Post‐Colonialism, Orientalism, and Understanding: Religious Studies and the Christian Missionary Imperative

Abstract

This article explores issues related to the worldviews of Friedrich Max Müller and Monier Monier-Williams, and contemporary critique of their work. Their indebtedness to their own age is explored, especially fulfilment theology and the missionary imperative, noting similarities and differences in their agendas. The conclusion considers how post-colonial critique can be applied. While accepting the validity of such critique, it is suggested that it makes vast and sweeping judgments, engaging in a totalising narrative. It is argued that, applied too harshly, such critiques can ignore the positive contributions to understanding other faiths and cultures made by such figures. It ends with some reflections upon both their and our place within the evolving tradition of the study of religion, and the need for both understanding and critical judgment.In this paper I will explore the interaction between certain aspects of nineteenth-century theological thought and the origins of the modern discipline of Religious Studies, or, as it was then known, the science of the comparative study of religion. Specifically, I will focus upon the issue of how two of Religious Studies' founding figures, Monier Monier-Williams and Friedrich Max Müller, were influenced by their Christian theological presuppositions, especially the contemporary missionary imperative. In this, I will suggest that while both men were influenced by different theological traditions, nevertheless, both were influenced by some common features of a contemporary worldview, though interpreted in different ways. These similarities saw them both using some form of the increasingly prevalent paradigm of fulfilment theology. In the conclusion, I will relate the insights gained to contemporary concerns in post-colonial criticism. In particular, I will suggest that some trends in post-colonialism take too caustic a perspective, disregarding what were, for their times, progressive views, and judging by a yardstick not necessarily suited to figures of a previous age. I will also, in this, take note of some recent work suggesting the need to nuance blanket writing about 'orientalism' as if it were a monolithic entity. 56 journal of religious history

The Old and New Comparative Theologies: Discourses on Religion, the Theology of Religions, Orientalism and the Boundaries of Traditions

“…334-40; [29] ). Yet, to see the two styles of Fulfilment Theology in opposition is problematic because we find many points of contact between those we have discussed ( [26], p. 23). For instance, we discover the following of Farquhar and Andrews: 'in renouncing direct missionary work, Farquhar felt Andrews to be "grievously mistaken," but "Farquhar continued to be supportive of Andrews throughout the most troubled years, continuing to publish articles by him in Young Men of India"' ( [28], p. 389; citing [30], p. 136), suggesting he did not see his position as antagonistic even if mistaken.…”

“…By contrast the latter's Fulfilment Theology was based in a 'conservative' strain ( [26], pp. 58-63), he belonged to a notable evangelical family and tradition [27], that interpreted things from a pattern of decay from an original revelation ( [26], p. 60). We see then that different strands underlie Fulfilment Theology itself (see [28], pp.…”

“…We see then that different strands underlie Fulfilment Theology itself (see [28], pp. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. For a further example we can point to its best known proponent, John Nicol Farquhar, whose concept of fulfilment essentially meant the 'death' of Hindu ideas as they are replaced by Christian conceptions, as Hindu ideas 'died' to become improved Christian ones ( [28], pp.…”

“…For instance, two representatives of mid to late nineteenth century Fulfilment Theology, Friedrich Max Müller and Monier Monier-Williams, both contemporaneous professors at Oxford, were poles apart theologically. The former's Fulfilment Theology being based upon what can be termed a 'liberal' Logos theology that saw religions developing in response to divine inspiration ( [26], pp. 63-8).…”

“…This will lead us to engage Masuzawa and, indirectly, other critics of 'religion'; her work has parallels with critiques made by such scholars as Timothy Fitzgerald, Talal Asad, and Russell McCutcheon amongst others [2][3][4][5], whose work is also employed by Nicholson ([6], pp. 26,87). Here, I will argue that the heritage shared by the OCT and the NCT is not inherently implicated within an Orientalist discourse as Nicholson and Masuzawa imply, rather, it may represent a process of increasing understanding in relation to religious diversity.…”