Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe: Between Texts and People

Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe Between Texts and People CURRENTS OF ENCOUNTER STUDIES ON THE CONTA...

Author: David Cheetham | Ulrich Winkler | Oddbjorn Leirvik | Judith Gruber (editors)

91 downloads 948 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe Between Texts and People

CURRENTS OF ENCOUNTER STUDIES ON THE CONTACT BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS, BELIEFS, AND CULTURES VOL. 40

GENERAL EDITORS Hans De Wit Jerald D. Gort Henry Jansen Lourens Minnema W.L. Van Der Merwe Hendrik M. Vroom Anton Wessels ADVISORY BOARD Leonard Fernando (Delhi) James Haire (Canberra) James W. Heisig (Nagoya) Mechteld M. Jansen (Amsterdam) Kang Phee Seng (Hong Kong) Oddbjørn Leirvik (Oslo) Francis Anekwe Oborji (Rome) Jayakiran Sebastian (Philadelphia, PA) Nelly Van Doorn-Harder (Valparaiso) Ulrich Winkler (Salzburg)

Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe Between Texts and People

Edited by

David Cheetham, Ulrich Winkler, Oddbjørn Leirvik and Judith Gruber

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2011

Cover photo: Mark Finegan Cover design: Pier Post The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-3337-5 E-Book ISBN: 978-94-012-0037-0 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2011 Printed in the Netherlands

Contentsȱ ȱ ȱ Prefaceȱ ȱ PARTȱIȱȱȱUSESȱOFȱTEXTSȱ OneȱTextȱ–ȱDifferentȱMeanings?ȱTheȱNotificationȱonȱJacquesȱ DupuisȱinȱtheȱLightȱofȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱ ȱ SIGRIDȱRETTENBACHERȱ SiftingȱtheȱQur’an:ȱTwoȱFormsȱofȱInterreligiousȱHermeneuticsȱ ȱ inȱNicholasȱofȱCusaȱȱPIMȱVALKENBERGȱ AnȱExpositionȱandȱDefenceȱofȱJayantaȱBhatta’sȱInclusivismȱ ȱ DAVIDȱSLAKTERȱ ȱ PARTȱIIȱȱȱSCRIPTURALȱREASONINGȱ ȱ ANDȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱ

viiȱ 1ȱ

3ȱ 27ȱ 49ȱ

57ȱ

ScripturalȱReasoningȱandȱInterfaithȱHermeneuticsȱ ȱ NICHOLASȱADAMSȱ

59ȱ

ScripturalȱReasoning:ȱAȱFeministȱResponseȱ ȱ HELENEȱEGNELLȱ

79ȱ

ScripturalȱReasoningȱorȱSymbiosis:ȱCanȱanȱAsianȱParadigmȱ ȱ HaveȱaȱMessageȱforȱEurope?ȱȱELIZABETHȱJ.ȱHARRISȱ

83ȱ

TowardsȱanȱInterreligiousȱHermeneuticȱofȱScripture:ȱ ȱ ProblemsȱandȱPossibilitiesȱȱMAGDALENȱLAMBKINȱ ȱ PARTȱIIIȱȱȱCOMPARATIVEȱTHEOLOGYȱ

103ȱ 129ȱ

ComparativeȱTheologyȱ—ȱAsȱTheologyȱ ȱ FRANCISȱX.ȱCLOONEYȱSJȱȱ

131ȱ

EntitledȱtoȱUnderstand:ȱAȱCriticalȱLookȱatȱȱ ȱ ComparativeȱTheologyȱȱALBERTINAȱNUGTERENȱ

149ȱ

ComparativeȱTheologyȱinȱSearchȱofȱaȱ ȱ HermeneuticalȱFrameworkȱȱMARIANNEȱMOYAERTȱ

161ȱ

ConfessionalȱandȱComparativeȱTheology:ȱCounterpartsȱ ȱ orȱComplements?ȱȱHENDRIKȱRUNGELRATHȱ

187ȱ

Guanyin,ȱQueerȱTheology,ȱandȱSubversiveȱReligiosity:ȱ ȱ AnȱExperimentȱinȱInterreligiousȱTheologyȱ ȱ PAULȱHEDGESȱ

203ȱ

WhatȱisȱComparativeȱTheology?ȱ ȱ ULRICHȱWINKLERȱȱ ȱ PARTȱIVȱȱȱSACREDȱTEXTȱANDȱSOCIALȱCONTEXTȱ

265ȱ

EuropeanȱIslamicȱGenderȱDiscoursesȱ ȱ ANNEȱSOFIEȱROALDȱ

267ȱ

TheȱForbiddenȱFruitȱforȱtheȱNewȱEve:ȱTheȱChristianȱRight’sȱ Adaptationȱtoȱtheȱ(Post)modernȱWorldȱ ȱ SUSANNEȱSCHOLZȱ

289ȱ

231ȱ

InterreligiousȱLearning:ȱTheȱShapingȱofȱInterreligiousȱIdentityȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 317ȱ inȱPluralisticȱEuropeȱȱMARTINȱRÖTTINGȱ InterreligiousȱHermeneuticsȱandȱtheȱEthicalȱCritiqueȱ ȱ ofȱtheȱScripturesȱȱODDBJØRNȱLEIRVIKȱ ȱ PARTȱVȱȱȱPOLEMICALȱREVIVALȱȱ PolemicalȱRevival:ȱAttackingȱtheȱOther’sȱTextsȱ ȱ JOHNȱCHESWORTHȱ ȱ PARTȱVIȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱTHEȱLIGHTȱ OFȱTHEȱPOSTCOLONIALȱDECONSTRUCTIONȱOFȱRELIGIONȱ OnȱtheȱCommunicationȱofȱSacredȱTexts:ȱInterculturalȱ ȱ ComparisonȱorȱInterculturalȱEncounterȱ ȱ ANDREASȱNEHRINGȱ

ȱ333ȱ 353ȱ 355ȱ

379ȱ

381ȱ

Culture/sȱasȱaȱTheologicalȱChallenge:ȱTowardsȱaȱSystematicȱ ȱ ApproachȱtoȱInterculturalȱTheologyȱ ȱ JUDITHȱGRUBERȱ DoubleȱCommitment:ȱorȱTheȱCaseȱforȱReligiousȱMestizajeȱ (Creolization)ȱȱXAVIERȱGRAVENDȬTIROLEȱ

397ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ

437ȱ

Contributorsȱ

443

415ȱ

Prefaceȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ occasionȱ thatȱ gaveȱ riseȱ toȱ thisȱ volumeȱ ofȱ papersȱ wasȱ theȱ secondȱmajorȱconferenceȱofȱTheȱEuropeanȱSocietyȱforȱInterculturalȱ Theologyȱ andȱ Interreligiousȱ Studiesȱ (ESITIS),ȱ whichȱ probedȱ theȱ broadȱ themeȱ ofȱ “interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ inȱ aȱ pluralisticȱ Europe.”ȱThisȱthemeȱemergedȱfromȱtheȱenquiriesȱthatȱwereȱfeaȬ turedȱ atȱ theȱ previousȱ conferenceȱ heldȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ BirȬ minghamȱinȱ2007,ȱwhichȱwasȱconcernedȱtoȱexploreȱwhatȱtheȱimȬ plicationsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ pluralismȱ inȱ Europeȱ areȱ forȱ doingȱ theoȬ logyȱ andȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ inȱ theȱ academyȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ publicȱ square.ȱInȱmanyȱways,ȱthisȱisȱaȱperennialȱconcernȱforȱtheȱSociety,ȱ whichȱisȱseeking,ȱperhapsȱaboveȱall,ȱtoȱcomprehendȱtheȱnatureȱ ofȱ theȱ disciplinesȱ ofȱ interculturalȱ theologyȱ andȱ interreligiousȱ studiesȱ asȱ bothȱ independentȱ andȱ coȬdependentȱ areasȱ ofȱ study.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ Societyȱ existsȱ toȱ challengeȱ currentȱ methodsȱ andȱ practicesȱinȱtheologyȱandȱreligiousȱstudiesȱbyȱinsistingȱthatȱtheȱ multiculturalȱcharacterȱofȱEuropeanȱsocieties,ȱtheȱchangingȱpatȬ ternsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ observance,ȱ theȱ shiftsȱ inȱ religiousȱ allegiance,ȱ theȱimpactȱofȱimmigrantȱpopulationsȱandȱanȱawarenessȱofȱnewȱ “globalȱ contexts”ȱ meanȱ thatȱ olderȱ conceptionsȱ ofȱ theseȱ disciȬ plinesȱareȱinȱneedȱofȱoverhaulȱandȱrenewal.ȱ Aboutȱ100ȱscholarsȱgatheredȱatȱtheȱCenterȱforȱInterculturalȱ TheologyȱandȱStudyȱofȱReligionsȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱSalzburgȱ inȱAustriaȱfromȱ15Ȭ17ȱAprilȱ2009.ȱThereȱwereȱmanyȱpeopleȱwhoȱ helpedȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ conferenceȱ aȱ success,ȱ includingȱ Ulrichȱ Winkler,ȱ Judithȱ Gruber,ȱ Sigridȱ Rettenbacher,ȱ andȱ Hendrikȱ Rungelrath.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱsmoothȱrunningȱofȱtheȱeventȱcanȱbeȱ attributedȱtoȱtheȱexpertȱsupervisionȱbyȱUschiȱHerzogȬKluppenȬ eggerȱ andȱ Ursulaȱ Kaserbacher’s.ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ attendedȱ theȱ conȬ ferenceȱwillȱvividlyȱrememberȱtheȱvigorousȱandȱmemorableȱsetȱ ofȱdebatesȱandȱdiscussionsȱconcerningȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱimpliȬ cationsȱ ofȱ aȱ pluralisticȱ Europe:ȱ onȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ hermenȬ euticsȱ(textualȱorȱotherwise)ȱcanȱtakeȱplaceȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱ richȱexchangeȱandȱencounterȱbetweenȱtheȱdifferentȱculturesȱandȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Whoȱ isȱ doingȱ theȱ interpreting?ȱ Andȱhowȱisȱinterpretationȱhandledȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱmultipleȱ traditionsȱ andȱ voices?ȱ Howȱ manyȱ voicesȱ shouldȱ beȱ included?ȱ Suchȱmultipleȱvoicesȱareȱnotȱjustȱthoseȱofȱvariousȱ“cultures”ȱorȱ

viiiȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ

“traditions”ȱ butȱ alsoȱ allȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ beenȱ marginalizedȱ byȱ hierarchiesȱofȱpower,ȱwealth,ȱandȱgender.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱissuesȱ becomeȱ evenȱ moreȱ intricateȱ whenȱ oneȱ considersȱ theȱ phenomȬ enonȱofȱmultipleȱreligiousȱbelongingȱorȱdualȱcommitment.ȱHereȱ weȱ mightȱ discernȱ theȱ classicȱ insider/outsiderȱ problem,ȱ butȱ toȬ dayȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ addedȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ complexityȱ thatȱ questionsȱ assumptionsȱ ofȱ priorityȱ andȱ authorityȱ inȱ interpretation.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ connection,ȱtheȱconferenceȱwasȱconcernedȱtoȱexploreȱnewȱmethȬ odologiesȱforȱtheȱmeetingȱofȱtraditionsȱthatȱsoughtȱtoȱmoveȱbeȬ yondȱ heteroȬreadingsȱ ofȱ theȱ other.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ whenȱ preparȬ ingȱtheȱconference,ȱtheȱSocietyȱfeltȱthatȱtheȱconsiderationȱofȱnewȱ waysȱ ofȱ approachingȱ scripturalȱ hermeneuticsȱ meantȱ acknowlȬ edgingȱ factorsȱ thatȱ reflectȱ issuesȱ otherȱ thanȱ justȱ interreligiousȱ ones.ȱ Thus,ȱ itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ reviewȱ practicalȱ questionsȱ aboutȱ genderȱmodelsȱandȱtheȱperceivedȱrolesȱwomenȱplayȱwithinȱtheȱ family,ȱfaithȱcommunities,ȱandȱsocietyȱwhenȱseekingȱtoȱfindȱcreȬ ativeȱcontemporaryȱinterpretationsȱofȱsacredȱtexts.ȱ ProvidingȱaȱvividȱbackgroundȱforȱtheȱSalzburgȱconference,ȱ theȱ initialȱ plenaryȱ focusedȱ onȱ howȱ textsȱ areȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ globalȱ ageȱofȱmassȱmedia.ȱThisȱraisedȱissuesȱconcerningȱtheȱownershipȱ ofȱ textsȱ thatȱ areȱ nowȱ availableȱ –ȱ throughȱ theȱ expansionȱ ofȱ theȱ mediaȱ–ȱnotȱjustȱtoȱtheȱcommunitiesȱwithȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱtradiȬ tionallyȱassociatedȱbutȱtoȱallȱwhoȱhaveȱaccessȱtoȱthemȱandȱwishȱ toȱ appropriateȱ themȱ inȱ oneȱ formȱ orȱ another.ȱ Connectingȱ upȱ withȱ someȱ ofȱ theseȱ preliminaryȱ issues,ȱ twoȱ majorȱ approachesȱ thatȱ wereȱ scrutinizedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ conferenceȱ wereȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱandȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱ–ȱbothȱofȱwhichȱ areȱconcernedȱtoȱgiveȱpriorityȱtoȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱ“other”ȱwithinȱ theirȱ hermeneuticalȱ procedures.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ importantȱ recentȱ scholarlyȱ movementȱ inȱ interȬAbrahamicȱ dialogueȱ knownȱ asȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ (SR)ȱ involvesȱ Christians,ȱ Jews,ȱ andȱ MusȬ limsȱgatheringȱinȱgroupsȱtoȱinterpretȱtheirȱownȱscripturesȱinȱtheȱ presenceȱofȱtheȱother.ȱButȱtheyȱareȱalsoȱinvitedȱtoȱinterpretȱoneȱ another’sȱtextsȱasȱwell.ȱThus,ȱthereȱisȱanȱimportantȱdynamicȱofȱ givingȱ andȱ receivingȱ inȱ hermeneuticsȱ thatȱ createsȱ possibilitiesȱ forȱ newȱ interȬAbrahamicȱ understanding.ȱ Constructiveȱ andȱ inȬ novativeȱinterreligiousȱdiscoursesȱofȱthisȱkindȱprovokeȱaȱdeeperȱ politicalȱ debateȱ concerningȱ postȬsecularȱ possibilitiesȱ thatȱ areȱ partȱ ofȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ latestȱ innovationsȱ inȱ theȱ meetingȱ ofȱ tradiȬ tionsȱ andȱ texts.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theȱ excitementȱ generatedȱ byȱ SRȱ

PREFACE

ixȱ

duringȱtheȱconferenceȱplenariesȱalsoȱgeneratedȱquestionsȱaboutȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ forȱ expandingȱ itsȱ scopeȱ beyondȱ anȱ Abrahamicȱ focus.ȱ Inȱ partialȱ responseȱ toȱ this,ȱ perhapsȱ SRȱ mightȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ relatedȱtoȱtheȱbroaderȱpracticeȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology?ȱSo,ȱtheȱ practiceȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱresonatesȱwithȱScripturalȱReaȬ soningȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ seeksȱ toȱ payȱ closeȱ attentionȱ andȱ listenȱ toȱ theȱ selfȬdescriptionsȱ andȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ otherȱ traditionsȱ andȱ theirȱ textsȱ beforeȱ offeringȱ someȱ sortȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ appropriaȬ tionȱofȱthem.ȱHowever,ȱwhereasȱpractitionersȱofȱScripturalȱReaȬ soningȱ stressȱ thatȱ theirȱ meetingsȱ doȱ notȱ usuallyȱ resultȱ inȱ herȬ meneuticalȱconsensusȱ(inȱfact,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱgoalsȱofȱSRȱisȱtoȱraiseȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ theȱ disagreement!),ȱ comparativeȱ theologians,ȱ suchȱasȱFrancisȱClooney,ȱexpectȱtoȱbeȱchangedȱbyȱtheȱencounterȱ andȱ subsequentlyȱ toȱ reflectȱ differentlyȱ aboutȱ theirȱ ownȱ textsȱ andȱtraditionsȱasȱaȱresult.ȱ ȱ Wasȱ theȱ conferenceȱ merelyȱ aȱ discussionȱ amongstȱ scholarsȱ andȱ academics,ȱ orȱ doesȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ haveȱ aȱ partȱ toȱ playȱ inȱ healingȱ discordȱ andȱ conflictȱ inȱ theȱ publicȱ square?ȱ Theȱ conferenceȱ didȱ notȱ attemptȱ toȱ addressȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ interreȬ ligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱinȱ aȱpurelyȱabstractȱ orȱacademicȱway;ȱinȬ stead,ȱcontextualȱissuesȱthatȱbroughtȱparticularitiesȱandȱpracticȬ alitiesȱtoȱtheȱforeȱwereȱconsideredȱthroughoutȱtheȱconferenceȱinȱ theȱ“workshops”ȱandȱinȱtheȱplenaryȱpresentationsȱthatȱfeaturedȱ inȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱconference.ȱThus,ȱinȱtheȱmainȱsessions,ȱ attentionȱ wasȱ givenȱ toȱ issuesȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ humanȱ rightsȱ andȱ howȱtheyȱhaveȱrecentlyȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱdebatesȱinȱIslamȱconȬ cerningȱ genderȱ roles.ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ whereasȱ muchȱ ofȱ theȱ intelȬ lectualȱmomentumȱinȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱlooksȱatȱhowȱ comparingȱ sacredȱ textsȱ canȱ leadȱ toȱ greaterȱ understandingȱ orȱ friendship,ȱitȱisȱalsoȱimportantȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱprevalentȱuseȱofȱ textsȱ forȱ engagingȱ inȱ polemicalȱ offensives.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ particularlyȱ pertinentȱtoȱMuslimsȱandȱChristiansȱwhoȱboth,ȱalthoughȱnotȱinȱ identicalȱ ways,ȱ placeȱ greatȱ importanceȱ onȱ theirȱ sacredȱ texts.ȱ However,ȱsuchȱtextsȱcanȱbeȱusedȱtoȱattackȱ“theȱother,”ȱandȱthisȱ hasȱ beenȱ aȱ practiceȱ thatȱ hasȱ featuredȱ stronglyȱ throughoutȱ theȱ historyȱofȱChristianȬMuslimȱrelations.ȱThus,ȱtheȱconferenceȱconȬ sideredȱsomeȱrecentȱexamples,ȱsetȱwithinȱanȱAfricanȱcontext,ȱofȱ theȱMuslimȱandȱChristianȱpolemicsȱusedȱbyȱAhmedȱDeedatȱandȱ ReinhardȱBonnke.ȱ

xȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ

Collectingȱ togetherȱ theȱ insightsȱ gainedȱ duringȱ theȱ conferȬ ence,ȱtheȱconcludingȱsessionsȱrevisitedȱtheȱmoreȱtheoreticalȱconȬ cernsȱ aboutȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ andȱ theȱ tasksȱaheadȱforȱacademicsȱworkingȱinȱtheȱfield.ȱAsȱtheȱartȱofȱunȬ derstanding,ȱ hermeneuticsȱ reflectsȱ onȱ questionsȱ ofȱ mutualȱ unȬ derstandingȱ andȱ onȱ oneȱ another’sȱ culturalȱ heritage,ȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ andȱ ourȱ variousȱ sacredȱ scriptures.ȱ Butȱ someȱ tradiȬ tionalȱ waysȱ ofȱ understandingȱ areȱ rejectedȱ byȱ thoseȱ practisingȱ hermeneuticsȱatȱtheȱinterreligiousȱinterface.ȱOptimisticȱwaysȱofȱ bridgingȱtheȱgapsȱwithȱfusionsȱofȱtheȱhorizonsȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱ andȱtheȱtraditionalȱmethodsȱofȱcomparativeȱreligionȱthatȱmainȬ tainȱanȱallegedȱneutralȱequidistanceȱtoȱallȱtheȱtraditionsȱonȱtheȱ otherȱareȱsupersededȱorȱoutdated.ȱNewȱchallengesȱdemandȱnewȱ approaches.ȱ Religiousȱ traditionsȱ areȱ moreȱ resistantȱ toȱ theȱ levȬ ellingȱoffȱofȱdifferences,ȱandȱtheirȱmysteriesȱareȱtooȱdeepȬrootedȱ toȱ beȱ observedȱ fromȱ aȱ periscopicȱ viewpoint.ȱ Inspiredȱ encounȬ ters,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱtensionsȱarisingȱfromȱthem,ȱareȱincreasingȱinȱ ourȱ worldȱ ofȱ globalȱ communication.ȱ Theȱ postcolonialȱ deconȬ structionȱofȱreligionȱquestionsȱtheȱsuppositionsȱofȱhermeneuticsȱ andȱ exposesȱ theȱ powerȬshapedȱ sharesȱ ofȱ hermeneuticalȱ theorȬ ies.ȱNevertheless,ȱitȱbecameȱclearȱinȱtheȱfinalȱsessionȱofȱtheȱconȬ ferenceȱ thatȱ postcolonialȱ issuesȱ areȱ inȱ needȱ ofȱ furtherȱ investiȬ gation,ȱandȱthereȱareȱstillȱquestionsȱconcerningȱtheȱpossibilitiesȱ forȱ “authoritative”ȱ hermeneuticalȱ traditions,ȱ theȱ intricaciesȱ ofȱ powerȱrelations,ȱandȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱ(e.g.ȱculturalȱmix,ȱgenderȱ differences,ȱ multipleȱ belonging)ȱ withinȱ theȱ “communityȱ ofȱ inȬ terpretation.”ȱ So,ȱ inȱ theȱ end,ȱ whatȱ emergedȱ wasȱ thatȱ theȱ deconstructionȱ ofȱhermeneuticalȱtheories,ȱtheȱvarietiesȱinȱinterpretation,ȱtheȱdiȬ verseȱ contexts,ȱ andȱ historiesȱ thatȱ wereȱ exemplifiedȱ duringȱ theȱ conferenceȱ meanȱ thatȱ theȱ futureȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ isȱ goingȱ toȱ beȱ complex.ȱ Certainly,ȱ theȱ conferenceȱ revealedȱ theȱ multipleȱ agendasȱ –ȱ power,ȱ gender,ȱ postcolonialism,ȱ globalisaȬ tion,ȱ dialogue,ȱ tradition,ȱ polemicsȱ –ȱ thatȱ willȱ haveȱ aȱ stakeȱ inȱ theseȱfutureȱdebates.ȱ ȱ DavidȱCheethamȱ UlrichȱWinklerȱ OddbjørnȱLeirvikȱ JudithȱGruberȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ PartȱIȱ

UsesȱofȱTextsȱ

OneȱTextȱ–ȱDifferentȱMeanings?ȱ ȱ TheȱNotificationȱonȱJacquesȱDupuisȱ inȱtheȱLightȱofȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱ ȱ ȱ SigridȱRettenbacherȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ “Itȱ willȱ takeȱ aȱ longȱ timeȱ untilȱ theȱ Church,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ beenȱ enȬ dowedȱwithȱaȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncil,ȱwillȱbeȱtheȱChurchȱofȱtheȱ Secondȱ Vaticanȱ Council”ȱ (Rahnerȱ 1966:ȱ 21).1ȱ Or,ȱ toȱ putȱ itȱ theȱ otherȱ wayȱ round,ȱ fromȱ aȱ critic’sȱ perspective,ȱ soȱ toȱ speak:ȱ “Itȱ willȱtakeȱ50ȱyearsȱuntilȱtheȱChurchȱrecoversȱfromȱtheȱaberrationȱ ofȱ Johnȱ XXIII.”2ȱ Theseȱareȱtwoȱ voicesȱtheȱ theologianȱOttoȱ HerȬ manȱPeschȱpresentsȱinȱhisȱbookȱonȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱ (Peschȱ2001:ȱ52,ȱ352).ȱIfȱweȱassumeȱ–ȱasȱdoesȱPeschȱ (2001:ȱ16)ȱ–ȱ thatȱ itȱ takesȱ 50ȱ yearsȱ untilȱ aȱ councilȱ isȱ realizedȱ andȱ putȱ intoȱ practice,ȱ itȱ isȱ now,ȱ 50ȱ yearsȱ afterȱ theȱ announcementȱ ofȱ theȱ councilȱandȱnearlyȱ50ȱyearsȱafterȱitsȱopening,ȱtimeȱtoȱlookȱbackȱ criticallyȱandȱask:ȱWhereȱareȱwe,ȱwhereȱisȱtheȱChurchȱ50ȱyearsȱ afterȱ itȱ openedȱ itselfȱ toȱ theȱ modernȱ world?ȱ Ofȱ courseȱ –ȱ asȱ theȱ twoȱ quotationsȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ thisȱ paperȱ showȱ –ȱ theȱ anȬ swerȱ toȱ thisȱ questionȱ dependsȱ onȱ one’sȱ ownȱ appraisalȱ ofȱ andȱ perspectiveȱonȱtheȱcouncilȱasȱcontinuingȱorȱbreakingȱoffȱtheȱtraȬ ditionȱ ofȱ theȱ Church,ȱ aȱ questionȱ thatȱ isȱ onceȱ againȱ beingȱ deȬ batedȱtoday.ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ Vaticanȱ Councilȱ wasȱ theȱ firstȱ councilȱ toȱ dealȱ explicitlyȱ withȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ (Rahnerȱ andȱ VorȬ grimmlerȱ 2008:ȱ 24ff.).ȱ Theȱ questionȱ ofȱ whatȱ theȱ Churchȱ isȱ wasȱ

1ȱ Allȱ Germanȱ quotationsȱ haveȱ beenȱ translatedȱ intoȱ Englishȱ byȱ myself.ȱ

ȱThisȱisȱtheȱopinionȱofȱCardinalȱGiuseppeȱSiri,ȱarchbishopȱofȱGeȬ noaȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncil;ȱquotedȱinȱPeschȱ2001:ȱ 52.ȱȱ 2

4ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ

answeredȱ inȱ aȱ radically3ȱ newȱ wayȱ byȱ lookingȱ backȱ atȱ theȱ Church’sȱwholeȱtraditionȱandȱhistoryȱ(RahnerȱandȱVorgrimmlerȱ 2008:ȱ 20f.).ȱ Oneȱ centralȱ insightȱ ofȱ theȱ councilȱ wasȱ thatȱ theȱ Church’sȱidentityȱadȱintraȱcannotȱbeȱseparatedȱfromȱitsȱidentityȱ adȱextra.ȱTheȱChurchȱisȱnotȱaȱselfȬsufficientȱreality.ȱAsȱaȱsimulȬ taneouslyȱdivineȱandȱhumanȱreality,ȱitȱalwaysȱstandsȱinȱrelationȱ toȱ theȱ world,ȱ toȱ aȱ pluralityȱ ofȱ culturesȱ andȱ religions.ȱ Thus,ȱ whenȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱtriedȱtoȱspecifyȱtheȱidentityȱofȱ theȱChurch,ȱitȱcouldȱnotȱbutȱdealȱwithȱotherȱreligionsȱasȱwellȱbeȬ causeȱ theseȱ religionsȱ representȱ aȱ precariousȱ relativizationȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ ecclesiasticalȱ identity.4ȱ Theȱ council’sȱ answerȱ toȱ thisȱ relativizationȱ was,ȱ however,ȱ notȱtoȱ excludeȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traȬ ditions.ȱTheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱcouncilȱtoȱtryȱ toȱappreciateȱotherȱreligionsȱinȱtheirȱownȱrightȱandȱtoȱdefineȱtheȱ relationshipȱbetweenȱChristianityȱandȱotherȱreligionsȱinȱaȱposiȬ tiveȱmannerȱ(Fürlingerȱ2009:ȱ17f.).5ȱForȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱaȱtextȱbyȱ theȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ Magisterium,ȱ theȱ appreciationȱ ofȱ theȱ reliȬ giousȱ otherȱ referredȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ individualȱ personsȱ ofȱ otherȱ

3ȱRadicalnessȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱaȱbreakȱwithȱtheȱformerȱtraditionȱofȱ theȱChurch.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱitȱimpliesȱpreciselyȱ–ȱinȱtheȱliteralȱmeanȬ ingȱofȱtheȱwordȱ–ȱgoingȱbackȱtoȱtheȱrootsȱofȱtheȱChurchȱandȱappreciȬ atingȱtheȱwholeȱofȱitsȱtradition.ȱ 4ȱTheȱnecessityȱofȱdealingȱwithȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱbecomesȱ apparentȱwhenȱlookingȱatȱtheȱgenesisȱofȱNostraȱAetate;ȱseeȱPeschȱ2001:ȱ 292Ȭ303ȱ andȱ Siebenrockȱ 2005:ȱ 633Ȭ43.ȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ Spesȱ seesȱ theȱ justifiȬ cationȱforȱdealingȱwithȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱnotȱonlyȱinȱexternal,ȱ sociopoliticalȱreasonsȱbutȱinȱtheȱecclesiasticalȱselfȬunderstandingȱitselfȱ (GSȱ 92,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Proclamationȱ 38.40,ȱ 80).ȱ Thus,ȱ thereȱ areȱ solidȱtheologicalȱreasonsȱforȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱandȱaȱtheologyȱofȱ religions.ȱ

ȱ Fürlingerȱ (2009)ȱ startsȱ hisȱ collectionȱ ofȱ magisterialȱ documentsȱ onȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱinȱtheȱyearȱ1964.ȱThisȱshowsȱtheȱimportanceȱ ofȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱforȱinterreligiousȱdialogue.ȱInȱ1964,ȱi.e.ȱ atȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ Council,ȱ theȱ Secretariatȱ forȱ NonȬChristiansȱ wasȱ foundedȱbyȱPaulȱVIȱtoȱprepareȱtheȱDeclarationȱonȱtheȱRelationȱofȱtheȱ ChurchȱtoȱNonȬChristianȱReligions,ȱNostraȱAetate.ȱInȱ1988ȱtheȱSecretarȬ iatȱforȱNonȬChristiansȱwasȱrenamedȱtheȱPontificalȱCouncilȱforȱInterreȬ ligiousȱDialogueȱ(Fürlingerȱ2009:ȱ9f.ȱandȱ57).ȱ 5

ONE TEXT – DIFFERENT MEANINGS?

ȱ5ȱ

beliefsȱ butȱ toȱ theirȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ asȱ suchȱ (Dupuisȱ 2006:ȱ 158,ȱ161Ȭ70).ȱ Thisȱ beingȱ said,ȱ itȱ isȱ noȱ surpriseȱ thatȱ Jacquesȱ Dupuisȱ speaksȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱasȱbeingȱbornȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱ councilȱ(Dupuisȱ2006:ȱ2).ȱAnyȱCatholicȱapproachȱtoȱtheologyȱofȱ religionsȱ mustȱ thereforeȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ Secondȱ Vaticanȱ Council.ȱ Whatȱisȱ striking,ȱhowever,ȱ areȱ theȱ differentȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱtheȱ councilȱ isȱ referredȱ to.ȱ Inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ theȱ council’sȱ positiveȱ outlookȱ onȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ weȱ findȱ approachesȱ thatȱ takeȱ theȱ councilȱ asȱ anȱ inspirationȱ forȱ aȱ negativeȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ otherȱ religionsȱasȱwellȱasȱforȱaȱpositiveȱwayȱofȱrelatingȱtoȱthem.ȱTheȱ interpretationȱandȱhermeneuticsȱofȱtheȱcouncilȱareȱstillȱ–ȱorȱonceȱ againȱ –ȱ aȱ controversialȱ issue.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ reasonsȱ forȱ theseȱ deȬ batesȱliesȱinȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱcouncilȱitself.ȱWhenȱlookingȱatȱtheȱ processȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ councilȱ wereȱ formed,ȱ Maxȱ Secklerȱspeaksȱofȱaȱ“contradictoryȱpluralism”ȱ(Secklerȱ1980;ȱseeȱ alsoȱPeschȱ2001:ȱ150ff.).ȱSinceȱtheȱcouncilȱfathersȱstemmedȱfromȱ differentȱ theologicalȱ schoolsȱ andȱ culturalȱ backgrounds,ȱ itȱ wasȱ notȱeasyȱtoȱarriveȱatȱoneȱcommonȱtext.ȱTheȱcouncilȱdocuments,ȱ therefore,ȱ oftenȱ reflectȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ compromiseȱ thatȱ triesȱtoȱremainȱfaithfulȱtoȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱtheȱcouncilȱwhileȱbeȬ ingȱacceptableȱtoȱminoritiesȱasȱwell.ȱThisȱposesȱaȱchallengeȱforȱ theȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱcouncilȱtodayȱ–ȱnotȱleastȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱ theologyȱofȱreligions. 6ȱ Inȱthisȱcontributionȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱhermeneuticsȱofȱtheȱ councilȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱbyȱlookingȱatȱoneȱrepresentativeȱcaseȱ studyȱinȱtheȱareaȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱinȱmoreȱdetail:ȱtheȱnotȬ ificationȱissuedȱbyȱtheȱCongregationȱforȱtheȱDoctrineȱofȱFaithȱinȱ Januaryȱ2001ȱonȱtheȱbookȱTowardȱaȱChristianȱTheologyȱofȱReligiousȱ Pluralismȱ byȱ theȱ Belgianȱ Jesuitȱ Jacquesȱ Dupuisȱ (Dupuisȱ 2006).ȱ Toȱelaborateȱonȱtheȱwiderȱimplicationsȱofȱthisȱdebate,ȱitȱwillȱbeȱ confrontedȱ withȱ anotherȱ discourseȱ onȱ religionȱ thatȱ isȱ hardlyȱ 6ȱKarlȱRahnerȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱcouncilȱdidȱnotȱanswerȱtheȱdecisiveȱ questionȱposedȱbyȱtheologyȱofȱreligions,ȱnamely,ȱifȱotherȱreligiousȱtraȬ ditionsȱ canȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ waysȱ toȱ salvation.ȱ Theȱ councilȱ doesȱ notȱ explicitlyȱ drawȱ theȱ consequencesȱ thatȱ followȱ fromȱ itsȱ positiveȱ stateȬ mentsȱaboutȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱ(seeȱDupuisȱ2006:ȱ169).ȱ

ȱ


lookedȱ atȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions:ȱ postcolonialȱ theory.ȱAlthoughȱpostcolonialȱtheory,ȱlikeȱtheologyȱofȱreligions,ȱ aroseȱ aroundȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ council,ȱ bothȱ theoriesȱ stillȱ oftenȱ existȱsideȱbyȱsideȱinȱisolationȱfromȱeachȱother.ȱTheȱthesisȱinȱthisȱ paperȱ isȱ thatȱ postcolonialȱ discourseȱ onȱ theȱ differentȱ religionsȱ andȱtheȱconceptȱofȱreligionȱasȱsuchȱseriouslyȱquestionsȱtheȱvenȬ tureȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreligions.ȱButȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱpostcolonialȱ theoryȱ canȱ enrichȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ byȱ recollectingȱ someȱ fundamentalȱinsightsȱthatȱareȱinextricablyȱlinkedȱwithȱChristianȱ identity,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ theyȱ haveȱ sometimesȱ fallenȱ intoȱ oblivionȱ durȬ ingȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱChurch.ȱAȱlotȱofȱcurrentȱproblemsȱinȱtheȱ fieldȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ canȱ thusȱ beȱ handledȱ ifȱ oneȱ takesȱ seriouslyȱ theȱ postcolonialȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ challengesȱ thatȱ goȱ handȱinȱhandȱwithȱtheȱencounterȱwithȱdifferentȱreligions.ȱSuchȱ aȱrenewedȱandȱcriticalȱawarenessȱofȱtheȱdiscursiveȱconstructionȱ ofȱone’sȱownȱandȱtheȱother’sȱidentityȱinȱtheȱprojectȱofȱtheologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ willȱ directlyȱ leadȱ toȱ theȱ centreȱ ofȱ theologyȱ itself,ȱ namely,ȱourȱspeakingȱofȱGodȱbasedȱonȱandȱfacilitatedȱbyȱdivineȱ revelation.ȱ TheologyȱofȱReligionsȱReconsideredȱ Ifȱ oneȱ looksȱ backȱ atȱ theȱ councilȱ fromȱ aȱ distanceȱ ofȱ nearlyȱ 50ȱ yearsȱinȱorderȱtoȱtakeȱupȱitsȱinsightsȱinȱaȱcriticalȱandȱatȱtheȱsameȱ timeȱproductiveȱandȱcreativeȱmanner,ȱoneȱcannotȱsimplyȱadoptȱ theȱformerȱdiscoursesȱinȱanȱunqualifiedȱwayȱwithoutȱanȱawareȬ nessȱ ofȱ theȱ challengesȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ time.ȱ Oneȱ hasȱ toȱ bearȱ inȱ mindȱallȱtheȱnewȱformsȱofȱknowledgeȱthatȱcharacterizeȱtoday’sȱ debatesȱinȱaȱpluralizedȱandȱpostmodernȱsociety.ȱSuchȱanȱawareȬ nessȱ ofȱ presentȱ discoursesȱ isȱ theȱ inevitableȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ theȱ openingȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ toȱ theȱ modernȱ world,ȱ anȱ openingȱ thatȱ doesȱnotȱcompromiseȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱChurchȱbutȱguaranteesȱ thatȱitȱcanȱbeȱrelatedȱandȱmediatedȱtoȱdifferentȱcontextsȱ(Sanderȱ 2005:ȱ821).ȱWhenȱoneȱlooksȱatȱtheȱpluralityȱofȱreligionsȱinȱdetail,ȱ oneȱcanȱmakeȱanȱinterestingȱobservation.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱtheȱreliȬ gionsȱ becameȱ anȱ objectȱ ofȱ publicȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ 1960s. 7ȱ Whileȱ ȱForȱtheȱhistoricalȱcontextȱandȱtheȱdevelopmentsȱthatȱledȱtoȱtheȱ necessityȱ ofȱ rethinkingȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ Christianityȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱreligiousȱtraditions,ȱseeȱBernhardtȱ2007:ȱ21Ȭ24.ȱ 7


