Are people capable of transcending human limitations and of being “saved”? What does salvation even mean? Participants in this session employ apophatic theology and ontological scrutiny to argue that a responsible theological pluralism respects different understandings of selfhood and acknowledges the limited human understanding of ultimacy amidst clashing religious and political worldviews.
As Theology Without Walls scholars, we are, at least to some extent, experts in dealing with diversity: How do we transcend our own belief system, to get at thoughts and inspiration which are acceptable to people with other belief system. In my view, in this age of polarization, this expertise comes with a responsibility: can we formulate a vision for society that transcends various religions, but also, that transcends various political views. In this paper, I will present a vision on society which transcends both religions and political systems of thought, and which is grounded on a theology and philosophy of diversity.
Some scholars argue that certain confessional traditions, though open to the “outside,” nevertheless remain bounded by the foundations of their own traditions. Comparative theology, thus, emerges as an alternative approach: one that seeks wisdom from the “outside” while remaining grounded within one’s own confessional commitments. Christian traditions that claim apostolic authority, such as the Catholic Church, are often cited as examples of this posture. While these traditions may be receptive to learning from external sources, they remain firmly rooted in their foundational structures—walled, though passable through doors and windows. However, patristic tradition has strong roots in apophatic theology, and that apophatic theology, by definition, resists such boundaries, since divinity cannot be confined within the limits of human language, intellect, or imagination. It is, therefore, arguably an oxymoron to describe these traditions as absolutely walled when their own theological foundations ultimately dismantle such boundaries. This does not mean that adherents of these traditions cannot remain rooted within them; rather, it suggests that some supposedly fixed walls may be illusory.