Nor shadow of turning: Anthropological reflections on theological critiques of doctrinal change

IF 0.5 3区 社会学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY Australian Journal of Anthropology Pub Date : 2022-10-11 DOI:10.1111/taja.12448
Joseph Webster
{"title":"Nor shadow of turning: Anthropological reflections on theological critiques of doctrinal change","authors":"Joseph Webster","doi":"10.1111/taja.12448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To all intents and purposes, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Brethren of Gamrie, and the Orange Order each claim a monopoly over theological truth, believing that they are right and that everyone else is wrong. Such a position is hardly exceptional – strong versions of pluralism take precisely this same monopolistic stance, calling, in effect, for a rejection of anything that rejects anything. Through an examination of such exceptionalist logics, this article seeks to provoke the anthropology of religion to ask certain questions about the social life of theological truth claims. Importantly, by asking anthropological questions (what makes a truth claim ‘stick’; what difference does it make in the world?), the anthropologist of religion is likely to encounter theological questions posed in response. Where does truth come from? What makes it true? What does such truth demand? While answering a question with another question is not always very revealing, this article suggests that in this case it might be, especially if some genuine attempt is made to answer the latter theological questions as a route to answering the former anthropological ones. More specifically, this article argues that anthropology might learn something about the nature of religious change, and changes to religious beliefs, if it first attempts to makes sense of (in this case, Protestant Fundamentalist) theological critiques of doctrinal change.</p>","PeriodicalId":45452,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Anthropology","volume":"33 3","pages":"360-382"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/taja.12448","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/taja.12448","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To all intents and purposes, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Brethren of Gamrie, and the Orange Order each claim a monopoly over theological truth, believing that they are right and that everyone else is wrong. Such a position is hardly exceptional – strong versions of pluralism take precisely this same monopolistic stance, calling, in effect, for a rejection of anything that rejects anything. Through an examination of such exceptionalist logics, this article seeks to provoke the anthropology of religion to ask certain questions about the social life of theological truth claims. Importantly, by asking anthropological questions (what makes a truth claim ‘stick’; what difference does it make in the world?), the anthropologist of religion is likely to encounter theological questions posed in response. Where does truth come from? What makes it true? What does such truth demand? While answering a question with another question is not always very revealing, this article suggests that in this case it might be, especially if some genuine attempt is made to answer the latter theological questions as a route to answering the former anthropological ones. More specifically, this article argues that anthropology might learn something about the nature of religious change, and changes to religious beliefs, if it first attempts to makes sense of (in this case, Protestant Fundamentalist) theological critiques of doctrinal change.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不是转向的阴影:对教义变化的神学批判的人类学反思
实际上,苏格兰自由长老会、加姆里弟兄会和橙色教团都声称自己垄断了神学真理,认为自己是对的,其他人都是错的。这样的立场并不是例外——多元主义的强烈版本恰恰采取了同样的垄断立场,实际上要求拒绝任何拒绝任何东西的东西。通过对这种例外论逻辑的考察,本文试图激发宗教人类学对神学真理主张的社会生活提出某些问题。重要的是,通过提出人类学问题(是什么让真理主张“站得住脚”;它对世界有什么影响?),研究宗教的人类学家很可能会遇到作为回应而提出的神学问题。真理从何而来?是什么让它成为事实?这样的真理要求什么?虽然用一个问题回答另一个问题并不总是很有启发性,但这篇文章表明,在这种情况下,它可能是,特别是如果一些真正的尝试来回答后一个神学问题,作为回答前人类学问题的途径。更具体地说,这篇文章认为,如果人类学首先试图理解(在这种情况下,新教原教旨主义者)对教义变化的神学批评,那么它可能会学到一些关于宗教变化和宗教信仰变化的本质的东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Editorial The Fences: A webcomic on collective debt and ruination in Paraguay Fire's habit: Elemental media and the politics of apprehension Filming jilba: Sensing beyond the exclusionary fictions of climate science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1