The purpose of this study is to analyze the existing discussions on the relational typology of religions. In spite of the significant roles and remarkable contributions of such discussions, however, they cannot but be limited structurally because of some intrinsically wrong presupposition. Thus, this study tries to suggest a more desirable and appropriate alternative in order to overcome such limitations. More concretely, it shows that the major relational types of the so-called exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism have their own logical bases and historical backgrounds through philological analyses of the research materials which represent each position respectively. Concomitantly, the contrasting and even contradictory differences among the three positions are revealed more obviously. However, this study does not choose one among the three and support it by opposing the other two; rather, it claims that none of the three positions are appropriate for a desirable relation of religions. For although they are remarkably different from one another, they inevitably share in common the unrealistic assumption of ‘one religion’ for all denominations and sects using one and the same name of religion. In other words, this study criticizes that ‘one and the same name’ of a particular religion is too broad and even vague to designate or include one’s own individual faith, thereby being merely a vacant and leer name. Hence, it suggests that a vacant name of a particular religion be replaced with the personal significance of individual faith, thereby transforming the humans from ‘homo religiosus’ to ‘homo fidei.’ Thus, this study concludes that we should pursue the ‘maturity of faith,’ in which one can share one’s own sense of life and significance of faith with others without the represented name of one’s particular religion, rather than ‘interreligious encounter,’ in which one meets the people of other religions in the name of one’s particular religion which cannot embrace even one’s own irreplaceable faith. For this purpose, this study uses the relevant works of Raimundo Panikkar, who has shown deep and significant insight which seems to awaken the authentic sense of faith beyond the typological relation of religions. His vigorous voice of iconoclasm, which can hardly be heard from the Western theological scene, is undoubtedly a prophetic moment, and is expected to contribute to the awakening of Korean Christianity characterized by narcissistic idolatry.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the existing discussions on the relational typology of religions. In spite of the significant roles and remarkable contributions of such discussions, however, they cannot but be limited structurally because of some intrinsically wrong presupposition. Thus, this study tries to suggest a more desirable and appropriate alternative in order to overcome such limitations. More concretely, it shows that the major relational types of the so-called exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism have their own logical bases and historical backgrounds through philological analyses of the research materials which represent each position respectively. Concomitantly, the contrasting and even contradictory differences among the three positions are revealed more obviously. However, this study does not choose one among the three and support it by opposing the other two; rather, it claims that none of the three positions are appropriate for a desirable relation of religions. For although they are remarkably different from one another, they inevitably share in common the unrealistic assumption of ‘one religion’ for all denominations and sects using one and the same name of religion. In other words, this study criticizes that ‘one and the same name’ of a particular religion is too broad and even vague to designate or include one’s own individual faith, thereby being merely a vacant and leer name. Hence, it suggests that a vacant name of a particular religion be replaced with the personal significance of individual faith, thereby transforming the humans from ‘homo religiosus’ to ‘homo fidei.’ Thus, this study concludes that we should pursue the ‘maturity of faith,’ in which one can share one’s own sense of life and significance of faith with others without the represented name of one’s particular religion, rather than ‘interreligious encounter,’ in which one meets the people of other religions in the name of one’s particular religion which cannot embrace even one’s own irreplaceable faith. For this purpose, this study uses the relevant works of Raimundo Panikkar, who has shown deep and significant insight which seems to awaken the authentic sense of faith beyond the typological relation of religions. His vigorous voice of iconoclasm, which can hardly be heard from the Western theological scene, is undoubtedly a prophetic moment, and is expected to contribute to the awakening of Korean Christianity characterized by narcissistic idolatry.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

human existence, religion, homo religiosus, interreligious encounter, evangelism, exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, dialogue, faith, growth, maturity