ȱ7ȱ

theȱChurchȱtookȱupȱtheȱchallengeȱofȱmodernismȱatȱtheȱSecondȱ Vaticanȱ Councilȱ andȱ confrontedȱ itselfȱ withȱ theȱ truthȱ claimsȱ ofȱ otherȱreligionsȱinȱthisȱconceptualȱframework,ȱtheȱdiscussionsȱinȱ aȱ nonȬtheologicalȱ andȱ nonȬecclesiasticalȱ contextȱ wereȱ oneȱ stepȱ ahead.ȱAsȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱdecolonisationȱprocess,ȱtheȱconȬ ceptȱofȱreligionȱwasȱchallengedȱinȱtheȱdisciplinesȱofȱculturalȱandȱ religiousȱstudies.ȱInȱaȱpostmodernȱparadigmȱtheȱinevitableȱrelaȬ tionȱ betweenȱ religionȱ andȱ powerȱ wasȱ elaboratedȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ discourseȱ analysisȱ (see,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Saidȱ 1978,ȱ 1981;ȱ Smithȱ 1982;ȱ Kingȱ 1999,ȱ 2007;ȱ Sharpeȱ 2007:ȱ 38ff.).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ counȬ cil’sȱ andȱ theȱ postcolonialȱ discoursesȱ onȱ religionȱ andȱ religionsȱ wereȱ thenȱ independentȱ ofȱ eachȱ otherȱ andȱ evenȱ todayȱ theyȱ areȱ seldomȱconnected.ȱȱ Althoughȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smithȱ didȱ notȱ workȱ explicitlyȱ withinȱ theȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ postcolonialȱ theory,ȱ heȱ canȱ stillȱ beȱ calledȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ precursorsȱ ofȱ theȱ postcolonialȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱofȱreligionȱ(seeȱNehringȱ2005).ȱInȱhisȱbookȱTheȱMeaningȱ andȱ Endȱ ofȱ Religionȱ (Smithȱ 1991),ȱ whichȱ wasȱ firstȱ publishedȱ inȱ 1962ȱandȱappearedȱinȱaȱsecondȱeditionȱinȱ1991ȱ–ȱandȱthusȱisȱstillȱ upȬtoȬdateȱ –ȱ Smithȱ putsȱ forwardȱ aȱ criticismȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religionȱthatȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱcounterȬdiscourseȱdirectedȱ againstȱtheȱdifferentȱtheologicalȱmodelsȱweȱfindȱinȱtheologyȱofȱ religions.ȱ Smithȱ wroteȱ hisȱ bookȱ inȱ theȱ temporalȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Vaticanȱ Councilȱ andȱ –ȱ justȱ likeȱ theȱ councilȱ –ȱ conceivesȱ ofȱ theȱ pluralityȱ ofȱ religionsȱ asȱ aȱ challengeȱ forȱ modernȱ society.ȱ However,ȱhisȱreflectionsȱonȱaȱreligiouslyȱpluralisticȱsocietyȱleadȱ toȱconsequencesȱthatȱdifferȱvastlyȱfromȱtheȱcouncil’sȱperspectiveȱ andȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ inȱ theȱ tradiȬ tionȱofȱtheȱcouncil.ȱFromȱaȱhistoricalȱpointȱofȱviewȱSmithȱquesȬ tionsȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religionȱ inȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ way,ȱ andȱ hisȱ critiqueȱanticipatesȱwhatȱtheȱpostcolonialȱdiscourseȱonȱreligionȱ willȱbringȱoutȱbyȱmeansȱofȱdiscourseȱanalysis.ȱSmithȱcriticizesȱaȱ tendencyȱtoȱreificateȱtheȱconceptȱofȱreligionȱandȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱ conceptȱofȱreligionȱisȱtheȱproductȱofȱaȱdiscourseȱthatȱinvolvesȱ–ȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ exclusionȱ andȱ inclusionȱ –ȱ enormousȱ powerȬriddenȱ interestsȱ (Smithȱ 1991:ȱ 1Ȭ117).ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religionȱ isȱ aȱ modernȱ Westernȱ constructȱ thatȱ hasȱ arisenȱ inȱ anȱ apologeticȱ contextȱinȱorderȱtoȱhighlightȱtheȱclaimsȱofȱsuperiorityȱandȱabsoȬ lutenessȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ religionȱ (Smithȱ 1991:ȱ 1Ȭ79).ȱ Theȱ disȬ courseȱonȱreligionȱinȱgeneralȱandȱonȱparticularȱreligionsȱsuchȱasȱ


Hinduism,ȱ Buddhism,ȱ Islam,ȱ etc.ȱ isȱ aȱ discourseȱ fromȱ anȱ inȬ sider’sȱperspectiveȱthatȱaimsȱtoȱdepreciateȱotherȱreligiousȱtradiȬ tions.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱreligiousȱotherȱisȱnotȱtakenȱseriouslyȱinȱhisȱ orȱ herȱ ownȱ selfȬunderstanding,ȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ rightȱ ofȱ existenceȱ isȱ questionedȱbyȱsuchȱpowerȬrelatedȱdiscoursesȱ(see,ȱforȱexample,ȱ Smithȱ 1991:ȱ 51,ȱ 122,ȱ 129f.,ȱ 134,ȱ 140f.).ȱ Thisȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ ifȱ oneȱ takesȱaȱcloserȱlookȱatȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱreligions,ȱwhichȱisȱinȱlargeȱ partȱ aȱ historyȱ ofȱ violenceȱ andȱ guilt.ȱ Smith’sȱ conclusion,ȱ whenȱ lookingȱ atȱ thisȱ history,ȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religionȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ givenȱ upȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ (Smithȱ 1991:ȱ 12,ȱ 50).ȱ Smith’sȱcritiqueȱhasȱsevereȱconsequencesȱforȱeveryȱventureȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ takesȱ thisȱ criticismȱ seriously,ȱ theologyȱofȱreligionsȱisȱputȱintoȱquestionȱinȱaȱfundamentalȱway.ȱ Onȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtheȱconceptȱofȱreligionȱthatȱ–ȱasȱtheȱlabellingȱ “theologyȱofȱreligions”ȱmakesȱclearȱ–ȱmarksȱtheȱcharacteristicȱofȱ thisȱkindȱofȱtheologyȱisȱhighlyȱproblematic.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ areȱ dealtȱ withȱ explicitlyȱ fromȱ one’sȱ ownȱfaithȱperspective.ȱThusȱ–ȱevenȱmoreȱthanȱotherȱformsȱofȱreȬ ligiousȱ studiesȱ –ȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ viewedȱ withȱ suspicionȱ whenȱ theȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ powerȱ presentȱ inȱ discoursesȱ onȱ andȱbetweenȱreligionsȱareȱnotȱignored.ȱTheologyȱofȱreligionsȱisȱ thereforeȱaffectedȱbyȱtheȱpostcolonialȱcriticismȱofȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ religionȱinȱaȱdoubleȱway:ȱbothȱwithȱregardȱtoȱitsȱmaterialȱobjectȱ andȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ itsȱ formalȱ object.ȱ Whatȱ makesȱ thisȱ critiqueȱ evenȱmoreȱprecariousȱisȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱaimsȱ exactlyȱ inȱ theȱ oppositeȱ directionȱ thanȱ Smithȱ implies.ȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱtriesȱ toȱ findȱ positiveȱ waysȱ ofȱ relatingȱ toȱ otherȱreliȬ giousȱ traditionsȱ fromȱ withinȱ Christianȱ hermeneuticalȱ presupȬ positions.ȱIfȱoneȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱtoȱabandonȱtheȱprojectȱofȱtheoȬ logyȱofȱreligionsȱinȱviewȱofȱthisȱparadoxicalȱsituation,ȱoneȱhasȱtoȱ faceȱupȱtoȱtheȱpostcolonialȱcriticismȱofȱtheȱconceptȱofȱreligion.ȱ BeforeȱdealingȱwithȱthisȱchallengeȱinȱmoreȱdetailȱandȱproȬ posingȱ aȱ possibleȱ solution,ȱ however,ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ hintȱ atȱ anotherȱ interestingȱ point.ȱ Whatȱ Smithȱ criticizesȱ doesȱ notȱ onlyȱ affectȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Certainȱ ecclesiasticalȱ andȱ theologicalȱ criticsȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ areȱ putȱ intoȱ quesȬ tionȱbyȱSmith’sȱanalysisȱasȱwell.ȱThereȱis,ȱfirstȱofȱall,ȱtheȱofficialȱ criticismȱbyȱtheȱRomanȱCatholicȱChurch.ȱItȱisȱfearedȱthatȱtheoȬ logyȱofȱreligionsȱmayȱweakenȱChristianȱidentity.ȱAlthoughȱthisȱ


ȱ9ȱ

mayȱbeȱ trueȱ forȱ someȱproponentsȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ oneȱ hasȱtoȱstressȱthatȱaȱtheologyȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱfaceȱreligiousȱpluralȬ ityȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ religionsȱ –ȱ forȱ example,ȱ byȱ reducingȱ interreȬ ligiousȱ dialogueȱ toȱ interculturalȱ dialogueȱ –ȱ risksȱ givingȱupȱ theȱ basicȱtheologicalȱtask,ȱnamely,ȱspeakingȱofȱGodȱinȱallȱsituations,ȱ evenȱ orȱ preciselyȱ inȱ situationsȱ whereȱ oneȱ isȱ lostȱ forȱ wordsȱ atȱ first.ȱ However,ȱ someȱ statementsȱ byȱ theȱ magisteriumȱ aboutȱ theologyȱofȱreligionsȱthatȱareȱnotȱwillingȱtoȱacceptȱtheȱotherȱasȱaȱ positiveȱ orȱ productiveȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ findingȱ andȱ formingȱone’sȱownȱidentityȱexactlyȱexposeȱtheȱkindȱofȱmentalityȱ andȱ attitudeȱ thatȱ Smithȱ criticizes. 8ȱ Oneȱ alsoȱ hasȱ toȱ mentionȱ anotherȱtypeȱofȱcriticismȱofȱtheȱprojectȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreligions:ȱ Someȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ constructȱ anȱ opȬ positionȱ betweenȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ andȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gions.9ȱTheyȱholdȱthatȱreligionsȱcannotȱbeȱreconciledȱatȱtheȱlevelȱ ofȱ universalȱ claims:ȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ breakȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ downȱtoȱconcreteȱtopics.ȱAtȱfirstȱglance,ȱthisȱstatementȱseemsȱtoȱ confirmȱ whatȱ Smithȱ claims:ȱ thereȱ areȱ noȱ universalȱ entitiesȱ calledȱ religions.ȱ Aȱ religionȱ isȱ onlyȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ aȱ discursiveȱ processȱ ofȱ reification.ȱ However,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ asȱ wellȱ hasȱtoȱfaceȱtheȱproblemȱofȱpowerȱinherentȱinȱitsȱrepresentationsȱ ofȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ itȱ hasȱ toȱ askȱ itselfȱ whereȱtheȱboundaryȱbetweenȱcomparativeȱreligionȱandȱcomparȬ ativeȱ theologyȱ asȱ anȱ explicitlyȱ theologicalȱ enterpriseȱ exists.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ confessional,ȱ whichȱ requiresȱ that,ȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ treatingȱ concreteȱ topicsȱ inȱ theȱ encounterȱ beȬ tweenȱreligions,ȱtheȱuniversalȱfaithȱperspectiveȱisȱnotȱbracketedȱ andȱtheȱChristianȱselfȬunderstandingȱnotȱfragmentized.ȱThus,ȱtoȱ 8ȱ See,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ controversialȱ documentȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ (DI),ȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱdiscussedȱbelow.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ GermanȬspeakingȱ academiaȱ oneȱ canȱ mentionȱ Klausȱ vonȱ Stosch,ȱ whoȱ constructsȱ hisȱ approachȱ toȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ onȱ theȱ philosophyȱ ofȱ Ludwigȱ Wittgensteinȱ (Stoschȱ 2001,ȱ 2002,ȱ 2007).ȱ Stoschȱ has,ȱ however,ȱ aȱ oneȬsidedȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ andȱ reducesȱ theȱwholeȱspectrumȱofȱaȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱbetweenȱ theȱ exclusivist,ȱ inclusivist,ȱ orȱ pluralistȱ model.ȱ Forȱ aȱ positiveȱ outlookȱ onȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱandȱtheȱinseparabilityȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱ andȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱseeȱRettenbacherȱ2005;ȱWinkerȱ2009:ȱ80Ȭ86.ȱ 9


sumȱ up,ȱ Smith’sȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religionsȱ andȱ thereȬ foreȱ indirectlyȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ becomesȱ manifestȱ inȱ anȱ apparentȱwayȱwhenȱlookingȱatȱotherȱcriticsȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreliȬ gions:ȱ Whileȱ someȱ pointsȱ ofȱ critiqueȱ byȱ theȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱblankȱoutȱtheȱreligiousȱother,ȱsomeȱproponentsȱofȱcomȬ parativeȱ theologyȱ precludeȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ relatingȱ religionsȱ toȱoneȱanotherȱinȱaȱpositiveȱmannerȱonȱaȱuniversalȱlevel.ȱFromȱaȱ theologicalȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ triesȱ toȱ appreciateȱ religiousȱ plurȬ alityȱoutȱofȱtheologicalȱreasons,ȱbothȱattitudesȱareȱnotȱsatisfying.ȱ Whatȱ implicationsȱ doesȱ Smith’sȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religionȱhaveȱforȱtheologyȱofȱreligions?ȱIsȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱ indeedȱ toȱ beȱ givenȱ upȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ caughtȱ upȱ inȱ anȱ aporeticȱ situation?ȱSmithȱactuallyȱtouchesȱonȱanȱimportantȱpoint.ȱThereȱ isȱ aȱ certainȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ basicȱ aimsȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱnamelyȱstickingȱtoȱone’sȱownȱreligiousȱidentityȱandȱ–ȱ atȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱ–ȱappreciatingȱtheȱreligiousȱother.ȱThus,ȱallȱdeȬ batesȱ aboutȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ seemȱ toȱ revolveȱ aroundȱ thisȱ point,ȱandȱitȱisȱthisȱproblemȱthatȱisȱtakenȱupȱbyȱallȱcriticsȱofȱtheȬ ologyȱofȱreligions,ȱbeȱitȱofȱtheȱofficialȱRomanȱCatholicȱChurchȱorȱ someȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Butȱ theȱ solutionȱ Smithȱproposesȱtoȱthisȱproblemȱisȱtooȱsimpleȱasȱwell.ȱSmithȱsugȬ gestsȱabandoningȱtheȱconceptȱofȱreligionȱandȱreplacingȱitȱbyȱtheȱ conceptsȱofȱfaithȱandȱcumulativeȱtraditionȱ(Smithȱ1991:ȱ154Ȭ92).ȱ Smithȱ usesȱ historicalȱ arguments 10ȱ toȱ supportȱ hisȱ thesis,ȱ butȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ analysisȱ hisȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religionȱ isȱ viaȱ discourseȱ analysis.ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ reflectȱ onȱ thisȱ methodologicalȱ stanceȱ explicitly,ȱ however,ȱ andȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ weakȱ pointȱ inȱ hisȱ proposal.ȱ Smithȱ underestimatesȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ theȱ discourses:ȱ ȱHisȱhistoricalȱanalysisȱcanȱbeȱquestionedȱonȱsomeȱpoints,ȱmostȱ notablyȱregardingȱtheȱlimitedȱandȱoneȬsidedȱscopeȱofȱtheȱexamplesȱheȱ chooses.ȱ Itȱ isȱ symptomaticȱ thatȱ theȱ newȱ editionȱ ofȱ Theȱ Meaningȱ andȱ EndȱofȱReligionȱ(1991)ȱmakesȱnoȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCounȬ cil,ȱ notȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ historicalȱ overviewȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ relationsȱ toȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Theȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ otherȱ religiousȱ tradiȬ tionsȱthatȱtheȱChurchȱadoptsȱinȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱwouldȱputȱ theȱsharpnessȱofȱSmith’sȱthesisȱintoȱquestion,ȱatȱleastȱasȱfarȱasȱcertainȱ theologicalȱlinesȱofȱreceptionsȱofȱtheȱcouncilȱareȱconcerned.ȱHowever,ȱ Smith’sȱcritiqueȱisȱstillȱupȱtoȱdateȱandȱlegitimateȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱotherȱ strandsȱofȱreception.ȱ 10


ȱ11ȱ

theyȱcannotȱbeȱsimplyȱalteredȱorȱabandonedȱatȱwill.ȱEvenȱifȱtheȱ conceptȱofȱreligionȱisȱabandonedȱandȱreplacedȱbyȱtheȱconceptsȱ ofȱfaithȱandȱcumulativeȱtradition,ȱasȱSmithȱproposes,ȱtheȱprobȬ lemȱ ofȱ theȱ claimȱ toȱ powerȱ ofȱ oneȱ religionȱ overȱ theȱ othersȱ reȬ mains.ȱItȱisȱnotȱclear,ȱafterȱall,ȱifȱtheȱsameȱproblemsȱthatȱareȱinȬ herentȱinȱtheȱconceptȱofȱreligionȱareȱnotȱinherentȱinȱtheȱconceptȱ ofȱfaith.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ wantsȱ toȱ maintainȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ Smith’sȱ criticism,ȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ takeȱ upȱ thisȱ critiqueȱ inȱ aȱ producȬ tiveȱway.ȱWhatȱisȱcalledȱforȱisȱanȱawarenessȱofȱhowȱtheoȬlogy,ȱ thatȱis,ȱdiscourseȱaboutȱGod,ȱfunctions.ȱInȱtheȱfieldȱofȱtheologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ thisȱ requiresȱ aȱ theologicalȱ deconstructionȱ ofȱ theȱ discourseȱonȱreligions;ȱmoreȱprecisely,ȱaȱcriticalȱanalysisȱofȱhowȱ theologiesȱ areȱ constructedȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ isȱ unavoidable.ȱ Hereȱ oneȱ canȱ discernȱ aȱ problemȱ ofȱ copingȱ withȱ differences.11ȱ Inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ theȱ implicaȬ tionsȱofȱaȱhermeneuticsȱofȱdifferenceȱthatȱisȱintrinsicallyȱconnecȬ tedȱwithȱtheȱChristianȱidentityȱhaveȱnotȱbeenȱspeltȱoutȱinȱaȱsatisȬ fyingȱway.ȱWhatȱdoesȱthisȱmean?ȱTheȱChristianȱfaithȱisȱbuiltȱonȱ momentsȱ ofȱ differencesȱ andȱ tensions:ȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ JesusȱChristȱandȱtheȱChurch,ȱbetweenȱtheȱChurchȱasȱaȱspiritualȱ andȱvisibleȱreality,ȱevenȱaȱtensionȱbetweenȱJesusȱChristȱasȱGodȱ andȱ asȱ human.ȱ Althoughȱ inȱ eachȱ caseȱ theseȱ aspectsȱ cannotȱ beȱ separated,ȱtheyȱcannot,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱsimplyȱbeȱidentifiedȱ –ȱ aȱ tensionȱ remains.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱ “withoutȱ confusionȱ …ȱ andȱ withoutȱ separation.”ȱ Theȱ mostȱ fundamentalȱ differenceȱoneȱfindsȱisȱlocatedȱinȱtheȱconditionȱofȱpossibilityȱofȱ theologyȱ itself:ȱ revelation.ȱ Theologyȱ asȱ discourseȱ onȱ Godȱ isȱ rootedȱinȱGod’sȱwordȱitself.ȱButȱthisȱwordȱasȱhistoricallyȱmediȬ atedȱisȱonlyȱgivenȱinȱtheȱtensionȱofȱwhatȱisȱrevealedȱandȱwhatȱisȱ concealedȱ(seeȱHoffȱ2007;ȱ2008).ȱ Myȱthesisȱisȱthatȱtheȱconcealedȱaspect,ȱwhichȱisȱinherentȱinȱ everyȱ theologyȱ ofȱ revelation,ȱ isȱ theȱ basicȱ problemȱ ofȱ everyȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Pluralistsȱ haveȱ developedȱ anȱ awarenessȱ ȱInȱtheȱpluralisticȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱdifferencesȱareȱdissolvedȱ intoȱabstractionsȱasȱcanȱbeȱseen,ȱforȱexample,ȱinȱHick’sȱconceptȱofȱtheȱ Realȱ (Hickȱ 1994:ȱ 129).ȱ Inȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ differencesȱ areȱ someȬ timesȱdissipatedȱintoȱlimitedȱcaseȱstudies.ȱ 11


