, the article aims to specify the criteria that an explanation of the evolution of religion should meet. Second, it presents a critique of one popular account: the idea that religion emerges as a result of cognitive biases that favor agentive thinking, that favor minimally counter-intuitive narratives, amplified and entrenched by some form of cultural evolution. Third, it sketches a positive account in which various forms of communal practice and quasi-religious activity precede the emergence of religious belief. The machinery of the cultural transmission of religion is built before religion transitions into (in part) an ideological system. I call this an ethnographic model of the evolution of religion, because the core ideas are implicit (and sometimes partly explic...

Despite several complaints that what passes for Religious Studies represents liberal theology in disguise, the reworked Platonist religion of the twentieth century, which drives that theology, remains to be adequately exposed. This needs to be done if the Science of Religion is to recognize its own origins, and so at last move on to the non-theological cultural studies science that has been in preparation. The first half of this article elicits the Platonist faith enjoyed by Max Muller and illustrates the consistent application of religious anthropology to the present day through key figures such as Mircea Eliade, Peter Berger and Robert Bellah. The conclusion of this review confirms that the Science of Religion has been a confession of faith in disguise: it is Platonist theology posing as the Science of Religion. The second half of the article proposes a clear distinction between the two methodologically incommensurate perspectives of Platonist Science of Religion, and (Humanist) Culture Science ...

Comparative Theology is a promising academic discipline. Yet, Comparative Theology appears to lag behind liberation theologies when it comes to addressing unjust and oppressive social realities. This seems to be particularly true in the case of comparative theological projects related to Hinduism. Many comparative theologians engaging with Hinduism, with very few exceptions, have overlooked the injustices caused by caste and untouchability, which occupy an important place in the Indian culture. One of the possible ways of handling such issues is to allow Comparative Theology to enter into critical conversations with liberation theologies, which in this case is Dalit Liberation Theology. Such an integrated theology would open up possibilities of articulating a people-centered, non-identitarian, and interreligious Theology of Liberation.

The subject of this study is the points and tasks of public theology. First, this study makes an introduction about the definitions of public theology. Second, it clarifies that the theological ground of public theology is offered by the Kingdom of God proclaimed and practiced by Jesus Christ and the universality of divine reality. Third, it explains how public theology is distinguished from civil religion, political theology, and liberation theology. Fourth, it discusses the methodology of public theology. Fifth, it argues that the publicness of public theology is to be found between privatization and politicization. Sixth, it introduces Volf’s concepts of ‘internal difference’ and ‘religious political pluralism’ which he proposes as an alternative strategy against both secularist exclusion and totalitarian intervention. Seventh, it envisions the way toward which public theology is to be directed in the contemporary context of globalization. And finally, as a conclusion, it suggests the points and tasks of public theology in terms of four points of view, especially including the one reflecting Korean context.

Scholars and students of comparative theology are familiar with the linguistic metaphor used to emphasize the prerequisites for critical, constructive and fruitful engagement with a religious tradi...

The notion of ‘holiness’ has a long history of interpretation. In many ways, it is an ambivalent term. On the one hand, it denotes moral integrity by distinction, or ‘being set apart’. This ‘distinction’ brought with it a pejorative interpretation of ‘holiness’ as denoting some sort of hierarchical moral exclusivism, attainable only by a minority. However, holiness is an essential aspect of spirituality and in this regard it has a rich and dynamic meaning. This article aims to reappropriate ‘holiness’ for ordinary human beings in their everyday lives and to transcend the exclusivist connotations attached to the concept by broadening the idea and application of ‘holiness’ as it is found in the Christian faith tradition. In this article, the emerging church movement (ECM) shall be considered with the purpose of introducing discussions regarding holiness in faith practice today. This will be done in order to demonstrate its richness and usefulness as a key component of spiritualties today, with a specific focus on its contribution to interreligious dialogue. Interdisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article represents interdisciplinary work related to systematic theology (ecclesiology), practical theology and spirituality (holiness and science of religion) perspectives. The authors consider a postmodern multi-religious context in relation to aspects of Christian spirituality and ecclesiology (holiness).

