Religion as a Self-Referential System of Religious Communication: An Assessment with Questions for a Challenging New Theological System. Notes of a Preliminary and (Merely) Intuitive Approach

ABSTRACTThe following considerations do not properly configure an academic article, but rather intend to offer a critical reaction to the lecture given by Prof. Dr. habil. Christian Danz, from the University of Vienna, on the occasion of the “25th Seminar in Dialogue with the Thought of Paul Tillich” – held under the title “Religion, Language, and Culture: Relevance and Limits of Paul Tillich’s Theology of Culture for the 21st Century,” between September 15th and 22nd, 2021. Danz’s lecture, entitled “Theology, Religion, Culture. Reflections on the Task of Systematic Theology following Paul Tillich,” brings not only an exegetical exposition of Tillich’s theology of culture, but also a sturdy criticism regarding the foundation of his concept of religion in the face of the religious pluralism of modern democratic societies. The thesis presented by Danz can be summarized in three points: 1) the transcendental foundation of Tillich’s concept of religion makes his theology incapable of dealing with religious pluralism; 2) given that the academic concept of religion is a product of neo-Protestantism, the concept of religion must be restricted to the Christian religion; 3) finally, the function of the concept of religion within the theological system lies in its ability to conceptually apprehend and determine Christianity as a religion. Based on the critique of the foundation of the concept of religion developed by Tillich, Danz proposes a new concept of religion in the perspective of a “self-referential system of religious communication.” Constitutive to the self-referential system of religious communication is the concept of “verstehende Aneignung,” or “understanding appropriation,” which, in turn, can only occur within the system of religious communication. The text that follows is an attempt, and while still incipient and intuitive, it offers a rather “suspicious” approach to the theological system proposed by Danz. The first part is intended for a comprehensive synthesis of the substantive content of the lecture given. The second part presents initial considerations and questions regarding the foundations of the proposed new theological system.