ofȱthisȱproblemȱandȱuseȱtheȱconcealedȱaspectȱasȱanȱargumentȱforȱ theȱpotentialȱequalityȱofȱdifferentȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱHowever,ȱ theyȱoftenȱpayȱaȱhighȱprice:ȱtheyȱgainȱopennessȱatȱtheȱcostȱofȱtheȱ singularȱ Christianȱ identityȱ understoodȱ inȱ traditionalȱ terms.12ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ pluralistsȱ touchȱ onȱ theȱ correctȱ pointȱ inȱ stressingȱ theȱconcealedȱaspectȱofȱrevelation.ȱTheyȱdoȱnot,ȱhowever,ȱrealȬ izeȱorȱfaceȱtheȱrealȱproblemȱbehindȱit,ȱandȱthatȱisȱwhyȱtheirȱsoȬ lutionsȱareȱoftenȱtooȱsimple.ȱTheȱpositiveȱpointȱofȱtheȱconcealedȱ aspect,ȱ whichȱ keepsȱ theȱ discourseȱ onȱ Godȱ openȱ toȱ theȱ ineffaȬ bilityȱandȱungraspabilityȱofȱtheȱdivineȱrealityȱitselfȱ–ȱDeusȱsemȬ perȱ maiorȱ –ȱ isȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ challengeȱ inȱ theology.ȱItȱisȱtheȱpointȱwhereȱChristianityȱbecomesȱvulnerable.ȱ TheȱconcealedȱaspectȱinȱrevelationȱisȱtheȱlocusȱwhereȱotherȱreliȬ gionsȱ canȱ challengeȱ theȱ Christianȱ tradition.ȱ Itȱ isȱ hereȱ thatȱ theyȱ canȱbringȱinȱaspectsȱnotȱrecognizedȱwithȱtheȱsameȱclarityȱinȱtheȱ Christianȱtraditionȱ(seeȱSanderȱ2007).ȱThisȱisȱwhyȱinȱtheȱdebatesȱ onȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ theȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ theȱ revealedȱ andȱ theȱconcealedȱaspectsȱofȱrevelationȱhasȱoftenȱbeenȱignoredȱorȱreȬ solvedȱinȱoneȱdirectionȱwhileȱignoringȱtheȱother.ȱAsȱaȱconcreteȱ exampleȱforȱthisȱthesisȱIȱwantȱtoȱturnȱnowȱtoȱtheȱnotificationȱonȱ Dupuis’ȱbookȱTowardȱaȱChristianȱTheologyȱofȱReligiousȱPluralism.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱStoschȱ2002:ȱ295.ȱInȱpluralisticȱapproachesȱtheȱconcealedȱaspectȱ inȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱGodȱoftenȱdominatesȱtheȱrevealedȱaspects,ȱwhichȱ doesȱ notȱ doȱ justiceȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ selfȬunderstandingȱ andȱ theȱ selfȬ understandingȱ ofȱ mostȱ otherȱ religions.ȱ Inȱ theȱ finalȱ consequence,ȱ thisȱ approachȱ underminesȱ itsȱ ownȱ claimȱ toȱ takeȱ seriouslyȱ religiousȱ plurȬ ality.ȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ criticizesȱ theȱ prominenceȱ ofȱ theȱ concealedȱ aspectȱ inȱaȱlotȱofȱapproachesȱtoȱaȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱ(see,ȱforȱexample,ȱDIȱ4Ȭ 8).ȱTheȱdocumentȱbyȱtheȱCongregationȱforȱtheȱDoctrineȱofȱFaithȱchoosȬ esȱ theȱ oppositeȱ wayȱ andȱ drawsȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ revealedȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ revelationȱ–ȱevenȱatȱtheȱriskȱofȱbecomingȱoneȬsidedȱitself.ȱInȱtheȱlightȱ ofȱ aȱ Platonicȱ conceptȱ ofȱ truthȱ allȱ differencesȱ mustȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ aȱ deȬ ficiency.ȱThus,ȱdifferencesȱcannotȱbeȱappreciatedȱinȱsuchȱanȱapproach.ȱ 12


ȱ13ȱ

TheȱNotificationȱonȱJacquesȱDupuis’ȱTowardȱaȱChristianȱTheologyȱ ofȱReligiousȱPluralismȱ Inȱ hisȱ bookȱ Towardȱ aȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Pluralismȱ (1997),13ȱJacquesȱDupuisȱpresentsȱanȱapproachȱtoȱtheologyȱofȱreȬ ligionsȱthatȱtriesȱtoȱbringȱtogetherȱtheȱaimsȱofȱtheȱinclusivistȱandȱ pluralistȱ positionsȱ byȱ showingȱ thatȱ theocentrism,ȱ christocenȬ trism,ȱ andȱ regnocentrismȱ doȱ notȱ excludeȱ oneȱ anotherȱ butȱ reȬ quireȱoneȱanotherȱ(Dupuisȱ2006:ȱ180Ȭ201).ȱDupuisȱseesȱreligiousȱ pluralismȱasȱaȱpluralismȱdeȱjure,ȱi.e.ȱheȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱreligiousȱ pluralityȱ hasȱ aȱ positiveȱ roleȱ inȱ God’sȱ salvificȱ planȱ forȱ humanȬ kind.ȱ Religiousȱ pluralityȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ aȱ factȱ thatȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ faceȱ andȱdealȱwithȱbecauseȱitȱcannotȱbeȱaltered:ȱitȱisȱpositivelyȱwilledȱ byȱ Godȱ (Dupuisȱ 2006:ȱ 386f.).14ȱ Inȱ thisȱ conceptualȱ frameworkȱ Dupuisȱ triesȱ toȱ developȱ aȱ positiveȱ approachȱ toȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ fromȱ withinȱ theȱ presuppositionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ faith.ȱTherefore,ȱhisȱsystematicȱreflectionsȱinȱtheȱsecondȱpartȱofȱ hisȱ bookȱ areȱ rootedȱ inȱ aȱ comprehensiveȱ historicalȱ overviewȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ thatȱ takesȱ theȱ Christianȱ traditionȱ seriously.ȱ Aȱ TrinitarianȬChristologicalȱ modelȱ developedȱ fromȱ withinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱChurchȱallowsȱforȱaȱpositiveȱevaluaȬ tionȱofȱreligiousȱpluralismȱandȱotherȱreligionsȱwhileȱbeingȱfaithȬ fulȱtoȱone’sȱChristianȱidentityȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime.ȱInȱthisȱapproachȱ JesusȱChristȱisȱcharacterizedȱasȱconstitutiveȱandȱrelationalȱinȱtheȱ faceȱofȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱ(Dupuisȱ2006:ȱ280Ȭ304,ȱ387f.).ȱ Inȱ2001ȱaȱnotificationȱwasȱissuedȱonȱDupuis’ȱbookȱthatȱreȬ cognizesȱ “theȱ author’sȱ attemptȱ toȱ remainȱ withinȱ theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ orthodoxyȱinȱhisȱstudyȱofȱquestionsȱhithertoȱlargelyȱunexploredȱ …ȱasȱwellȱasȱhisȱdesireȱtoȱremainȱfaithfulȱtoȱtheȱdoctrineȱofȱtheȱ Church,”ȱwhileȱstatingȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱthatȱtheȱbookȱcontainsȱ “notableȱ ambiguitiesȱ andȱ difficultiesȱ onȱ importantȱ doctrinalȱ points,ȱ whichȱ couldȱ leadȱ aȱ readerȱ toȱ erroneousȱ orȱ harmfulȱ

13ȱ Thisȱ bookȱ wasȱ publishedȱ inȱ theȱ seventhȱ editionȱ inȱ 2006ȱ (DuȬ puisȱ2006).ȱ

ȱThus,ȱ“pluralism”ȱinȱtheȱtitleȱofȱDupuis’ȱbookȱTowardȱaȱChrisȬ tianȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Pluralismȱ refersȱ toȱ thisȱ pluralismȱ deȱ jureȱ andȱ notȱ –ȱ asȱ isȱ oftenȱ mistakenlyȱ assumedȱ –ȱ toȱ theȱ pluralistȱ modelȱ inȱ theȱ theologyȱofȱreligions.ȱ 14


opinions.”15ȱ Itȱ isȱ strikingȱ thatȱ bothȱ Jacquesȱ Dupuisȱ andȱ theȱ CongregationȱforȱtheȱDoctrineȱofȱFaithȱbaseȱtheirȱreflectionsȱonȱ theȱsameȱtextsȱofȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncil.ȱSinceȱtheyȱdraw,ȱ however,ȱ veryȱ differentȱ –ȱ evenȱ contrastingȱ –ȱ conclusionsȱ fromȱ theseȱ texts,ȱ itȱ isȱ interestingȱ toȱ addressȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ herȬ meneuticsȱofȱtheȱcouncilȱhere.ȱThisȱquestionȱwillȱbeȱexploredȱinȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ differencesȱ thatȱ markȱ Christianȱ identityȱ andȱ theȱ tension,ȱ inseparablyȱ linkedȱ withȱ reȬ velation,ȱbetweenȱwhatȱisȱrevealedȱandȱwhatȱisȱconcealed.ȱ Ifȱoneȱtriesȱtoȱunderstandȱhowȱoneȱcanȱreachȱsuchȱdifferentȱ conclusionsȱ whenȱ referringȱ toȱ exactlyȱ theȱ sameȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ council,ȱ oneȱ willȱ findȱ aȱ twofoldȱ answer.ȱ Oneȱ reasonȱ certainlyȱ liesȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ councilȱ itself,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ mentionedȱ aboveȱunderȱtheȱkeywordȱofȱ“contradictoryȱpluralism.”ȱDifferȬ entȱ theologicalȱ perspectivesȱ andȱ debatesȱ areȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ textsȱofȱtheȱcouncil.ȱThusȱ–ȱfromȱtheȱtextualȱbasisȱ–ȱoneȱcanȱinȬ terpretȱtheȱcouncilȱinȱdifferentȱways,ȱalthoughȱtheȱ“spiritȱofȱtheȱ council”ȱ isȱ certainlyȱ anȱ importantȱ hermeneuticalȱ keyȱ (Peschȱ 2001:ȱ 160,ȱ 356f.).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ differentȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱofȱtheȱcouncilȱbyȱDupuisȱandȱtheȱnotificationȱcannotȱbeȱexȬ plainedȱ onlyȱ byȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ tensionsȱ inȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ councilȱ themselves.ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ importantȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ intertextualȱ frameworkȱinȱwhichȱtheȱtextsȱ–ȱDupuis’ȱbookȱandȱtheȱnotificaȬ tionȱ–ȱstand,ȱaȱframeworkȱthatȱdoubtlesslyȱinfluencesȱtheȱreadȬ ingȱ andȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ council.ȱ Theȱ imporȬ tantȱ postconciliarȱ textȱ ofȱ referenceȱ forȱ Jacquesȱ Dupuisȱ isȱ cerȬ tainlyȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Proclamationȱ (DP)ȱ fromȱ 1991ȱ –ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ Dupuisȱ himselfȱ madeȱ importantȱ contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ developȬ mentȱofȱthisȱdocument.ȱHisȱbookȱTowardȱaȱChristianȱTheologyȱofȱ ReligiousȱPluralismȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱaȱtheologicalȱexpansionȱofȱthisȱ document.ȱ Theȱ notification,ȱ onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ reliesȱ heavilyȱ onȱ DominusȱIesusȱ(2000). 16ȱItȱisȱsignificantȱthatȱtheȱnotificationȱdoesȱ notȱ referȱ toȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Proclamationȱ aȱ singleȱ time,ȱ whichȱ is,ȱ afterȱall,ȱaȱcomparativelyȱrecentȱandȱimportantȱmagisterialȱtextȱ 15ȱBothȱquotationsȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱintroductionȱtoȱtheȱnotifiȬ cation.ȱ 16ȱForȱcriticalȱdiscussionsȱofȱthisȱdocument,ȱseeȱFranzȱ2001;ȱMülȬ lerȱ2003;ȱNeunerȱ2002;ȱandȱRainerȱ2001.ȱ


ȱ15ȱ

thatȱtreatsȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱandȱ theȱproclamationȱofȱtheȱGospel.ȱ WhenȱoneȱlooksȱatȱtheȱtwoȱmainȱreferenceȱtextsȱinȱmoreȱdeȬ tail,ȱoneȱnotesȱthatȱtheyȱareȱconstructedȱinȱveryȱdifferentȱways.ȱ Dominusȱ Iesus,ȱ aȱ textȱ byȱ theȱ Congregationȱ forȱ theȱ Doctrineȱ ofȱ Faith,ȱ concentratesȱ veryȱ muchȱ onȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ Church.ȱTheȱreligiousȱotherȱdoesȱnotȱenterȱintoȱtheȱfocusȱofȱtheȱ textȱ exceptȱ asȱ theȱ oneȱ againstȱ whomȱ theȱ specialȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ canȱ bestȱ beȱ emphasizedȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ differentiationȱ andȱ exclusion.ȱThus,ȱtheȱdocumentȱstartsȱwithȱ“LordȱJesus”ȱ–ȱaȱtitleȱ andȱ confession,ȱ whichȱ makesȱ theȱ directionȱ andȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ documentȱ clearȱ fromȱ theȱ outset.ȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Proclamation,ȱ byȱ contrast,ȱ functionsȱ inȱ aȱ differentȱ way.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ publishedȱ byȱ theȱPontificalȱCouncilȱforȱInterreligiousȱDialogueȱtogetherȱwithȱ theȱ Congregationȱ forȱ theȱ Evangelizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Peoples.ȱ Thisȱ makesȱ theȱ textȱ muchȱ moreȱ orientedȱ toȱ theȱ “outside.”ȱ Andȱ inȬ deedȱ–ȱasȱtheȱtitleȱshowsȱ–ȱitȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱotherȱreligiousȱtradiȬ tionsȱfromȱtheȱveryȱbeginning.ȱTheȱdocumentsȱtakeȱdialogueȱasȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ departureȱ whichȱ isȱ definedȱ –ȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ documentȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Missionȱ (DM)ȱ fromȱ 1984ȱ –ȱ asȱ “allȱ posiȬ tiveȱ andȱ constructiveȱ interreligiousȱ relationsȱ withȱ individualsȱ andȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ otherȱ faithsȱ …ȱ directedȱ atȱ mutualȱ underȬ standingȱandȱenrichment”ȱ(DPȱ9;ȱseeȱalsoȱDMȱ3).ȱ Theȱdifferentȱperspectivesȱofȱtheȱtwoȱtextsȱofȱreferenceȱareȱ alsoȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ documentsȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ SecondȱVaticanȱCouncil.ȱTheȱsameȱtextsȱareȱthereforeȱreadȱinȱaȱ differentȱ lightȱ andȱ underȱ differentȱ hermeneuticalȱ presupposiȬ tions.ȱDialogueȱandȱProclamation,ȱitȱmustȱbeȱsaid,ȱisȱmoreȱawareȱ ofȱ theȱ tensionsȱ andȱ differencesȱ inȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ councilȱ andȱ triesȱ toȱ handleȱ themȱ inȱ aȱ productiveȱ manner.ȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ tendsȱ toȱ resolveȱ theȱ tensionsȱ inȱ aȱ oneȬsidedȱ way.ȱ Someȱ examȬ plesȱwillȱmakeȱtheȱpointȱclear.ȱ Allȱ theȱ textsȱ weȱ areȱ discussingȱ hereȱ –ȱ Towardȱ aȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Pluralismȱ andȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Proclamationȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ notificationȱ andȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ –ȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ DogȬ maticȱConstitutionȱonȱDivineȱRevelationȱDeiȱVerbum,ȱespeciallyȱ numbersȱ 2ȱ andȱ 4.ȱ Theȱ differentȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ conciliarȱ statementsȱ onȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ theȱ revelationȱ inȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ andȱ theȱ Churchȱ areȱ takenȱ upȱ are,ȱ however,ȱ interesting.ȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ andȱ theȱ notificationȱ clearlyȱ concentrateȱ onȱ theȱ


fullnessȱ ofȱ revelationȱ inȱ Jesusȱ Christ17ȱ and,ȱ althoughȱ theyȱ holdȱ thatȱChristȱandȱtheȱChurchȱ“canȱneitherȱbeȱconfusedȱnorȱseparȬ ated”ȱ(DIȱ16),ȱtheyȱtendȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱfullnessȱofȱrevelationȱinȱ ChristȱwithȱtheȱChurch.ȱThisȱbecomesȱprominentȱinȱtheȱtitleȱofȱ Dominusȱ Iesus:ȱ “Theȱ Unicityȱ andȱ Salvificȱ Universalityȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ andȱ theȱ Church.”ȱ Henceȱ theȱ documentȱ itselfȱ lapsesȱ intoȱ theȱ“oneȬsidedȱaccentuations”ȱ(DIȱ19)ȱthatȱitȱdemandsȱbeȱavoided.ȱ Bothȱ documentsȱ –ȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ andȱ theȱ notificationȱ –ȱ doȱ notȱ workȱ withȱ theȱ differenceȱ thatȱ existsȱ betweenȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ andȱ theȱChurch.ȱThus,ȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱcommentȱonȱtheȱsecondȱchapterȱ ofȱ Deiȱ Verbumȱ aboutȱ handingȱ onȱ divineȱ revelation,ȱ whereȱ –ȱ inȱ numberȱ7ȱ–ȱthisȱdifferenceȱisȱexpressedȱbyȱtheȱmetaphorȱofȱtheȱ “mirror”:ȱ“Thisȱsacredȱtradition,ȱtherefore,ȱandȱSacredȱScriptureȱ ofȱbothȱtheȱOldȱandȱNewȱTestamentsȱareȱlikeȱaȱmirrorȱinȱwhichȱ theȱpilgrimȱChurchȱonȱearthȱlooksȱatȱGod,ȱfromȱwhomȱsheȱhasȱ receivedȱ everything,ȱ untilȱ sheȱ isȱ broughtȱ finallyȱ toȱ seeȱ Himȱ asȱ Heȱis,ȱfaceȱtoȱface.”ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱJesusȱChristȱandȱtheȱChurchȱ mustȱnotȱbeȱidentified.ȱWhileȱweȱhaveȱtheȱfullnessȱofȱrevelationȱ inȱJesusȱChrist,ȱtheȱChurchȱisȱonȱaȱpilgrimage. 18ȱTheȱChurchȱhasȱ itsȱoriginȱinȱGodȱandȱmediatesȱhisȱselfȬrevelation,ȱbutȱitȱ“movesȱ forwardȱ towardȱ theȱ fullnessȱ ofȱ divineȱ truthȱ untilȱ theȱ wordsȱ ofȱ Godȱreachȱtheirȱcompleteȱfulfilmentȱinȱher”ȱ(DVȱ8).ȱThus,ȱinȱtheȱ Churchȱasȱanȱinvisibleȱandȱvisible,ȱaȱdivineȱandȱhuman,ȱrealityȱ (LGȱ8)ȱweȱfindȱanȱeschatologicalȱtensionȱbetweenȱtheȱ“already”ȱ andȱtheȱ“notȱyet.”ȱWhileȱDominusȱIesusȱandȱtheȱnotificationȱdoȱ notȱtakeȱupȱthisȱtensionȱasȱaȱpositiveȱmeansȱofȱrelatingȱtoȱotherȱ religiousȱ traditions,19ȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Proclamationȱ makesȱ explicitȱ 17ȱ Neitherȱ documentȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ concealedȱ aspectsȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱrevelation,ȱandȱthereforeȱtheyȱcannotȱappreciateȱdifferencesȱ inȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱeitherȱ(seeȱnoteȱ12ȱabove).ȱȱ

ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱDVȱsee,ȱforȱexample,ȱLGȱ8,ȱGSȱ40,ȱDHȱ12,ȱandȱDPȱ

