Paul Hedges

Discourse on the Invention of Discourse: Why We Need the Terminology of “Religion” and “Religions”

Timothy Fitzgeralds deconstruction of religion occurs at the nexus of Critical Studies and the history of ideas. Set within the context of scholars like Tomoko Masuzawa and Russell McCutcheon, it is suggested that his work provides an important aid to reflexivity in Religious Studies scholarship, but that like other deconstructive work in this area it is beset by a number of flaws. In particular, the historical evidence is open to alternative readings that suggest the development of the category “religion” may be as much about “discovery” as “invention,” while the continued need for Fitzgerald and other scholars to use some term to substitute for “religion,” such as the “sacred,” shows the continued usefulness of the term as a descriptive tool.

Multiple Religious Belonging after Religion: Theorising Strategic Religious Participation in a Shared Religious Landscape as a Chinese Model

Abstract It is argued that the concept of Multiple Religious Belonging as normally conceived relies upon a problematic construction of “religion” which can be expressed as the World Religions Paradigm. This relies upon a modern Western Protestant bias as to how “religion” should be understood. It is argued that religion can be understood otherwise, and looking at the Chinese context an argument is made that participation in different religious traditions relies upon a very different construct from Multiple Religious Belonging via the World Religions Paradigm model. This is termed Strategic Religious Participation in a Shared Religious Landscape. It considers the way that Chinese religiosity does not have fixed borders in the same way as the World Religions Paradigm suggests. Indeed, asking whether there is Multiple Religious Belonging in traditional Chinese thought seems to misconstrue the situation. A final reflection asks whether this new paradigm, of Strategic Religious Participation in a Shared Religious Landscape, may be appropriate to look at the contemporary Western context amongst a number of religious “nones”. Although no definitive answer is given to this question, the issue highlights that the World Religions Paradigm which shapes our sense of Multiple Religious Belonging may need to be rethought within different contexts.

Burning for a Cause: Four Factors in Successful Political (and Religious) Self-Immolation Examined in Relation to Alleged Falun Gong “Fanatics” in Tiananmen Square

This article theorizes the self-immolation of alleged Falun Gong practitioners in Tiananmen Square in 2001 in relation to literature on martyrdom, self-immolation, and political protest. It explores the cultural context in relation to Buddhist traditions of self-immolation, Chinese political protest, and other uses of self-immolation as political protest. It will seek to expand the analysis of why these self-immolations may be said to have “failed” as a form of protest, and present a set of four key factors. Issues of legitimation and authority in the events and their representation will be raised, especially the contested nature of whether the self-immolations were “religious,” looking at the different meanings of this term in Chinese and Western contexts. It is argued that both secular and religious self-immolation can be seen as legitimate in the public sphere.

The identity of Guanyin: Religion, convention and subversion

This paper explores the visual representation of Guanyin (Avalokiteshvara) and argues that this, understood in relation to the traditions and devotion to him/her, allows her to be read as a figure of subversive religiosity. Indeed, it is argued that, rather than being a symbol of tradition and convention, a subversive reading of her is not only more potent, but also inherent within her portrayals. To begin, the transformation of him/her from a figure of mainstream Mahayana tradition, in the Pure Land School and texts such as the Lotus Sutra, to the ‘Chinese Goddess of Compassion’ is explored, paying particular attention to the legends of Miaoshan. This is then extended to consider both why he/she may be considered a conventional figure, but also how and why he/she offers the potential for subversive readings centred around ideas of gender, identity, patriarchy and morality.

Can We Still Teach ‘Religions’?: Towards an Understanding of Religion as Culture and Orientation in Contemporary Pedagogy and Metatheory

Beginning with an indication of why previous definitions of religion have failed to prove satisfactory, the chapter is contextualised between ‘classical’ theories (e.g. W.C. Smith, N. Smart, F. Whaling) and contemporary theories (e.g. R. McCutcheon, T. Fitzgerald, R. Orsi, T. Tweed). It suggests that while there is no type of ‘thing’ called a ‘religion’, we can locate things ‘religious’. Employing the notion of ‘family resemblances’, a typology centred on an ‘orientation’ to things ‘religious’ that allows us to categorise ‘religions’ is offered. Despite problems inherent in the term ‘religion’, it is suggested that we retain it as a useful and discrete category. The typology suggests that we can define a discrete area of cultural activity that is commonly termed ‘religion’. An application of the typology to various world religions and worldviews is offered, which suggests that we can adequately distinguish between religions and ‘secular’ worldviews. The pedagogical basis and use in an interreligious context is highlighted, especially noting that the typology does not seek to use essentialising concepts, is not based in Western or Monotheistic traditions, and seeks to raise questions about how we deploy the term ‘religion’.

