Abstract
Abstract “Ultimacy,” it is argued, is not an area that academic studies in theology nor the study of religion can properly investigate; nevertheless, it is also illegitimate to argue therefore that claims to it are simply linguistic power plays. Using an autobiographical methodology, the author explores how their own “imagined” “mystical” experience and scholarly studies may shed light on approaching the study of religious experience, noting particularly work by Rudolf Otto, Robert Sharf, Gregory Shushan, and Ann Taves. Reflections are offered on studying religious experience, approaching ultimacy, and the relationship of theological and religious studies. Moreover, some critical and decolonial perspectives are brought to bear both on the author’s own work, academic studies, and contemporary debates around studying what may be termed “mysticism” or religious experience. The author also argues that the autobiographical and reflexive model offered herein may be a useful perspective for scholarship in the study of religion.
Highlights
Introducing my problem with this issueThis article is, to some extent, written against the intent of this special issue: I do not claim to know what “marks of ultimacy” are
Reflections are offered on studying religious experience, approaching ultimacy, and the relationship of theological and religious studies
I would argue that academic theology, or studies in religion, should not legitimately explore this area. (It is possible to study ways traditions have conceptualised what they understand “ultimacy” to be, and to note their internal markers for recognising it; but that is quite different from attempting the first-order theological claim of identifying and comparing what “marks of ultimacy” may be1)
Summary
This article is, to some extent, written against the intent of this special issue: I do not claim to know what “marks of ultimacy” are. While writers like Rudolf Otto are part of “classical” theory (his noumenal being a category of “ultimacy”4), his work today is recognised as theological rather than phenomenological.[5] all Otto had access to was human discourse.[6] In line with certain critiques of Otto, this paper is concerned with the critical methodology of studying what may broadly be termed “religious experiences”. To this end, I begin with an autobiographical reflection, which describes my own grappling with experiences that I once held to signify “ultimacy”, before moving onto theory in the academic study of religion. For scholars familiar with the related terrain these may be skipped over, but anticipating readers from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, they are provided to fill in some background
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have