18

36.ȱ ȱ Referringȱ toȱ Redemptorisȱ Missioȱ 1,ȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ 2ȱ takesȱ anȱ eschatologicalȱperspective.ȱButȱtheȱintentionȱisȱnotȱtoȱgainȱanȱopenȱatȬ titudeȱtowardsȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱTheȱcontextȱisȱaȱmissiologicalȱ one:ȱ “Atȱ theȱ closeȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ millenniumȱ …ȱ thisȱ missionȱ [ofȱ theȱ Church]ȱ isȱ stillȱ farȱ fromȱ complete.”ȱ Whatȱ isȱ completelyȱ missingȱ isȱ aȱ criticalȱ reflectionȱ thatȱ theȱ missionȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ canȱ andȱ willȱ neverȱ beȱ 19


ȱ17ȱ

referenceȱ toȱ itȱ (DPȱ 36Ȭ38).ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ Churchȱ isȱ aȱ divineȱ institution,ȱitȱisȱalwaysȱonȱtheȱwayȱ“towardsȱtheȱfullnessȱofȱdiȬ vineȱtruth”ȱ(DPȱ37),ȱwhichȱimpliesȱaȱconstantȱ“needȱofȱrenewalȱ andȱ reform”ȱ onȱ itsȱ partȱ (DPȱ 36;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ URȱ 6).ȱ Thisȱ insightȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ differentiatedȱperspectiveȱ onȱ theȱ Churchȱasȱ anȱ inȬ visibleȱ andȱ visibleȱ realityȱ andȱ anȱ openȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ anȱ attitudeȱ thatȱ Dupuisȱ –ȱ followingȱ DiaȬ logueȱandȱProclamationȱ–ȱadoptsȱasȱwellȱ(Dupuisȱ2006:ȱ330Ȭ57).ȱ Anotherȱ tensionȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ theȱ “seedsȱ ofȱ theȱ words”ȱ (AGȱ 11)ȱ andȱ theȱ “elementsȱ ofȱ truthȱ andȱ grace”ȱ (AGȱ 9)ȱ inȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theyȱareȱinterpretedȱinȱtheȱlightȱofȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱpreparatioȱ evangelica,ȱtheyȱareȱatȱtheȱserviceȱofȱtheȱGoodȱNewsȱrevealedȱinȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ andȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ cleansed,ȱ healed,ȱ raisedȱ up,ȱ andȱ perfectedȱ(AGȱ9;ȱLGȱ17).ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱitȱisȱsaidȱthatȱtheyȱ areȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱbeȱsavedȱfromȱdestructionȱ(LGȱ17)ȱandȱshallȱnotȱ beȱ lostȱ (AGȱ 9),ȱ butȱ thatȱ theyȱ shouldȱ beȱ recognized,ȱ preserved,ȱ andȱpromotedȱ(NAȱ2).ȱWhileȱDupuisȱandȱDialogueȱandȱProclamaȬ tionȱ tryȱ toȱ copeȱ withȱ thisȱ tensionȱ (DPȱ 17;ȱ Dupuisȱ 2006:ȱ 164f.,ȱ 242Ȭ44,ȱ382), 20ȱDominusȱIesusȱandȱtheȱnotificationȱconcentrateȱonȱ theȱ firstȱ aspect.21ȱ Thisȱ finallyȱ leadsȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ toȱ theȱ wellȬ knownȱbutȱnotȱveryȱsensitiveȱjudgmentȱthatȱitȱisȱcertainȱthatȱfolȬ lowersȱofȱotherȱreligionsȱareȱ“objectivelyȱspeakingȱ…ȱinȱaȱgravelyȱ deficientȱ situation”ȱ (DIȱ 22).ȱ Thus,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ statesȱ thatȱ “theologyȱ today,ȱ inȱ itsȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ otherȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ andȱ onȱ theirȱ meaningȱ inȱ God’sȱ salvificȱ plan,ȱisȱinvitedȱtoȱexploreȱifȱandȱinȱwhatȱwayȱtheȱhistoricalȱfigȬ uresȱandȱpositiveȱelementsȱofȱtheseȱreligionsȱmayȱfallȱwithinȱtheȱ divineȱplanȱofȱsalvation”ȱ(DIȱ14),ȱitȱisȱfinallyȱnotȱableȱtoȱrecogȬ completelyȱ fulfilledȱ hereȱ onȱ earth.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ isȱ notȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ implicationsȱ forȱ aȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ thatȱ followȱ fromȱ suchȱanȱinsight.ȱ 20ȱ Takingȱ thisȱ insightȱ seriously,ȱ Dupuisȱ developsȱ aȱ TrinitarianȬ Christologicalȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ thatȱ recognizesȱ theȱ universalȱ acȬ tionȱofȱtheȱspiritȱandȱtheȱlogosȱinȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ

ȱDIȱ2ȱseesȱdialogueȱasȱpartȱofȱevangelizationȱandȱmission.ȱDiaȬ logueȱandȱProclamationȱusesȱaȱmoreȱnuancedȱconceptȱofȱdialogueȱ(DPȱ9,ȱ 38,ȱ77Ȭ89),ȱwhichȱDupuisȱadoptsȱasȱwellȱ(Dupuisȱ2006:ȱ358Ȭ84).ȱ 21


nizeȱtheȱelementsȱofȱtruthȱandȱgraceȱinȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱ asȱaȱGodȬgivenȱreality.ȱ“Oneȱcannotȱattributeȱtoȱtheseȱ…ȱaȱdivineȱ origin”ȱ(DIȱ21).ȱTherefore,ȱDominusȱIesusȱdoesȱnotȱseeȱtheȱpositiveȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ faithȱ inȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ andȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱwhichȱoneȱcanȱfindȱforȱexampleȱinȱNAȱ2.ȱNostraȱAetateȱ expressesȱ theȱ convictionȱ thatȱ faithȱ inȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ demandsȱ thatȱ theȱ valuesȱ ofȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ areȱ respectedȱ andȱ proȬ moted.ȱ Thisȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ anȱ uncriticalȱ acceptanceȱ ofȱ everyȬ thingȱ oneȱ findsȱ inȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Butȱ itȱ callsȱ forȱ aȱ fundamentalȱcommitmentȱtoȱtheȱdignityȱofȱalterity.ȱ AllȱtheȱfourȱtextsȱweȱareȱdealingȱwithȱhereȱreferȱtoȱGSȱ22.ȱInȱ GSȱ22ȱoneȱfindsȱtwoȱimportant,ȱfarȬreachingȱpassagesȱthatȱareȱnotȱ toȱbeȱunderestimatedȱinȱtheirȱrelevanceȱforȱtheologyȱofȱreligions:ȱ “Forȱ byȱ Hisȱ incarnationȱ theȱ Sonȱ ofȱ Godȱ hasȱ unitedȱ Himselfȱ inȱ someȱfashionȱwithȱeveryȱman.”ȱ For,ȱsinceȱChristȱdiedȱforȱallȱmen,ȱandȱsinceȱtheȱultimateȱvoȬ cationȱofȱmanȱisȱinȱfactȱone,ȱandȱdivine,ȱweȱoughtȱtoȱbelieveȱ thatȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱinȱaȱmannerȱknownȱonlyȱtoȱGodȱoffersȱ toȱ everyȱ manȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ beingȱ associatedȱ withȱ thisȱ paschalȱmystery.ȱ

Bothȱ statementsȱ containȱ significantȱ Christologicalȱ reflections.ȱ Althoughȱitȱwouldȱbeȱworthwhileȱtoȱspellȱoutȱtheȱimplicationsȱ ofȱtheseȱreflectionsȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreligions,ȱtheyȱareȱ notȱalwaysȱtakenȱupȱinȱaȱproductiveȱmanner.ȱDialogueȱandȱProȬ clamationȱ andȱ Jacquesȱ Dupuisȱ referȱ toȱ theseȱ passagesȱ toȱ showȱ theȱpossibilityȱofȱcomplementaryȱvaluesȱinȱvariousȱreligiousȱtraȬ ditionsȱ thatȱ lieȱ beyondȱ ourȱ reckoningȱ (DPȱ 15,ȱ 28,ȱ 68;ȱ Dupuisȱ 2006:ȱ162,ȱ176,ȱ197,ȱ307,ȱ312,ȱ326,ȱ351f.).ȱAlthoughȱbothȱtheȱnotiȬ ficationȱ andȱ Dominusȱ Iesusȱ referȱ toȱ GSȱ 22ȱ asȱ well,ȱ theyȱ doȱ itȱ inȱ theȱsameȱoneȬsidedȱwayȱasȱdescribedȱabove.ȱTheyȱreferȱtoȱtheseȱ passagesȱ toȱ substantiateȱ theȱ soleȱ andȱ universalȱ salvificȱ mediaȬ tionȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ inȱ aȱ ratherȱ “exclusive”ȱ way. 22ȱ Theyȱ doȱ notȱ

ȱ See,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ firstȱ sectionȱ ofȱ theȱ notification,ȱ “Onȱ theȱ Soleȱ andȱ Universalȱ Salvificȱ Mediationȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christ.”ȱ Theȱ languageȱ andȱtoneȱusedȱthereȱemphasizeȱthisȱoneȬsidedȱattitude.ȱSimilarlyȱDIȱ12ȱ readsȱ theȱ passagesȱ ofȱ GSȱ 22ȱ merelyȱ inȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ preparatioȱ evangelica.ȱ 22


ȱ19ȱ

dare,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱtakeȱupȱtheȱpositiveȱimplicationsȱofȱtheseȱpasȬ sagesȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱfollowersȱofȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ TheȱImportanceȱofȱaȱHermeneuticsȱofȱDifferenceȱ asȱanȱApproachȱtoȱTheologyȱofȱReligionsȱ TakingȱupȱSmith’sȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱconceptȱofȱreligionȱandȱitsȱimȬ plicationsȱforȱaȱprojectȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreligions,ȱmyȱthesisȱinȱthisȱ paperȱisȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱbasicȱproblemȱinȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱonȱ howȱtoȱhandleȱdifferencesȱwithinȱChristianityȱandȱinȱrelationȱtoȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Thisȱ thesisȱ wasȱ exemplifiedȱ withȱ reȬ gardȱ toȱ theȱ differentȱ hermeneuticsȱ ofȱ theȱ councilȱ usedȱ byȱ ToȬ wardȱaȱChristianȱTheologyȱofȱReligiousȱPluralismȱandȱtheȱnotificaȬ tionȱonȱthisȱbook.ȱBothȱtextsȱwereȱembeddedȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheirȱ primaryȱ postconciliarȱ intertextualȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ reference.ȱ Iȱ wantȱtoȱconcludeȱthisȱpaperȱwithȱaȱshortȱoutlookȱonȱtheȱimportȬ anceȱofȱaȱhermeneuticsȱofȱdifferenceȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱtheologyȱofȱ religions.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ workȱ outȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ imȬ plicationsȱ ofȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱ saidȱ soȱ farȱ aboutȱ anȱ approachȱ toȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ thatȱ isȱ sensitiveȱ toȱ theȱ differencesȱ withinȱ theȱ Christianȱ traditionȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ itȱ isȱ imperativeȱ toȱ deȬ velopȱ anȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ howȱ theoȬlogies,ȱ thatȱ isȱ discoursesȱ onȱ God,ȱareȱconstructedȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱAnȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ tensionsȱ andȱ differencesȱ oneȱ findsȱ inȱ one’sȱ ownȱtraditionȱhelpsȱtoȱhandleȱtensionsȱandȱdifferencesȱinȱinterȬ religiousȱencountersȱinȱaȱproductiveȱandȱcreativeȱmanner.ȱThus,ȱ mediationȱbetweenȱone’sȱownȱreligiousȱidentityȱandȱthatȱofȱtheȱ otherȱbecomesȱpossible.ȱGaudiumȱetȱSpes,ȱtheȱPastoralȱConstituȬ tionȱonȱtheȱChurchȱinȱtheȱModernȱWorld,ȱoffersȱaȱnewȱapproachȱ toȱ handleȱ differences.ȱ Basically,ȱ itȱ consistsȱ inȱ theȱ reciprocityȱ ofȱ dogmaȱ andȱ theȱ pastoralȱ situation.23ȱ Theyȱ belongȱ togetherȱ andȱ requireȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Theȱ pastoralȱ situationȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ conȬ creteȱ placeȱ whereȱ theȱ abstractȱ dogmaȱ isȱ applied.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ pastoralȱsituationȱhasȱitsȱownȱauthorityȱforȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱ ȱTheȱreciprocityȱofȱdogmaȱandȱtheȱpastoralȱsituationȱisȱtheȱcenȬ tralȱ themeȱ inȱ HansȬJoachimȱ Sander’sȱ commentaryȱ onȱ GSȱ (Sanderȱ 2005).ȱTheȱfollowingȱreflectionsȱareȱinspiredȱbyȱthisȱcommentary.ȱ 23


faith.24ȱOnlyȱwhenȱaȱsuitableȱlanguageȱforȱtheȱspecificȱcontextȱisȱ found,ȱthatȱis,ȱwhenȱtheologyȱisȱableȱtoȱfindȱtheȱrightȱwordsȱinȱaȱ particularȱ situation,ȱ doesȱ theȱ messageȱ ofȱ theȱ Gospelȱ becomeȱ relevant,ȱandȱthatȱmeansȱallȱtheȱmoreȱbindingȱ(seeȱGSȱ4ȱandȱ44).ȱ Thus,ȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ Spesȱ takesȱ seriouslyȱ theȱ relativityȱ thatȱ existsȱ betweenȱtheȱChurchȱandȱtheȱworld,ȱbetweenȱtheȱdogmaȱandȱtheȱ pastoralȱ situation,ȱ betweenȱ theȱ insideȱ andȱ theȱ outsideȱ –ȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ betweenȱ one’sȱ ownȱ religiousȱ identityȱandȱthatȱofȱtheȱotherȱ–ȱaȱrelativityȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱ relativismȱ (Sanderȱ 2005:ȱ 841).ȱ Itȱ isȱ onlyȱ inȱ thisȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ aȱ hermeneuticsȱofȱdifferenceȱthatȱaȱdialogueȱisȱpossibleȱinȱwhichȱ noȱoneȱisȱexcludedȱ(GSȱ92),ȱnotȱevenȱtheȱreligiousȱother.25ȱ TheȱpastoralȱframeworkȱofȱGS,ȱwhichȱisȱsensitiveȱtoȱdifferȬ ences,ȱ allowsȱ oneȱ toȱ confrontȱ theȱ postcolonialȱ criticismȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religionsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Forȱ theȱ pastoralȱ grammarȱ ofȱ GSȱ precludesȱaȱdoubleȱexclusion:ȱtheȱexclusionȱofȱtheȱrelevanceȱofȱ theȱ religiousȱ otherȱ forȱ one’sȱ ownȱ religiousȱ selfȬconceptȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱhand26ȱandȱtheȱdenialȱofȱone’sȱownȱhistoryȱofȱguilt27ȱinȱrelaȬ tionȱtoȱtheȱreligiousȱotherȱonȱtheȱother.ȱBothȱformsȱofȱexclusionȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ avoidedȱ ifȱ oneȱ isȱ toȱ adhereȱ toȱ one’sȱ ownȱ religiousȱ identity.ȱ Thisȱ hasȱ enormousȱ consequencesȱ forȱ everyȱ projectȱ ofȱ ȱ Dupuisȱ underestimatesȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ theȱ pastoralȱ situationȱ forȱ dogmaȱsinceȱ–ȱinȱhisȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱcouncilȱ–ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱ anȱeyeȱforȱtheȱreciprocityȱofȱdogmaȱandȱtheȱpastoralȱsituationȱ(Dupuisȱ 2006:ȱ 158Ȭ161).ȱ Theȱ pastoralȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ GS,ȱ however,ȱ wouldȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ strengthenȱ Dupuis’ȱ positionȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gions.ȱ 24

25ȱThisȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱanȱuncriticalȱorȱindifferentȱattitudeȱofȱtheȱ Church.ȱ Butȱ inȱ eachȱ legitimateȱ critiqueȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ errorȱ andȱtheȱpersonȱinȱerrorȱhasȱtoȱbeȱupheld,ȱanȱattitudeȱthatȱisȱbasedȱonȱ GSȱasȱwellȱ(GSȱ28).ȱȱ 26ȱThisȱbecomesȱobviousȱinȱtheȱgenesisȱofȱtheȱDeclarationȱonȱtheȱ Relationȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ toȱ NonȬChristianȱ Religions,ȱ Nostraȱ Aetate.ȱ Seeȱ footnoteȱ4ȱabove.ȱ

ȱSee,ȱforȱexample,ȱGSȱ19,ȱ43;ȱDHȱ12;ȱandȱtheȱconfessionȱofȱguiltȱ withȱ whichȱ Johnȱ Paulȱ IIȱ inȱ 2000ȱ confrontedȱ theȱ offencesȱ thatȱ theȱ Churchȱ hasȱ committedȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theȱ Jewsȱ duringȱ historyȱ (forȱ theȱ GerȬ manȱtext,ȱseeȱFürlingerȱ2009:ȱ180Ȭ84). 27


ȱ21ȱ

theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Itȱ becomesȱ possibleȱ toȱ takeȱ upȱ theȱ twoȱ pastoralȱpolesȱ ofȱtheologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ–ȱ beingȱ faithfulȱ toȱ one’sȱ ownȱreligiousȱidentityȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱtheȱdynamicsȱofȱtheȱmodernȱ world,ȱincludingȱtheȱchallengesȱofȱreligiousȱpluralityȱ–ȱinȱaȱproȬ ductiveȱway.ȱBeyondȱanyȱtendencyȱofȱseeingȱitselfȱasȱaȱselfȬsufȬ ficientȱ realityȱ withoutȱ anyȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ world,ȱ theȱ Churchȱ thusȱbecomesȱableȱtoȱgoȱbeyondȱitselfȱinȱappreciatingȱotherȱreliȬ giousȱtraditionsȱ(Sanderȱ2005:ȱ867).ȱInȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheologyȱofȱ religionsȱthisȱmeansȱthatȱ–ȱfollowingȱtheȱpastoralȱecclesiologicalȱ grammarȱofȱGaudiumȱetȱSpesȱ–ȱtheȱChurchȱisȱableȱtoȱspecifyȱitsȱ ownȱidentityȱbyȱworkingȱoutȱtheȱpotentialȱofȱdifferenceȱthatȱcanȱ alreadyȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱtextsȱofȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱandȱ thatȱ makesȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ possibleȱ evenȱ inȱ timesȱ ofȱ theȱ postcolonialȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ ecclesiologicalȱrelevanceȱofȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱrepresentsȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ signsȱ ofȱ theȱ timesȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ whichȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ Spesȱhasȱtoȱbeȱreadȱtoday.ȱItȱrequiresȱthatȱtheȱinternalȱChristianȱ Christological,ȱ Trinitarian,ȱ andȱ ecclesiologicalȱ differencesȱ thatȱ areȱrootedȱinȱrevelationȱitselfȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱexpandedȱtowardsȱtheȱ differencesȱ fromȱ theȱ religiousȱ other.ȱ Itȱ isȱ preciselyȱ theȱ tensionȱ betweenȱwhatȱisȱrevealedȱandȱwhatȱisȱconcealedȱthatȱisȱofȱparȬ ticularȱ significanceȱ inȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Theȱ concealedȱ aspectsȱinȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱGod,ȱthatȱkeepȱthisȱdiscourseȱopenȱ forȱtheȱtranscendenceȱofȱGodȱ–ȱDeusȱsemperȱmaiorȱ–ȱandȱthat,ȱatȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ makeȱ thisȱ discourseȱ vulnerableȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ otherȱreligions,ȱareȱofȱspecialȱvalueȱinȱtheȱgrammarȱofȱGaudiumȱ etȱSpes.ȱBeyondȱanyȱtemptationȱtoȱignoreȱtheȱconcealedȱaspectsȱ onȱtheȱoneȱhandȱorȱtoȱoveremphasizeȱthemȱonȱtheȱotherȱ–ȱwhichȱ leadsȱ toȱ anȱ abstractionȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ doȱ justiceȱ toȱ anyȱ oneȱ religionȱ –ȱ theseȱ concealedȱ aspectsȱ areȱ theȱ locusȱ whereȱ theȱ Churchȱcanȱrealizeȱitsȱidentityȱinȱtheȱtensionȱofȱitsȱspiritualȱandȱ visible,ȱdivineȱandȱhumanȱaspectsȱ(LGȱ8).ȱTherefore,ȱinȱtheȱdiaȬ logueȱ withȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ –ȱ which,ȱ followingȱ DiaȬ logueȱ andȱ Proclamation,ȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ continuingȱ theȱ dialogueȱofȱsalvationȱinitiatedȱbyȱGodȱwithȱallȱhumankindȱ(DPȱ 38)ȱ andȱ isȱ thereforeȱ theologicallyȱ necessaryȱ andȱ unavoidableȱ –ȱ theȱChurchȱcanȱrealizeȱtheȱcomparative,ȱwhichȱisȱfoundȱseveralȱ timesȱ inȱ theȱ ecclesiologicalȱ selfȬunderstandingȱ ofȱ theȱ Secondȱ Vaticanȱ Councilȱ andȱ whichȱ marksȱ theȱ continuingȱ andȱ neverȬ endingȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱChurchȱ(see,ȱforȱexample,ȱGSȱ44,ȱ91Ȭ


