NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 60, Issue 3, 2006

Hermans’ theory of the dialogical self is presented as a useful tool to throw light on individual and collective identity processes in contemporary globalized, culturally heterogeneous society. The central concept is that of ‘collective voice’. Hermans presents identity development as a continuous internal dialogue between collective cultural voices, in which dominance (social power) plays a role. Both self and society are ‘multivoiced’. Internal dialogues and external dialogues, individual and collective identity development are closely interwoven. It is argued that insight in individual identity development is of the utmost importance for understanding the social interaction between majority and minority groups in contemporary society.

With the publication of the Gouda catechism in 1607 the polemic between supporters and ‘citicasters’ of the Heidelberg catechism reached a new climax. The supporters of the Heidelberg catechism perceived the Gouda catechism as an attack on the Heidelberg catechism. Their polemic against the Gouda catechism is a striking example of the arguments they used to have their catechism introduced in the Dutch reformed church. Transforming recent Dutch history, they presented themselves as the true inheritors of the reformation. According to them the Heidelberg catechism had always been an essential part of the reformed tradition. They became a majority by presenting themselves as if they had always been a majority.

In recent new Islamic interpretations of the world order as expressed, for instance, in the concept of Dâr al-Da’wa (‘The World of Preaching the Message’) Muslim minorities are to become full citizens of non-Muslim societies. This global view of the world as one, has lead to the appearance of a whole new branch of Islamic jurisprudence called the ‘Religious Jurispridence of Minorities’ (Fiqh al-Aqalliyât). Its purpose is to reinterpret Islamic principles in a situation in which Muslims are living in a minority position. Accurate understanding of the responses (fatwas) that shape this jurisprudence is necessary to avoid many misunderstandings with regard to Muslims living in non-Islamic countries. In addition, this article argues that research in this field will allow following the developments of the interpretation of religious norms and rules in socalled ‘Muslim’ countries. Fiqh-al-Aqalliyat will influence Islam at large.

In this article the relation between minority and majority is related to the process of identity forming in which a certain kind of mechanism can be perceived. The image presented of ‘the other’ will never be an objective image. The question is raised what it could mean for Christian systematic theology when this kind of mechanism appears to determine its heart. Christian theology is based upon the Deuteronomic theology which strongly contrasts ‘Israel’ and ‘Canaan’. Current research which questions the basis of this contrast and all its implications, calls for a renewal of theological constructions, and so for a theology which reflects the complexity of everyday life.

How can the marginalisation of religious minorities be prevented and their presence in the public sphere enhanced? The first part of this article argues that the general demand of specific group rights for marginalised groups is self-contradictory and that it does not give sufficient attention to the specific problems of religious minorities. The older, liberal demand of protecting the rights of individuals remains the best answer. The second part of this article analyses Rawls’ political liberalism as a contribution to the debate on the role of religious minorities. The third part states that a wider view than Rawls’ ‘wide view of public reason’ is needed to adequately balance the legitimate demand of religious minorities to be present in the public debate and concerns about the stability of a deliberative democracy.