Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:18:49.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wilfred Cantwell Smith as Theologian of Religions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Philip C. Almond
Philip C. Almond
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much has been written about Wilfred Cantwell Smith's account of the nature of religion, particularly by those who, broadly speaking, may be called Religionswissenschaftler. Surprisingly little, though, has been written about his theology. In part at least, this can be attributed to the incipience of his theological thought within the broad parameters of his studies of religion. Theological ideas have been more imbedded in the wealth of materials aimed at the elucidation of the nature of belief, faith, religious truth, and cumulative tradition than presented in any overt and systematic way. But the recent appearance of the third volume of his trilogy, Towards a World Theology, enables us to concentrate more directly on his theological thought and, in light of this, to reflect upon the theological nuances of his earlier work.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , July 1983 , pp. 335 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981). The other two volumes in the trilogy are Belief and History (Charlottesville: University Press of Virgina, 1977)Google Scholar and Faith and Belief (Princeton: Princeton University, 1979).Google Scholar

2 World Theology, 177; see also 176; Oxtoby, W. G., ed., Religious Diversity: Essays by Wilfred Cantwell Smith (New York: Harper & Row, 1976) 9Google Scholar; and Smith, W. C., The Meaning and End of Religion (New York: Mentor, 1964) 181.Google Scholar

3 See my “Hick's, JohnCopernican Theology,” Theology 86 (1983) 36–41.Google Scholar

4 World Theology, 170.

5 Lipner, J. J., “Does Copernicus Help? Reflections for a Christian Theology of Religions,” RelS 13 (1977) 243–58.Google Scholar

6 Belief and History, 96; see also 27; World Theology, 154ff., 175–76.

7 See, e.g., World Theology, 136–39; Faith and Belief, chap. 2.

8 Ibid., 32.

9 Religious Diversity, 13; see also 14.

10 Ibid., 21; see also World Theology, 171 (but cf. 175).

11 Meaning and End, 21, 43, 50, 118.

12 World Theology, 187. See also Belief and History, 20; Smith, W. C., Questions of Religious Truth (London: Gollancz, 1967) 79–81Google Scholar; Meaning and End, 167.

13 See, e.g., Kierkegaard, S., Concluding Unscientific Postscript (Princeton: Princeton University, 1968) Book 2.Google Scholar

14 Hick, John, “The Outcome: Dialogue into Truth,” in Hick, J., ed., Truth and Dialogue in World Religions: Conflicting Truth Claims (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) 146.Google Scholar

15 Wiebe, Donald, “The Role of ‘Belief in the Study of Religion,” Numen 26 (1979) 244.Google Scholar

16 Faith and Belief, 42–43.

17 See Belief and History, 44. Thus, for Smith, the proposition “God exists” functions in an analogous way to Wittgenstein's analysis of G. E. Moore's “truisms.” See Wittgenstein, Ludwig, On Certainty (Oxford: Blackwell, 1969)Google Scholar; and my “Winch and Wittgenstein,” RelS 12 (1976) 473–82.Google Scholar

18 W. C. Smith, “Conflicting Truth-Claims: A Rejoinder,” in Hick, Truth ami Dialogue, 159.

19 Gualtieri, A. R., “Faith, Tradition and Transcendence: A Study of Wilfred Cantwell Smith,” CJT 15 (1969) 102–3.Google Scholar

20 Sharpe, E. J., “Dialogue and Faith,” Religion 3 (1973) 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Wiebe, D., “Three Responses to Faith and Belief: A review article,” SR 10 (1981) 119.Google Scholar

22 See Smith, W. C., “On Dialogue and ‘Faith’: A Rejoinder,” Religion 3 (1973) 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Faith and Belief, 131. See also “On Dialogue and ‘Faith,’” 109; World Theology, 168.

24 For a fruitful analysis of Tillich and Smith, see Bowker, J., “Can Differences Make a Difference? A Comment on Tillich's Proposals for Dialogue Between Religions,” JTS 24 (1973) 158–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Belief and History, 96. See also “On Dialogue and ‘Faith,’ “110.

26 Ibid., 113.

27 See Belief and History, 97.

28 ”On Dialogue and ‘Faith,’” 110. See also World Theology, 184–85; Questions of Religious Truth, 36; Belief and History, 99.

29 See Belief and History, 98.

30 See, e.g., World Theology, 170–71. See also Gilkey, Langdon, “A Theological Voyage with Wilfred Cantwell Smith,” RelSRev 7 (1981) 304.Google Scholar Gilkey criticizes Smith for the ambiguity of his new theology as both Christianly-determined and Christianitytranscending.

31 Ibid.