93).ȱInȱtheȱconcreteȱdialogueȱwithȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱtheȱ Churchȱ proceedsȱ theologicallyȱ inȱ itsȱ dynamicȱ selfȬunderstandȬ ingȱandȱitsȱsearchȱforȱwords.ȱThus,ȱinȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱaȱherȬ meneuticsȱ ofȱ differenceȱ inspiredȱ byȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ Spes,ȱ theȱ uniȬ versalȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ faithȱ provesȱ trueȱ inȱ theȱ particularȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ religiousȱ other.ȱ Theȱ universal,ȱ bindingȱforceȱofȱone’sȱfaithȱisȱnotȱlostȱinȱmakingȱthisȱfaithȱconȬ crete.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱitȱonlyȱfindsȱitsȱrelevanceȱandȱauthorityȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ comingȱ toȱ wordsȱ inȱ differentȱ contexts.ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱ notȱ allȱ differencesȱ canȱ beȱ spelledȱ out.ȱ Sometimesȱ theȱ searchȱ forȱ wordsȱ willȱ resultȱ inȱ acknowledgingȱ anȱ understandȬ ingȱofȱnotȱunderstandingȱ(seeȱBernhardtȱ1998).ȱ AbbreviationsȱofȱDocumentsȱofȱtheȱSecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱ LGȱ=ȱLumenȱGentiumȱ URȱ=ȱUnitatisȱRedintegratioȱ NAȱ=ȱNostraȱAetateȱ DVȱ=ȱDeiȱVerbumȱ GSȱ=ȱGaudiumȱetȱSpesȱ AGȱ=ȱAdȱGentesȱ DHȱ=ȱDignitatisȱHumanaeȱ Literatureȱ Bernhardt,ȱ Reinhold.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Vonȱ derȱ Kunstȱ gegenseitigerȱ PerspekȬ tivenübernahme.ȱÜberlegungenȱzurȱinterkulturellenȱundȱinterreȬ ligiösenȱ Hermeneutik.”ȱ In:ȱ Stefanȱ Meißnerȱ andȱ Georgȱ Wenzȱ (eds.).ȱ Überȱ denȱ Umgangȱ mitȱ denȱ Heiligeȱ Schriften:ȱ Juden,ȱ Christenȱ undȱ Muslimeȱ zwischenȱ Tuchfühlungȱ undȱ Kluft.ȱ Münster:ȱ LIT.ȱ Pp.ȱ 78Ȭ89.ȱ (1998).ȱ “Dieȱ Herausforderung.ȱ Motiveȱ fürȱ dieȱ Ausbildungȱ derȱ ‘pluralistischenȱ Religionstheologie’.”ȱ In:ȱ HansȬGerdȱ Schwandtȱ (ed.).ȱPluralistischeȱTheologieȱderȱReligionen:ȱEineȱkritischeȱSichtung.ȱ Frankfurt:ȱLembeck.ȱPp.ȱ19Ȭ38.ȱ Dupuis,ȱJacques.ȱ(2006).ȱTowardȱaȱChristianȱTheologyȱofȱReligiousȱPluralȬ ism.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ Franz,ȱAlbertȱ(ed.).ȱ(2001).ȱWasȱistȱheuteȱnochȱkatholisch?ȱZumȱStreitȱumȱ dieȱ innereȱ Einheitȱ undȱ Vielfaltȱ derȱ Kirche.ȱ Quaestionesȱ disputataeȱ 192.ȱFreiburg/Vienna:ȱHerder.ȱ


ȱ23ȱ

Fürlinger,ȱErnstȱ(ed.).ȱ(2009).ȱDerȱDialogȱmussȱweitergehen:ȱAusgewählteȱ Vatikanischeȱ Dokumenteȱ zumȱ interreligiösenȱ Dialogȱ (1964Ȭ2008).ȱ Freiburg:ȱHerder.ȱ Heller,ȱChristian.ȱ(2001).ȱJohnȱHicksȱProjektȱeinerȱreligiösenȱInterpretationȱ derȱ Religionen.ȱ Darstellungȱ undȱ Analyseȱ –ȱ Diskussionȱ –ȱ Rezeption.ȱ FundamentaltheologischeȱStudienȱ28.ȱMünster:ȱLIT.ȱ Hick,ȱ John.ȱ (1994).ȱ “Religiöserȱ Pluralismusȱ undȱ AbsolutheitsanȬ sprüche.”ȱ In:ȱ Reinhardȱ Kirste,ȱ Paulȱ Schwarzenau,ȱ andȱ Udoȱ Tworuschkaȱ (eds.).ȱ Interreligiöserȱ Dialogȱ zwischenȱ Traditionȱ undȱ Moderne.ȱ Religionenȱ imȱ Gesprächȱ 3.ȱ Balve:ȱ Zimmermann.ȱ Pp.ȱ 128Ȭ49.ȱ Hinnells,ȱJohnȱR.ȱ(2007).ȱ“WhyȱStudyȱReligions?”ȱIn:ȱJohnȱR.ȱHinnellsȱ (ed.).ȱ Theȱ Routledgeȱ Companionȱ toȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Religion.ȱ London/ȱ NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱPp.ȱ5Ȭ20.ȱ Hoff,ȱ Gregorȱ Maria.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Offenbarungȱ alsȱ theologischeȱ WissensȬ form.”ȱ In:ȱ Andreasȱ Nehringȱ andȱ Joachimȱ Valentinȱ (eds.).ȱ ReliȬ giousȱ Turnsȱ –ȱ Turningȱ Religions:ȱ Veränderteȱ kulturelleȱ Diskurseȱ –ȱ neueȱreligiöseȱWissensformen.ȱReligionsKulturenȱ1.ȱStuttgart:ȱKohlȬ hammer.ȱPp.ȱ135Ȭ49.ȱ (2007).ȱ Offenbarungenȱ Gottes?ȱ Eineȱ theologischeȱ Problemgeschichte.ȱ Regensburg:ȱPustet.ȱ King,ȱ Richard.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Orientalismȱ andȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Religion.”ȱ In:ȱ JohnȱR.ȱHinnellsȱ(ed.).ȱTheȱRoutledgeȱCompanionȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱReȬ ligion.ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱPp.ȱ275Ȭ90.ȱ (1999).ȱOrientalismȱandȱReligion:ȱPostcolonialȱTheory,ȱIndiaȱandȱ“theȱ MysticȱEast.”ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Müller,ȱGerhardȱLudwigȱ(ed.).ȱ(2003).ȱDieȱHeilsuniversalitätȱChristiȱundȱ derȱKirche:ȱOriginaltexteȱundȱStudienȱderȱrömischenȱGlaubenskongreȬ gationȱzurȱErklärungȱ“DominusȱJesus.”ȱWürzburg:ȱEchter.ȱ Nehring,ȱAndreas.ȱ(2005).ȱ“WelttheologieȱoderȱReligionswissenschaft?ȱ Zurȱ Bedeutungȱ vonȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smithȱ inȱ derȱ postkoloniȬ alenȱKulturdebatte.”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱReligionswissenschaftȱ13:ȱ45Ȭ59.ȱ Neuner,ȱ Peterȱ (ed.).ȱ (2002).ȱ Glaubenswissenschaft?ȱ Theologieȱ imȱ SpanȬ nungsfeldȱ vonȱ Glaube,ȱ Rationalitätȱ undȱ Öffentlichkeit.ȱ Quaestionesȱ Disputataeȱ195.ȱFreiburg/Vienna:ȱHerder.ȱ Pesch,ȱ Ottoȱ Hermann.ȱ (2001).ȱ Dasȱ Zweiteȱ Vatikanischeȱ Konzil:ȱ VorgeȬ schichteȱ–ȱVerlaufȱ–ȱErgebnisseȱ–ȱNachgeschichte.ȱWürzburg:ȱEchter.ȱ Rahner,ȱKarl.ȱ(1966).ȱDasȱKonzilȱ–ȱEinȱneuerȱBeginn:ȱVortragȱbeimȱFestaktȱ zumȱAbschlußȱdesȱII.ȱVatikanischenȱKonzilsȱimȱHerkulessaalȱderȱResiȬ denzȱinȱMünchenȱamȱ12.ȱDezemberȱ1965.ȱFreiburg:ȱHerder.ȱ

24ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ andȱHerbertȱVorgrimlerȱ(eds.).ȱ(2008).ȱKleinesȱKonzilskompendium.ȱ Freiburg:ȱHerder.ȱ Rainer,ȱ Michaelȱ J.ȱ(ed.).ȱ (2001).ȱ “Dominusȱ Iesus”:ȱ Anstößigeȱ Wahrheitȱ oderȱ anstößigeȱ Kirche?ȱ Dokumente,ȱ Hintergründe,ȱ Standpunkteȱ undȱ Folgerungen.ȱMünster:ȱLIT.ȱ Rettenbacher,ȱSigrid.ȱ(2005).ȱ“TheologieȱderȱReligionenȱundȱkomparaȬ tiveȱTheologieȱ–ȱAlternativeȱoderȱErgänzung?ȱDieȱAuseinanderȬ setzungȱ zwischenȱ Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ undȱ Klausȱ vonȱ Stoschȱ umȱ dieȱ Religionstheologie.”ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ Missionswissenschaftȱ undȱReligionswissenschaftȱ89:ȱ181Ȭ94.ȱ Said,ȱEdward.ȱ(1981).ȱCoveringȱIslam:ȱHowȱtheȱMediaȱandȱExpertsȱDeterȬ mineȱHowȱWeȱSeeȱtheȱRestȱofȱtheȱWorld.ȱLondon/Henley:ȱRoutledgeȱ &ȱKeganȱPaul.ȱ ȱ (1978).ȱ Orientalism:ȱ Westernȱ Conceptionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Orient.ȱ London/ȱ NewȱYork:ȱPantheonȱBooks.ȱ Sander,ȱHansȬJoachim.ȱ(2007).ȱ“DerȱeineȱGottȱderȱJuden,ȱChristenȱundȱ MuslimeȱundȱseineȱHeterotopienȱderȱMacht.ȱDerȱunmöglicheȱLeȬ bensraumȱdesȱreligiösenȱDialogs.”ȱIn:ȱJosefȱSinkovitsȱandȱUlrichȱ Winklerȱ(eds.).ȱWeltkircheȱundȱWeltreligionen:ȱDieȱBrisanzȱdesȱZweiȬ tenȱ Vatikanischenȱ Konzilsȱ 40ȱ Jahreȱ nachȱ Nostraȱ Aetate.ȱ Innsbruck:ȱ Tyrolia.ȱPp.ȱ45Ȭ66.ȱ (2005).ȱ“TheologischerȱKommentarȱzurȱPastoralkonstitutionȱüberȱ dieȱ Kircheȱ inȱ derȱ Weltȱ vonȱ heuteȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ spes.”ȱ In:ȱ Herdersȱ TheologischerȱKommentarȱzumȱZweitenȱVatikanischenȱKonzil.ȱVol.ȱ4.ȱ Freiburg:ȱHerder.ȱPp.ȱ581Ȭ886.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱPerry.ȱ(2007).ȱ“LimitsȱandȱProspectsȱofȱComparativeȱ Theology.”ȱ In:ȱ Norbertȱ Hintersteinerȱ (ed.).ȱ Namingȱ andȱ Thinkingȱ GodȱinȱEuropeȱToday:ȱTheologyȱinȱGlobalȱDialogue.ȱCurrentsȱofȱEnȬ counterȱ32.ȱAmsterdam/NewȱYork:ȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ493Ȭ505.ȱ (2005).ȱGottȱohneȱGrenzen:ȱEineȱchristlicheȱundȱpluralistischeȱTheoloȬ gieȱderȱReligionen.ȱGütersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ (2003).ȱ “Dieȱ NichtȬAbsolutheitȱ desȱ Christentums.”ȱ In:ȱ Heinrichȱ Schmidingerȱ (ed.).ȱ Identitätȱ undȱ Toleranz:ȱ Christlicheȱ Spiritualitätȱ imȱinterreligiösenȱKontext.ȱInnsbruck/Vienna:ȱTyrolia.ȱPp.ȱ151Ȭ69.ȱ (1997).ȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen:ȱ Probleme,ȱ Optionen,ȱ Argumente.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Fundamentaltheologieȱ undȱ Religionsphilosophieȱ 1.ȱ Neuried:ȱArsȱUna.ȱ Seckler,ȱMax.ȱ(1980).ȱ“ÜberȱdenȱKompromißȱinȱSachenȱderȱLehre”.ȱIn:ȱ MaxȱSeckler.ȱImȱSpannungsfeldȱvonȱWissenschaftȱundȱKirche:ȱTheoloȬ


ȱ25ȱ

gieȱalsȱschöpferischenȱAuslegungȱderȱWirklichkeit.ȱFreiburg:ȱHerder.ȱ Pp.ȱ99Ȭ109.ȱ Sharpe,ȱEric.ȱ(2007).ȱ“TheȱStudyȱofȱReligionȱinȱHistoricalȱPerspective”.ȱ In:ȱJohnȱR.ȱHinnellsȱ(ed.).ȱTheȱRoutledgeȱCompanionȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱ Religion.ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱPp.ȱ21Ȭ45.ȱ Siebenrock,ȱRomanȱA.ȱ(2005).ȱ“TheologischerȱKommentarȱzurȱErklärȬ ungȱ überȱ dieȱ Haltungȱ derȱ Kircheȱ zuȱ denȱ nichtchristlichenȱ ReȬ ligionenȱ Nostraȱ Aetate.”ȱ In:ȱ Herdersȱ Theologischerȱ Kommentarȱ zumȱ Zweitenȱ Vatikanischenȱ Konzil.ȱ Vol.ȱ 3.ȱ Freiburg:ȱ Herder.ȱ Pp.ȱ 591Ȭ 693.ȱ Smith,ȱJonathan.ȱ(1982).ȱImaginingȱReligion:ȱFromȱBabylonȱtoȱJonestown.ȱ Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress.ȱ Smith,ȱWilfredȱCantwell.ȱ(1991).ȱTheȱMeaningȱandȱEndȱofȱReligion.ȱMinȬ neapolis:ȱFortressȱPress.ȱ Stosch,ȱKlausȱvon.ȱ(2007).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheologyȱasȱanȱAlternativeȱtoȱ theȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religions.”ȱ In:ȱ Norbertȱ Hintersteinerȱ (ed.).ȱ NamingȱandȱThinkingȱGodȱinȱEuropeȱToday:ȱTheologyȱinȱGlobalȱDiaȬ logue.ȱCurrentsȱofȱEncounterȱ32.ȱAmsterdam/NewȱYork:ȱRodopi.ȱ Pp.ȱ507Ȭ12.ȱ (2002).ȱ“KomparativeȱTheologie.ȱEinȱAuswegȱausȱdemȱGrunddiȬ lemmaȱjederȱTheologieȱderȱReligionen?”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱKatholischeȱ Theologieȱ124:ȱ294Ȭ311.ȱ (2001).ȱ Glaubensverantwortungȱ inȱ doppelterȱ Kontingenz:ȱ UntersuchȬ ungenȱzurȱVerortungȱfundamentalerȱTheologieȱnachȱWittgenstein.ȱRaȬ tioȱFideiȱ7.ȱRegensburg:ȱPustet.ȱ Sundermeier,ȱTheo.ȱ(2007).ȱReligionȱ–ȱWasȱistȱdas?ȱReligionswissenschaftȱ imȱtheologischenȱKontext:ȱEinȱStudienbuch.ȱFrankfurt:ȱLembeck.ȱ Winkler,ȱ Ulrich.ȱ (2009).ȱ “Grundlegungenȱ Komparativerȱ Theologie(n)ȱ –ȱ Keithȱ Wardȱ undȱ Robertȱ C.ȱ Neville.”ȱ In:ȱ Reinholdȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ Klausȱ vonȱ Stoschȱ (eds.).ȱ Komparativeȱ Theologie:ȱ Interreligiöseȱ Vergleicheȱ alsȱ Wegȱ derȱ Religionstheologie.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zuȱ einerȱ TheoȬ logieȱderȱReligionenȱ7.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱPp.ȱ 69Ȭ98.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

