Читать книгу The Craft of Innovative Theology. Argument and Process онлайн

46 страница из 123

The motivation to conserve what is held dear at one level can often turn into fear, ethnocentrism, chauvinism, and bigotry at the other, and the frequency and ease with which reasonable concern to hold on to what is good slides inexorably into distrust, hatred, and violence cannot be underestimated. This is not to say that all conservative motivation concerning the production of a pluralistic theology is inherently chauvinistic; however, we must be ever vigilant regarding this possibility. Our sensitivities concerning purity itself touch deep into our psyches and social structures. Mary Douglas’s seminal work on purity, pollution, and danger shows us that whenever our sense of purity is threatened by pollution, in this case the interpolation of foreign theological ideas, “our pollution behavior is the reaction which condemns any object or idea likely to confuse or contradict cherished classifications.”³³ Religious syncretism is most often the category used to characterize the concern about purity within religious traditions; however, syncretism itself is a very contested term as applied to religious contexts. I would agree with Rosalind Shaw and Charles Stuart that such worries are generally manifestations not of religious or theological concerns but primarily of political anxieties. Stuart and Shaw point out that the term has no determinate meaning but one that has been construed in various ways through history.³⁴ To label something as “syncretic” therefore does not actually accomplish anything since, historically, all religious traditions are mixtures of various diverse elements. The vast weight of historical studies of religion put this beyond doubt. How syncretism is used in a particular context, then, depends on what is at stake, and these are primarily political questions. I suggest that the various religious or theological reasons for labeling something syncretic do not in the end bear scrutiny. What is left after these options are taken away are, simply, political pressures. So the concern regarding the very idea of recombining religious ideas, behaviors, practices, structures, and so on together, that is, the feeling of dis-ease at the possibility of pluralistic theology, must be considered on political grounds, that is, the question of who and what is to be included within the bounds of a particular religious tradition, and who/what is to be left out. This boundary-keeping function is undoubtedly part of what religions do; however, my understanding of the trajectory of Christian belief and practices is toward radical inclusion.³⁵ As someone who grew up outside of Christian tradition, the anomic, radical inclusivity of the teachings of Jesus struck me as one of its most distinguishing characteristics. It seems contrary to the spirit of Christian thought and witness to welcome the sinner into the fold, so to speak, but first require their sterilization of the worldviews which gave rise to and constitute them. My point here is that the program of pluralistic theology I am advocating will necessarily reveal the inchoate political pressures and ethnic boundaries in which we already exist. Bringing these to light is not a defeater for pluralistic theology but rather a virtue, since it is too easy for traditional theology to incorporate their underlying axioms and thus be subsumed by their political, social, and economic settlements (see Box 1.10).³⁶