This essay focuses on theological models of religious diversity. It begins by highlighting central questions and models of religious diversity, as articulated in the contemporary field of theology of religions. Rather than examine only Jewish and Islamic perspectives, it seeks to provide a broader theological context for these specific acts of interpretation and engagement. The broader framework helps to clarify some extant interpretations, and it also reveals new openings for reconsidering and challenging more exclusive, intolerant, and singular readings. After hinting at interreligious elaborations of theology of religions, the essay then concentrates on trends within the contemporary English Islamic discourse. It concludes by arguing for the potential and enriching possibilities of comparative theology and, specifically, comparative feminist theology. Comparative feminist theology is an approach to religious diversity that acknowledges both religious commonalities and differences; requires deep understanding of other traditions on their own terms; and is uniquely equipped to respond to theological and practical challenges.

This chapter engages comparative theology in imaging how liberation theology might be informed by spiritualities and worldviews from the First Peoples of North America, referencing teachings, treaties, and ceremonies from the Six Nations of the Grand River Nation. The liberation hermeneutic of “see, judge, act” is informed, in turn, by the Dish With One Spoon Wampum, the Two Row Wampum, and the Condolence Ceremony. Liberation theology thus contextualized will involve seeing with “all my relations” in service of earth-justice, judging in a way that pairs thought and feeling/intuition attentive to the whole, and acting in a fashion whereby peace refuses to demonize oppressors, using power that is balanced with harmony for the sake of a righteousness that knows that there is no justice without language of justice and justice for language. This instance of comparative theology takes its cues from a land-based religion, and so its hermeneutic is shaped in situ such that it cannot be exported without further ado. As such, it invites other liberation projects to engage local land-based religions which will school those who desire to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk in a good way with the Creator in a way appropriate to their territory.

Coming from a more comparative point of view as far as Theology of Religions and Interreligious Studies are concerned – though to a certain extent as well as a pluralist in the sense of hope for universal understanding and well-being – I want to ask how Interreligious and Intercultural Hermeneutics are a necessary tool when we try to set up minimal standards for a Global Ethics in the reality of nowadays multicultural societies. I introduce for Ethics as well as for Hermeneutics the concept of ‘Responsible Interim’ – the latter reflecting the fact that human beings do have universals only under the ‘eschatological reserve’ (in Christian terminology), as ‘Suchness in Emptiness’ (in Buddhist terminology). I will proceed from universal truth questions and more general questions of philosophy of religion towards questions of cultural i.e. religious contexts shaping ethical and religious view(s) and convictions. Can smallest common denominators be found? How does legal rule help to establish and keep them? How does society, how do individuals change by starting from a spiritual, creative and holistic and maybe even transpersonal point of view – a view of co-creation and incarnatio continua in religious, i.e. in Christian terminology again?

This article examines the way in which theological concept has been both utilized and criticized within the discipline of theology. It considers recent attempts to “end the dialogue between theology and social theory” and the flaws of that approach, while arguing that sociology can make a significant contribution to the ongoing work of theological analysis. It ends by asking whether this is a one-way relationship, or whether there is a way that theological concepts can be useful in the ongoing constructive work of sociology.

Who are youth in theological perspective? The central question this article is trying to ask is: How does youth ministry research on youth connect with systematic or more specifically fundamental theology? The first section, following the introduction, aims to summarise traditional perspectives on young people predominantly as an age-related group. The second section attempts to describe the specific theological vision on youth and its connection to youth theology. The final section seeks a new perspective on youth by introducing fundamental theology and drawing on its particular concept of “expectation” proposed by Czech theologian Vladimír Boublík. It is argued that a theological understanding of youth is a necessary prerequisite for any genuine theological engagement with young people and vice versa. Here, theological engagement with young people may bring fresh insights into the dry bodies of traditional theological disciplines, including fundamental theology.