SiftingȱtheȱQur’anȱ ȱ TwoȱFormsȱofȱInterreligiousȱHermeneuticsȱ inȱNicholasȱofȱCusaȱ ȱ ȱ PimȱValkenbergȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ Theȱ issueȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ isȱ gainingȱ groundȱ inȱ recentȱ studiesȱ inȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ contribution,ȱ Iȱ wantȱtoȱaddressȱtheȱissueȱofȱconflictingȱhermeneuticalȱstrategiesȱ existingȱ sideȱ byȱ sideȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ authorȱ orȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ work.ȱIȱthinkȱitȱisȱreasonableȱtoȱsupposeȱthatȱpeopleȱwhoȱwantȱ toȱengageȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱreligiousȱothersȱbutȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱ careȱaboutȱpreservingȱtheȱtruthȱofȱtheirȱownȱreligiousȱtraditionȱ willȱ employȱ differentȱ hermeneuticalȱ strategiesȱ simultaneously.ȱ Ifȱanȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱisȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱthanȱaȱmereȱexchangeȱ ofȱ courtesies,ȱ weȱ canȱ expectȱ thatȱ theȱ participantsȱ willȱ useȱ diaȬ logicalȱ strategiesȱ butȱ willȱ sometimesȱ lapseȱ intoȱ apologeticȱ orȱ evenȱpolemicalȱstrategies,ȱsuchȱas,ȱforȱinstance,ȱifȱtheyȱfeelȱthatȱ theȱ coreȱ valuesȱ ofȱ theirȱ faithȱ areȱ misunderstoodȱ orȱ evenȱ mocked.ȱ Therefore,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ talkȱ aboutȱ “theȱ polemicalȱ dialogue”ȱ(ValkenbergȱandȱWijsenȱ1997).ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱaȱ successfulȱ apologeticȱ orȱ polemicalȱ strategyȱ requiresȱ someȱ inȬ sightȱ intoȱ theȱ mindsetȱ ofȱ thoseȱ againstȱ whomȱ oneȱ wantsȱ toȱ write,ȱandȱthereforeȱsuchȱaȱstrategyȱsucceedsȱonlyȱwhenȱitȱconȬ tainsȱdialogicalȱelementsȱ(Valkenbergȱ1998).ȱ PresentȬdayȱ dialoguesȱ betweenȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Muslimsȱ offerȱ manyȱ examplesȱ ofȱ suchȱ conflictingȱ hermeneuticalȱ strateȬ giesȱ existingȱ sideȱ byȱ side,ȱ butȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ focusȱ onȱ aȱ Europeanȱ theologianȱfromȱtheȱlateȱmedievalȱperiod.ȱAtȱthatȱtime,ȱtheȱsituȬ ationȱinȱWesternȱapproachesȱtoȱIslamȱwasȱsuchȱthatȱtheȱdefaultȱ modeȱ inȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ wasȱ polemicalȱ (Danielȱ 1993;ȱGoddardȱ1995).ȱIfȱthisȱwasȱtheȱpredominantȱparadigm,ȱnoȱ theologianȱcouldȱescapeȱpolemicalȱstrategies,ȱevenȱifȱheȱwantedȱ toȱapproachȱIslamȱinȱaȱdifferentȱway.ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthatȱNicholasȱ ofȱCusaȱappliesȱtheseȱconflictingȱhermeneuticalȱstrategiesȱinȱhisȱ CribratioȱAlkoraniȱ(“SiftingȱofȱtheȱQur’an”),ȱaȱworkȱthatȱheȱwroteȱ

28ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ

aroundȱ1460ȱtoȱprovideȱPopeȱPiusȱIIȱwithȱsomeȱtheologicalȱmaȬ terialsȱforȱaȱletterȱtoȱSultanȱMehmetȱIIȱwhoȱhadȱconqueredȱConȬ stantinopleȱaȱfewȱyearsȱbefore.ȱFirst,ȱIȱwillȱsketchȱtheȱhistoricalȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ manȱ andȱ hisȱ work,ȱ andȱ nextȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ howȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ appliesȱ theȱ defaultȱ modeȱ ofȱ polemicsȱ inȱ thisȱ workȱ butȱ alsoȱ inventsȱ aȱ newȱ formȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ hermeneuticsȱ heȱ callsȱ aȱ piaȱ interpretatio,ȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ translatedȱ asȱ “faithfulȱ interpretation.”ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthatȱthisȱfaithfulȱinterpretationȱcanȱ beȱincludedȱamongȱtheȱfirstȱhistoricalȱprefigurationsȱofȱhermenȬ euticalȱ proceduresȱ appliedȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ movementsȱ likeȱ “ScripturalȱReasoning”ȱandȱ“comparativeȱtheology.”ȱ TheȱHistoricalȱContext:ȱTheȱFallȱofȱConstantinopleȱ Theȱ Germanȱ scholarȱ andȱ Cardinalȱ Nikolausȱ vonȱ Kuesȱ (1401Ȭ 1464),ȱbornȱinȱBernkastelȬKuesȱalongȱtheȱMoselȱriver,ȱisȱoneȱofȱ thoseȱfewȱpeopleȱtoȱwhomȱtheȱtypicalȱearlyȱRenaissanceȱideaȱofȱ uomoȱuniversaleȱmayȱapply.ȱHeȱenjoyedȱgreatȱrenownȱasȱaȱtheoȬ logian,ȱphilosopher,ȱandȱcanonȱlawyer,ȱbutȱheȱwroteȱonȱmatheȬ maticsȱandȱnaturalȱsciencesȱasȱwellȱ(Casarellaȱ2006).ȱApartȱfromȱ that,ȱ heȱ servedȱ theȱ Churchȱ asȱ aȱ diplomatȱ andȱ wasȱ involvedȱ inȱ attemptsȱ toȱ reuniteȱ theȱ Westernȱ (Latin)ȱ andȱ Easternȱ (Greek)ȱ churches.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ facilitateȱ theȱ negotiationsȱ aboutȱ thisȱ atȬ temptȱ atȱ reunification,ȱ Nicholasȱ visitedȱ Constantinopleȱ sixteenȱ yearsȱbeforeȱ itȱ wasȱ conqueredȱ byȱ theȱOttomanȱ Sultanȱ Mehmetȱ IIȱinȱ1453.ȱItȱisȱquiteȱprobableȱthatȱNicholasȱgainedȱsomeȱknowlȬ edgeȱ ofȱ Islamȱ duringȱ hisȱ travels,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ Constantinopleȱ provokedȱ notȱ onlyȱ aȱ reactionȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ churchȱ politicsȱ butȱ alsoȱ aȱ theologicalȱ one.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ reaction,ȱ writtenȱonlyȱmonthsȱafterȱtheȱfall,ȱwasȱaȱferventȱpleaȱforȱpeaceȱ withȱrespectȱtoȱfaith:ȱDeȱPaceȱFidei.ȱ Nicholas’ȱFirstȱReaction:ȱDeȱPaceȱFideiȱ(1453)ȱ Writingȱ fourȱ monthsȱ afterȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ Constantinople,ȱ Nicholasȱ wasȱclearlyȱshakenȱbyȱtheȱdestructiveȱpotentialȱofȱfaith,ȱandȱinȱ hisȱ fictitiousȱ dialogueȱ betweenȱ representativesȱ ofȱ manyȱ reliȬ gionsȱandȱcultures,ȱheȱtriesȱtoȱseeȱifȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱagreeȱpeaceȬ fullyȱinȱoneȱfaithȱ(Hopkinsȱ1990:3).ȱHeȱintroducesȱhisȱfictionȱasȱ follows:ȱ

SIFTING THE QUR’AN

29ȱ

Thereȱ wasȱ aȱ certainȱ manȱ who,ȱ havingȱ formerlyȱ seenȱ theȱ sitesȱ inȱ theȱ regionsȱ ofȱ Constantinople,ȱ wasȱ inflamedȱ withȱ zealȱforȱGodȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱthoseȱdeedsȱthatȱwereȱreportedȱtoȱ haveȱbeenȱperpetratedȱatȱConstantinopleȱmostȱrecentlyȱandȱ mostȱ cruellyȱ byȱ theȱ Kingȱ ofȱ theȱ Turks.ȱ Consequently,ȱ withȱ manyȱgroaningsȱheȱbeseechedȱtheȱCreatorȱofȱall,ȱbecauseȱofȱ Hisȱ kindness,ȱ toȱ restrainȱ theȱ persecutionȱ thatȱ wasȱ ragingȱ moreȱfiercelyȱthanȱusualȱonȱaccountȱofȱtheȱdifferenceȱofȱriteȱ betweenȱtheȱ[two]ȱreligions.ȱ(PFȱ1.1;ȱHopkinsȱ33)1ȱ

Thisȱman,ȱinȱwhomȱweȱmightȱwellȱrecognizeȱCusanusȱhimself,ȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ convincedȱ thatȱ violenceȱ betweenȱ religionsȱ canȱ beȱ overcomeȱ ifȱ religiousȱ personsȱ realizeȱ thatȱ theirȱ religiousȱ ritesȱ areȱinȱfactȱvarietiesȱofȱoneȱbasicȱfaith:ȱunaȱreligioȱinȱrituumȱvarieȬ tate.ȱThisȱmayȱsoundȱlikeȱaȱmodernȱconceptȱofȱreligiousȱpluralȬ ityȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ Williamȱ Jamesȱ orȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smith,ȱ butȱ NicholasȱofȱCusaȱspeaksȱexplicitlyȱasȱaȱChristianȱtheologian.ȱHeȱ isȱawareȱofȱtheȱfactȱthatȱnoȱhumanȱbeingȱisȱableȱtoȱcomprehendȱ God’sȱinfiniteȱbeing,ȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱallȱhumanȱbeingsȱseekȱGodȱ inȱdifferentȱritesȱandȱcallȱhimȱbyȱdifferentȱnames.ȱSinceȱweȱareȱ humanȱ beings,ȱweȱ allȱ haveȱ ourȱ differentȱritesȱandȱ imagesȱ conȬ cerningȱ God.ȱ Butȱ underneathȱ theseȱ differences,ȱ thereȱ isȱ oneȱ faith,ȱandȱasȱsoonȱasȱweȱbecomeȱawareȱofȱthat,ȱweȱwillȱbeȱableȱ toȱliveȱinȱpeaceȱandȱharmony.ȱInȱtheȱimaginaryȱstoryȱofȱDeȱPaceȱ Fidei,ȱ theȱ Kingȱ ofȱ heavenȱ andȱ earthȱ receivesȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ mesȬ sengersȱwhoȱbringȱtheȱstoriesȱofȱreligiousȱstrifeȱandȱoppression.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ messengersȱ beseechesȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ Kingȱ asȱ follows:ȱ Aidȱ[us],ȱthen,ȱOȱYouȱwhoȱaloneȱareȱableȱto.ȱForȱthisȱstrifeȱ occursȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ You,ȱ whomȱ aloneȱ allȱ [men]ȱ worshipȱ inȱ everythingȱ theyȱ areȱ seenȱ toȱ adore….ȱ Butȱ You,ȱ Oȱ OmniȬ potentȱ God,ȱ whoȱ areȱ invisibleȱ toȱ everyȱ mind,ȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ manifestȱ Yourselfȱ asȱ visibleȱ toȱ whomȱ Youȱ willȱ –ȱ [manifestȱ Yourself]ȱinȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱYouȱcanȱbeȱapprehended.ȱ Therefore,ȱdoȱnotȱhideȱYourselfȱanyȱlonger,ȱOȱLord.ȱBeȱproȬ pitious,ȱ andȱ manifestȱ Yourȱ face;ȱ andȱ allȱ peoplesȱ willȱ beȱ ȱInȱquotingȱNicholasȱofȱCusa’sȱworks,ȱIȱreferȱtoȱbooksȱandȱchapȬ tersȱofȱtheȱLatinȱtextȱ(PFȱ=ȱDeȱPaceȱFidei;ȱCAȱ=ȱCribratioȱAlkorani)ȱandȱtoȱ theȱpageȱnumberȱinȱHopkins’ȱtranslationȱ(Hopkinsȱ1990).ȱȱ 1

30ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ saved,ȱwhoȱnoȱlongerȱwillȱbeȱableȱtoȱdesertȱtheȱSourceȱofȱlifeȱ andȱ itsȱ sweetness,ȱ onceȱ havingȱ foretastedȱ evenȱ aȱ littleȱ thereof.ȱ Forȱ noȱ oneȱ departsȱ fromȱ Youȱ exceptȱ becauseȱ heȱ isȱ ignorantȱ ofȱ You.ȱ Ifȱ Youȱ willȱ deignȱ toȱ doȱ theȱ foregoing,ȱ theȱ swordȱ willȱ cease,ȱ asȱ willȱ alsoȱ theȱ maliceȱ ofȱ hatredȱ andȱ allȱ evils;ȱandȱallȱ[men]ȱwillȱknowȱthatȱthereȱisȱonlyȱoneȱreligionȱ inȱtheȱvarietyȱofȱrites.ȱ(PFȱ1.5Ȭ6;ȱHopkinsȱ35)ȱ

ForȱNicholasȱofȱCusa,ȱtheȱawarenessȱthatȱweȱallȱapproachȱGodȱ inȱdifferentȱwaysȱdoesȱnotȱleadȱtoȱaȱformȱofȱrelativismȱbutȱtoȱaȱ pleaȱforȱGodȱtoȱcomeȱdownȱandȱmanifestȱGodself.ȱTheȱmessenȬ gerȱadds:ȱIfȱitȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱtoȱeliminateȱtheȱdifferencesȱinȱrites,ȱ letȱ thereȱ atȱ leastȱ beȱ oneȱ religionȱ andȱ oneȱ trueȱ worshipȱ ofȱ God.ȱ OneȱmayȱsurmiseȱthatȱthisȱoneȱreligionȱwillȱbeȱChristianity,ȱacȬ cordingȱ toȱ whichȱ Godȱ hasȱ manifestedȱ Himselfȱ fullyȱ inȱ Jesusȱ Christ,ȱbutȱinȱtheȱfictionȱofȱDeȱPaceȱFideiȱthisȱremainsȱonlyȱaȱposȬ sibilityȱ becauseȱallȱ attentionȱ isȱ focusedȱ onȱtheȱ differentȱ ritesȱinȱ whichȱtheȱoneȱGodȱisȱsought.ȱInȱthatȱsense,ȱweȱmayȱsayȱthatȱthisȱ firstȱreactionȱtoȱtheȱFallȱofȱConstantinopleȱisȱclearlyȱanȱappealȱtoȱ dialogueȱ andȱ peacefulȱ conversationȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ tryȱ toȱ findȱ whatȱ unitesȱ us,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ engageȱ inȱ strifeȱ andȱ warfareȱ inȱ whichȱweȱseekȱtoȱarticulateȱwhatȱdividesȱus.ȱ AndȱyetȱNicholasȱseemedȱtoȱrevertȱtoȱaȱmoreȱpolemicalȱtraȬ ditionȱaȱfewȱyearsȱlaterȱinȱhisȱCribratioȱAlkorani.ȱJasperȱHopkins,ȱ theȱ Englishȱ translatorȱ ofȱ bothȱ texts,ȱ statesȱ summarilyȱ thatȱ “Inȱ theȱformerȱworkȱCusa’sȱattitudeȱtowardȱIslamȱisȱfairlyȱamiable;ȱ inȱ theȱ latterȱ itȱ isȱ quiteȱ polemical”ȱ (Hopkinsȱ 1990:ȱ v).ȱ Soȱ whatȱ motivatedȱ himȱ toȱ writeȱ thisȱ secondȱ reactionȱ toȱ theȱ eventsȱ inȱ Constantinopleȱsevenȱyearsȱlater?ȱ Nicholas’ȱSecondȱReaction:ȱCribratioȱAlkoraniȱ(1460)ȱ Whenȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ finishedȱ hisȱ Cribratioȱ Alkoraniȱ inȱ 1461,ȱ heȱofferedȱtheȱbookȱtoȱPopeȱPiusȱIIȱwhoȱapparentlyȱwantedȱtoȱ prepareȱaȱletterȱtoȱSultanȱMehmetȱIIȱinȱorderȱtoȱconvinceȱhimȱofȱ theȱtruthȱofȱtheȱChristianȱfaith.ȱTheȱcardinalȱwroteȱtoȱtheȱpopeȱ offeringȱhisȱservicesȱinȱprovingȱthatȱtheȱsectȱofȱMuhammadȱwasȱ wrongȱ andȱ hadȱ toȱ beȱ eliminated.ȱ Atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ hisȱ work,ȱ heȱ insertsȱ lettersȱ toȱ theȱ sultanȱ andȱ theȱ caliphȱ ofȱ Baghdad,ȱ apparȬ entlyȱtoȱgiveȱtheȱpopeȱsomeȱbasicȱmaterialsȱreadyȱtoȱhandȱ(CAȱ prol.ȱ 1;ȱ Hagemannȱ 1986).ȱ Butȱ apartȱ fromȱ thisȱ motifȱ relatedȱ toȱ


31ȱ

churchȱpolitics,ȱCusaȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱdrivenȱbyȱaȱdesireȱtoȱ understandȱtheȱreligionȱand,ȱmoreȱparticularly,ȱtheȱlawȱbookȱofȱ theȱArabs.ȱInȱtheȱprologueȱtoȱhisȱwork,ȱheȱtellsȱusȱthatȱheȱwentȱ toȱgreatȱlengthsȱtoȱgetȱsufficientȱdocumentation.ȱHeȱobtainedȱaȱ copyȱ ofȱ theȱ Latinȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ thatȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerable,ȱ abbotȱ ofȱ Cluny,ȱ orderedȱ toȱ beȱ doneȱ byȱ Robertȱ ofȱ Ketton.ȱ Thisȱ particularȱ copyȱ ofȱ theȱ Lexȱ siveȱ Doctrinaȱ Mahumetiȱ hasȱbeenȱpreservedȱinȱhisȱpersonalȱlibrary,ȱandȱoneȱcanȱevenȱseeȱ howȱ Nicholasȱ glossedȱ thisȱ Latinȱ textȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ andȱ proȬ ducedȱ hisȱ famousȱ phraseȱ aboutȱ “oneȱ religion,ȱ manyȱ rites”ȱ inȱ thisȱ veryȱ contextȱ (Biechlerȱ 2004:ȱ 279).ȱ Whenȱ heȱ journeyedȱ toȱ Constantinople,ȱ heȱ triedȱ toȱ findȱ anȱ Arabicȱ versionȱ andȱ –ȱ alȬ thoughȱheȱcouldȱnotȱreadȱthatȱtextȱhimselfȱ–ȱheȱdiscussedȱsomeȱ ofȱitsȱtopicsȱwithȱaȱnumberȱofȱfriarsȱthere.ȱHeȱalsoȱreadȱsomeȱofȱ theȱ olderȱ refutationsȱ ofȱ Islamȱ byȱ theȱ friarsȱ Ricoldoȱ ofȱ MonteȬ croceȱandȱThomasȱAquinas.ȱAsȱheȱsaysȱinȱtheȱsameȱprologue,ȱinȱ theȱ endȱ heȱ decidedȱ toȱ writeȱhisȱ ownȱ book,ȱ tryingȱtoȱ proveȱ theȱ truthȱ ofȱ theȱ Gospelȱ fromȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an.ȱ Thisȱ clearlyȱ showsȱ thatȱ Nicholasȱ wantedȱ toȱ writeȱ inȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ apoloȬ getics:ȱaȱdefenseȱofȱone’sȱownȱreligionȱthatȱisȱoftenȱpairedȱwithȱ polemicalȱattacksȱonȱtheȱreligionȱofȱIslam.ȱItȱmightȱbeȱusefulȱtoȱ discussȱtheȱ mostȱ importantȱprotagonistsȱ ofȱ thisȱ apologeticȱ andȱ polemicalȱtraditionȱbeforeȱweȱseeȱhowȱNicholasȱofȱCusaȱcontinȬ uesȱthisȱtraditionȱ–ȱandȱhowȱheȱchangesȱitȱor,ȱrather,ȱjuxtaposesȱ aȱnewȱapproachȱthatȱtriesȱtoȱproveȱtheȱtruthȱofȱtheȱGospelȱwhileȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ givingȱ aȱ faithfulȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ ofȱ theȱQur’an.ȱ TheȱTheologicalȱContext:ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱRobertȱofȱKetton,ȱ andȱJohnȱofȱSegoviaȱonȱIslamȱ Inȱhisȱ historyȱ ofȱWesternȱapproachesȱ toȱ Islam,ȱ NormanȱDanielȱ makesȱ theȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱ thatȱ theȱ Christianȱ Westȱ hasȱ seldomȱ takenȱ theȱ troubleȱ toȱ getȱ toȱ knowȱ theȱ enemyȱ againstȱ whichȱ itȱ wagedȱ itsȱ polemics.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ someȱ exceptions,ȱ howȬ ever,ȱ andȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ isȱ certainlyȱ amongȱ them.ȱ Yetȱ gainȬ ingȱaȱbetterȱknowledgeȱofȱIslamȱusuallyȱservedȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱ apologeticsȱ andȱ polemics,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ itȱ is,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ ourȱ modernȱ standards,ȱ deeplyȱ ambiguous.ȱ Whenȱ Christiansȱ inȱ theȱ medievalȱ Westȱ triedȱ toȱ getȱ aȱ betterȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ thisȱwasȱmostlyȱdoneȱwithȱaȱviewȱtoȱconvertingȱMuslims.ȱPeterȱ


