 previous article in this issue | next article in this issue  |
|
Document Details : Title: Exclusivisme en dialoog Subtitle: Mijnenveld of mogelijkheid? Author(s): VAN NES-VISSCHER, Erika Journal: Tijdschrift voor Theologie Volume: 53 Issue: 3 Date: 2013 Pages: 264-280 DOI: 10.2143/TVT.53.3.3203326 Abstract : This article asks whether the tension between exclusivism and dialogue is an obstacle to interreligious dialogue and whether exclusivists can truly take part in interreligious dialogue. It is proposed that exclusivists can indeed fully partake in this dialogue, if the purpose of the dialogue is clear. Exclusivists will not want to and/or will not be able to participate in all forms of dialogue, but they can be a fully-fledged partner in a dialogue as theological exchange. If the motive for taking part in an interreligious dialogue is proselytization – a missionary motive – this should not be an obstacle to taking part. The combination of mission and dialogue is legitimate and possible. It is essential however to look into the question whether this purpose is achieved within the context of the dialogue. The power of the dialogue as a theological exchange could be that exclusivists too can take part in it, and are thus able to get to know the other without giving up their own identity. Because of the difference in communication on etic- (observing) and emic-levels (in connection with the contextual meaning), exclusivists (with a holistic theory of religion) do not have to agree with their conversation partners about things they consider to be superficial, and the identities of both partners are respected. One limitation of this kind of dialogue is that many religious dimensions apart from that of the conceptions of faith are given less attention or none at all. If one wants to provide the other with a holistic view of one’s own convictions, it needs to be considered whether this purpose is best served with a context of dialogue. Dialogue as a theological exchange is not the only form of dialogue, but it is a form in which exclusivists can take part. It means that the question whether the tense relation between exclusivism and dialogue is an obstacle to interreligious dialogue, can be answered in the negative as far as dialogue as a theological exchange is concerned. |
|