Encounters with Ultimacy?: Autobiographical and Critical Perspectives in the Academic Study of Religion

Abstract “Ultimacy,” it is argued, is not an area that academic studies in theology nor the study of religion can properly investigate; nevertheless, it is also illegitimate to argue therefore that claims to it are simply linguistic power plays. Using an autobiographical methodology, the author explores how their own “imagined” “mystical” experience and scholarly studies may shed light on approaching the study of religious experience, noting particularly work by Rudolf Otto, Robert Sharf, Gregory Shushan, and Ann Taves. Reflections are offered on studying religious experience, approaching ultimacy, and the relationship of theological and religious studies. Moreover, some critical and decolonial perspectives are brought to bear both on the author’s own work, academic studies, and contemporary debates around studying what may be termed “mysticism” or religious experience. The author also argues that the autobiographical and reflexive model offered herein may be a useful perspective for scholarship in the study of religion.

Introduction: Theologies of Religions in the Twenty-First Century

The question of the theology of religions has become a key part of discussions over the last thirty or so years. We should note that this is a discussion that began in, and is still dominated by, the Christian tradition. As such, the fact that this text reflects this is seen as more a survey of the situation than a normative situation we would wish to perpetuate. Indeed, as discussed below, we have attempted to widen the debate into the context of, and in relation to, other religions. From a fringe interest it has become something that has to be addressed. We should note that we speak very much from a Western (European-North American) context here. The relation of Christianity to the religious Other has been of central concern in other parts of the world for far longer, but for better or worse the Western context still has a certain global hegemony despite the shift in demographics to the Global South. Christian systematic theology now seems incomplete without a discussion on both the religious Other and the changing demographics of Christianity and what this means. Introductions to Christianity or theology will address religious Others as an area of concern, while ecclesial communities have committees and forums to address and engage the religious Other. Over that time a central focus of those discussions has been the typology of exclusivisms-inclusivisms-pluralisms1 (often now with particularities added as a fourth paradigm), which was first introduced by Alan Race in his classic 1983 book Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions. It was, indeed, the thirtieth anniversary of that book which saw two initiatives come together which led to the current volume. On one side, Elizabeth Harris and Shanthikumar Hettiarachchi were putting together an edited book. On the other, Paul Hedges, with Alan Race, was planning a conference with a follow up publication. Inevitably, the two ventures started to call on the same people and the organisers of each (and the contributors) soon saw the merits of combining forces to produce the current volume. However, the result is far from a simple paean to the typology or a festschrift to Alan Race, although we offer this volume in honour of his landmark contribution. Rather, it marks the deep and growing conversation around the

The Body(sattva) on the Cross: A Comparative Theological Investigation of the Theology of the Cross in the Light of Chinese Mahayana Suffering Bodhisattvas

This paper sits within the field of Christian-Buddhist comparative theology and will explore the concept of the crucifixion in relation to Chinese Buddhist images of suffering bodhisattvas. While the bodhisattva is normally portrayed as placid and serene and to have transcended suffering, I will argue that some form of suffering is either implicit or demonstrated within various stories associated within specific figures, focusing especially on Dizang (Kshitigharba) and Guanyin (Avalokiteshvara). The way that these bodhisattvas suffer may be an area for profitable exploration in terms of Christology in comparative or intercultural theology. Given the limits of space the paper does not proceed to develop a new Christology, but rather presents the argument that the image of a suffering savior is not alien to the Buddhist world, at least in its Sinitic portions, and so opens the potential for developing such speculation.

The Rhetoric and Reception of John Milbank’s Radical Orthodoxy: Privileging Prejudice in Theology?

Abstract This paper uses Douglas Pratt’s typology of religious extremism and fundamentalism to argue that John Milbank’s Radical Orthodoxy employs styles of rhetoric and representation of the religious Other that have clear affinities with such ideologies. While clearly demarcating Milbank’s theology from what is normally termed fundamentalism or extremism, the paper shows that nevertheless similar rhetoric and judgements are employed that suggests that his theology is at best unhelpful, and at worst potentially dangerous. Focusing upon Milbank’s early work, the paper suggests that such rhetoric can be found through much of his writings, but notes that a different approach can be detected in his most recent writings. Suggestions for more productive modes of theological encounters with the religious Other are advanced, which suggest how the ideology of Radical Orthodoxy may be in potential sympathy with such ideas.

Australian Religion Studies Review – Journal for the Academic Study of Religion Name Change Announcement

From Volume 26, the Australian Religion Studies Review (the journal of the Australian Association for the Study of Religions) will change to the Journal for the Academic Study of Religion.