theȱ Venerable,ȱ abbotȱ ofȱ Cluny,ȱ commissionedȱ theȱ firstȱ Latinȱ translationȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱinȱ1142ȱafterȱhavingȱvisitedȱtheȱmonȬ asteriesȱofȱhisȱorderȱinȱSpainȱ(Hagemannȱ1999:ȱ30).ȱHeȱthoughtȱ itȱ necessaryȱ toȱ haveȱ aȱ betterȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ Islamȱ andȱitsȱsourcesȱtoȱcombatȱtheȱMuslimsȱnotȱbyȱtheȱswordȱbutȱbyȱ theȱword,ȱandȱthereforeȱheȱturnedȱtoȱaȱnumberȱofȱfamousȱtransȬ latorsȱinȱToledo,ȱamongȱwhomȱwasȱRobertȱofȱKettonȱwhoȱtransȬ latedȱtheȱQur’an.ȱThisȱtranslation,ȱknownȱasȱLexȱMahumetȱpseuȬ doprophete,ȱ wasȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ largerȱ collectionȱ ofȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ hisȬ toricalȱbooksȱthatȱspreadȱsomeȱknowledgeȱaboutȱtheȱArabicȱculȬ turalȱandȱreligiousȱbackgroundsȱofȱMuhammadȱandȱhisȱfollowȬ ersȱinȱtheȱWest.ȱTitlesȱsuchȱasȱTheȱFablesȱofȱtheȱSaracensȱindicateȱ thatȱ theȱ wholeȱ collectionȱ servedȱ aȱ polemicalȱ purpose,ȱ and,ȱ ifȱ thatȱwasȱnotȱenough,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱaddedȱhisȱownȱSumȬ maryȱofȱtheȱEntireȱHeresyȱofȱtheȱSaracensȱtoȱtheȱToledanȱcollectionȱ (Armourȱ2002:ȱ83).ȱ Becauseȱ ofȱ thisȱ polemicalȱ context,ȱ modernȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ notȱbeenȱmildȱinȱtheirȱciritqueȱofȱRobertȱofȱKetton’sȱtranslation,ȱ butȱitȱremainedȱtheȱforemostȱsourceȱofȱknowledgeȱaboutȱIslamȱ inȱcenturiesȱtoȱcomeȱ(Burmanȱ1998:ȱ705).ȱItȱwasȱalsoȱtheȱtextȱthatȱ NicholasȱofȱCusaȱhadȱinȱfrontȱofȱhimȱwhileȱwritingȱhisȱCribratioȱ Alkorani.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ anȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuȬ tics,ȱ thisȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ byȱ Robertȱ ofȱ Kettonȱ isȱ veryȱ interesting,ȱ sinceȱ Thomasȱ Burmanȱ hasȱ showedȱ thatȱ theȱ veryȱ characteristicsȱthatȱgaveȱRobertȱaȱbadȱreputationȱasȱaȱtranslatorȱ –ȱhisȱfreeȱparaphrases,ȱratherȱthanȱliteralȱtranslationsȱofȱtheȱArȬ abicȱ textȱ –ȱ showȱ hisȱ faithfulnessȱ toȱ theȱ Muslimȱ traditionȱ ofȱ Qur’anȱ interpretationȱ orȱ tafsÎr.ȱ Onȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ occasions,ȱ theȱ seeminglyȱ freeȱ interpretationȱ inȱ Ketton’sȱ translationȱ turnsȱ outȱ toȱ beȱ inspiredȱ byȱ Muslimȱ sources.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ confirmedȱ byȱ theȱ storyȱthatȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱaddedȱaȱMuslimȱtoȱhisȱtranslationȱ teamȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ familiarizeȱ Robertȱ ofȱ Kettonȱ withȱ theȱ Muslimȱ traditionȱ ofȱ interpretation.ȱ Asȱ Rollinȱ Armourȱ observes,ȱ itȱ isȱ amazingȱ thatȱ Peterȱ gotȱ aȱ Muslimȱ toȱ cooperateȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ traditionalȱ prohibitionȱ againstȱ translatingȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ (Armourȱ 2002:ȱ 82).ȱ Butȱ onceȱ again,ȱ itȱ showsȱ thatȱ someȱ elementsȱ ofȱ diaȬ logueȬorientedȱhermeneuticalȱstrategiesȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱpresentȱinȱaȱ successfulȱapologeticȱproject.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ prologueȱ toȱ theȱ Cribratioȱ Alkorani,ȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ mentionsȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ scholarsȱ withȱ whomȱ heȱ collaboratedȱ inȱ


33ȱ

hisȱownȱprojectȱofȱgettingȱtoȱknowȱtheȱQur’an.ȱTheȱmostȱimporȬ tantȱ wasȱ theȱ Franciscanȱ friarȱ Johnȱ ofȱ Segoviaȱ whomȱ Nicholasȱ metȱ duringȱ theȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Baselȱ inȱ 1432.ȱ Afterȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ ConȬ stantinople,ȱJohnȱandȱNicholasȱexchangedȱlettersȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ itȱ mightȱ beȱ betterȱ toȱ tryȱ toȱ meetȱ theȱ challengeȱ posedȱ byȱ theȱ “sectȱ ofȱ theȱ Sarracenes”ȱ throughȱ peacefulȱ meansȱ ratherȱthanȱwarȱ(Hagemannȱ1986:ȱx).ȱ So,ȱ thisȱ exchangeȱ mayȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ theȱ drivingȱ ideaȱ behindȱ Nicholas’ȱ bookȱ onȱ theȱ peaceȱ ofȱ faith.ȱ Inȱ theȱ prologueȱ toȱ theȱ Cribratioȱ Alkorani,ȱ Nicholasȱ tellsȱ usȱ thatȱ heȱ leftȱ hisȱ copyȱ ofȱ Robert’sȱtranslationȱwithȱJohnȱwhenȱheȱwentȱtoȱConstantinopleȱ whereȱheȱmetȱFranciscanȱfriarsȱwhoȱwereȱableȱtoȱtellȱhimȱaboutȱ theȱArabicȱoriginal.ȱApparently,ȱJohnȱfoundȱfaultȱwithȱRobert’sȱ translationȱ andȱ triedȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ betterȱ translation,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ beenȱlostȱ(Burmanȱ1998:ȱ705).ȱInȱtheȱmeantime,ȱNicholasȱaskedȱ Denisȱ vanȱLeeuwenȱ (orȱ Denisȱ vanȱ Rijkel),ȱ betterȱ knownȱ asȱ DiȬ onysiusȱtheȱCarthusian,ȱtoȱwriteȱaȱbookȱagainstȱIslamȱandȱsendȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ pope.ȱ Meanwhile,ȱ heȱ foundȱ aȱ bookȱ onȱ Islamȱ inȱ Romeȱ thatȱpleasedȱhimȱmoreȱthanȱallȱotherȱbooksȱonȱIslam,ȱincludingȱ thoseȱ writtenȱ byȱ Thomasȱ Aquinasȱ andȱ Juanȱ deȱ Torquemada.ȱ Nicholas’ȱ favoriteȱ bookȱ wasȱ Againstȱ theȱ Lawȱ ofȱ theȱ Saracensȱ byȱ Ricoldoȱ ofȱ Montecroceȱ (1243Ȭ1320).ȱ Togetherȱ withȱ theȱ Toledanȱ Collectionȱ andȱ Vanȱ Leeuwen’sȱ book,ȱ weȱ findȱ itȱ inȱ Nicholas’ȱ ownȱlibrary,ȱandȱindeedȱthisȱworkȱbyȱtheȱFlorentineȱDominicanȱ theologianȱisȱtheȱmainȱsourceȱforȱNicholas’ȱCribratioȱAlkorani.ȱInȱ aȱcomparisonȱofȱbothȱworks,ȱHopkinsȱremarksȱthatȱbothȱworksȱ shareȱtheȱsameȱpolemicalȱstrategy,ȱwhileȱthereȱisȱaȱdifferenceȱasȱ well:ȱ unlikeȱ Ricoldo,ȱ Nicholasȱ “alsoȱ accentuatesȱ theȱ pointȱ thatȱ God’sȱ gloryȱ andȱ theȱ Gospel’sȱ truthȱ areȱ manifestedȱ inȱ andȱ throughȱ theȱ Koran.ȱ Moreover,ȱ throughȱ piaȱ interpretatioȱ heȱ atȬ temptsȱtoȱputȱtheȱtheologicallyȱbestȱinterpretationȱuponȱvariousȱ primaȱfacieȱdiscreditableȱpassagesȱinȱtheȱKoran,ȱwhereasȱRicoldoȱ wasȱmoreȱlikelyȱtoȱremainȱatȱtheȱsurfaceȱlevelȱofȱinterpretation”ȱ (Hopkinsȱ1994:ȱ66).ȱThisȱquotationȱgivesȱusȱtheȱtwoȱcontrastingȱ hermeneuticalȱ strategiesȱ byȱ Cusanusȱ thatȱ weȱ willȱ nowȱ investiȬ gate.ȱ PolemicsȱasȱtheȱDefaultȱHermeneuticalȱStrategyȱ Afterȱ havingȱ mentionedȱ theseȱ otherȱ theologiansȱ andȱ theirȱ enȬ deavorsȱ toȱ approachȱ Islam,ȱ Nicholasȱ adds:ȱ “Butȱ Iȱ appliedȱ myȱ


mindȱ toȱ disclosing,ȱ evenȱ fromȱ theȱ Koran,ȱ thatȱ theȱ Gospelȱ isȱ true”ȱ(CAȱprol.ȱ4;ȱHopkinsȱ76).ȱTheȱwordsȱ“evenȱfromȱtheȱKorȬ an”ȱ (etiamȱ exȱ Alkorano)ȱ clearlyȱ displayȱ theȱ ambivalenceȱ inȱ hisȱ hermeneuticalȱ strategy.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ toȱ demonstrateȱtheȱtruthȱofȱtheȱGospelȱfromȱtheȱQur’an,ȱthenȱthisȱ bookȱmustȱcontainȱsomeȱtruth,ȱand,ȱsinceȱallȱtruthȱisȱfromȱGod,ȱ Godȱ mightȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ discloseȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ truthȱ throughȱ theȱ Qur’an.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱthisȱtruthȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱonlyȱamongȱ mendaciousȱ andȱ erroneousȱ statements;ȱ theȱ veryȱ titleȱ Cribratioȱ Alkoraniȱ (“Siftingȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an”)ȱ evokesȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ siftingȱ grainȱtoȱseparateȱtheȱwheatȱfromȱtheȱchaff.ȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ hasȱ noȱ hesitationȱ aboutȱ whereȱ theȱ realȱ goldȱisȱtoȱbeȱfound,ȱasȱheȱshowsȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱhisȱprologue:ȱ Butȱ Jesus,ȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ theȱ Virginȱ Maryȱ andȱ theȱ Christȱ whoȱ wasȱforetoldȱbyȱMosesȱandȱtheȱProphetsȱtoȱbeȱcoming,ȱdidȱ comeȱandȱdidȱrevealȱmostȱperfectlyȱ–ȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtestiȬ monyȱ evenȱ ofȱ Muhammadȱ –ȱ theȱ oftȬmentionedȱ way.…ȱ Hence,ȱifȱMuhammadȱinȱanyȱrespectȱdisagreesȱwithȱChrist,ȱ thenȱ itȱ followsȱ eitherȱ thatȱ heȱ doesȱ soȱ outȱ ofȱ ignorance,ȱ beȬ causeȱheȱdidȱnotȱknowȱChristȱandȱdidȱnotȱunderstandȱHim,ȱ orȱthatȱthereȱisȱperverseȱintent,ȱbecauseȱheȱdidȱnotȱintendȱtoȱ leadȱ menȱ toȱ thatȱ goalȬofȬrestȱ toȱ whichȱ Christȱ showedȱ theȱ wayȱbutȱratherȱsoughtȱhisȱownȱgloryȱunderȱtheȱguiseȱofȱthatȱ goal.ȱAȱcomparisonȱofȱtheȱlawȱofȱChristȱwithȱtheȱlawȱofȱMuȬ hammadȱ willȱ teachȱ [us]ȱ thatȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ [alternatives]ȱ mustȱ beȱ believedȱ toȱ beȱ true.ȱ Iȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ followingȱ mustȱ beȱ maintained:ȱ viz.ȱ thatȱ ignoranceȱ wasȱ theȱ causeȱ ofȱ [Muhammad’s]ȱ errorȱ andȱ malevolence.ȱ Forȱ noȱ oneȱ whoȱ isȱ acquaintedȱwithȱChristȱdisagreesȱwithȱHimȱorȱdetractsȱfromȱ Him.ȱ(CAȱprol.ȱ9;ȱHopkinsȱ78)ȱ

Again,ȱsomeȱambiguityȱshinesȱthroughȱhere:ȱeitherȱMuhammadȱ wasȱignorant,ȱandȱinȱthatȱcaseȱheȱisȱnoȱbetterȱorȱworseȱthanȱothȬ erȱ humanȱbeingsȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ knowȱ Christ,ȱorȱ elseȱ heȱwasȱmaȬ levolent,ȱ whichȱ matchesȱ theȱ oldȱ polemicalȱ traditionȱ thatȱ saysȱ thatȱ Muhammadȱ wasȱ aȱ pseudoȬprophetȱ andȱ hisȱ bookȱ aȱ fraud.ȱ Inȱtheȱfinalȱwordsȱofȱhisȱprologue,ȱCusanusȱtriesȱtoȱharmonizeȱ bothȱapproaches.ȱ Now,ȱ myȱ intentionȱ isȱ asȱ follows:ȱ havingȱ presupposedȱ theȱ GospelȱofȱChrist,ȱtoȱanalyzeȱtheȱbookȱofȱMuhammadȱandȱtoȱ


35ȱ

showȱ thatȱ evenȱ inȱ itȱ thereȱ areȱ containedȱ thoseȱ [teachings]ȱ throughȱ whichȱ theȱ Gospelȱ wouldȱ beȱ altogetherȱ confirmed,ȱ wereȱitȱinȱneedȱofȱconfirmation,ȱandȱthatȱwhereverȱ[theȱKorȬ an]ȱdisagreesȱ[withȱChrist],ȱthisȱ[disagreement]ȱhasȱresultedȱ fromȱ Muhammad’sȱ ignoranceȱ and,ȱ followingȱ [thereupon],ȱ fromȱhisȱperverseȱintent.ȱForȱwhereasȱChristȱsoughtȱnotȱHisȱ ownȱgloryȱbutȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGodȱtheȱFatherȱandȱtheȱsalvationȱ ofȱ men,ȱ Muhammadȱ soughtȱ notȱ theȱ gloryȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ theȱ salvationȱ ofȱ menȱ butȱ ratherȱ hisȱ ownȱ glory.ȱ (CAȱ prol.ȱ 10;ȱ Hopkinsȱ78Ȭ79)ȱ

TheȱimageȱofȱaȱpseudoȬprophetȱseekingȱhisȱownȱgloryȱisȱtradiȬ tionalȱinȱChristianȱpolemicsȱagainstȱMuhammad.ȱButȱinȱanȱadȬ ditionȱ toȱ theȱ prologue,ȱ Nicholasȱ tellsȱ aȱ storyȱ thatȱ seemsȱ toȱ exȬ culpateȱMuhammadȱwhileȱblamingȱsomeȱJewsȱforȱchangingȱtheȱ textȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ thisȱ story,ȱ derivedȱ fromȱ AlȬ Kindi’sȱ apologyȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ Toledanȱ Collection,ȱ MuhamȬ madȱwouldȱhaveȱmetȱSergius,ȱaȱNestorianȱmonkȱwhoȱconvertedȱ himȱ toȱ Christianity;ȱ thisȱ explainsȱ whyȱ certainȱ passagesȱ inȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ honorȱ Christȱ andȱ speakȱ aboutȱ Christiansȱ inȱ friendlyȱ words.ȱButȱcertainȱJewsȱsucceededȱinȱgainingȱinfluenceȱwithȱtheȱ followersȱofȱMuhammad,ȱandȱtheyȱinsertedȱlessȱfriendlyȱwordsȱ aboutȱ Christȱ andȱ Christianity,ȱ stressingȱ theȱ Jewishȱ formȱ ofȱ monotheismȱinstead.ȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ beginsȱ theȱ firstȱ bookȱ ofȱ “Siftingȱ theȱ Qur’an”ȱ byȱ discussingȱ itsȱ authorship;ȱ whileȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ itselfȱ contendsȱ thatȱ Godȱ isȱ itsȱ author,ȱ someȱ cleverȱ Arabsȱ admitȱ thatȱ thisȱmustȱbeȱtheȱworkȱofȱaȱhumanȱbeing,ȱinspiredȱbyȱtheȱangelȱ Gabriel.ȱAlongȱwithȱtheȱpolemicalȱtradition,ȱCusaȱagreesȱthatȱitȱ isȱtheȱworkȱofȱaȱman,ȱbutȱheȱcannotȱbeȱinspiredȱbyȱaȱtrueȱangel;ȱ rather,ȱthisȱmustȱbeȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱ“godȱofȱthisȱworld”ȱwhoȱisȱ noneȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ devilȱ (CAȱ I.1.23).ȱ Atȱ thisȱ point,ȱ Nicholasȱ clearlyȱ repeatsȱ theȱ oldȱ Christianȱ polemicalȱ traditionȱ inȱ whichȱ Muhammadȱ isȱ aȱ deceiverȱ andȱ anȱ instrumentȱ ofȱ theȱ devil.ȱ Thisȱ tradition,ȱ forȱ whichȱ Johnȱ ofȱ Damascusȱ hadȱ setȱ theȱ toneȱ inȱ theȱ eighthȱ centuryȱ (Danielȱ 1993:ȱ 13),ȱ measuresȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ byȱ theȱ normȱ ofȱ orthodoxȱ Christology:ȱ whereverȱ thisȱ bookȱ deniesȱ theȱ truthȱaboutȱtheȱSonȱofȱGod,ȱitȱhasȱtoȱhaveȱanȱantiȬdivineȱoriginȱ (DavidsȱandȱValkenbergȱ2005:ȱ78).ȱ Inȱ anȱ interestingȱ shiftȱ ofȱ perspectives,ȱ Nicholasȱ givesȱ theȱ floorȱtoȱtheȱMuslimsȱwhoȱsayȱthatȱtheirȱbookȱbasicallyȱconfirmsȱ


theȱmissionȱofȱearlierȱprophets.ȱTheyȱsayȱthatȱGodȱsentȱmessenȬ gersȱtoȱallȱnations,ȱconcludingȱthatȱ ifȱ theȱ varietyȱ ofȱ lawsȱ andȱ ofȱ ritesȱ isȱ foundȱ toȱ beȱ presentȱ inȱ theȱ identityȬofȬfaithȱ thatȱ isȱ exhortedȱ withinȱ theȱ variousȱ nationsȱbyȱtheȱmessengersȱofȱGod,ȱthenȱindeedȱthisȱ[kindȱofȱ diversity]ȱ cannotȱ atȱ allȱ preventȱ oneȱ whoȱ isȱ obedientȱ fromȱ obtainingȱaȱfittingȱrewardȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱtheȱmostȱgraciousȱ andȱmostȱjustȱJudge.ȱ(CAȱI.2.27;ȱHopkinsȱ88)ȱ

HereȱweȱhearȱtheȱfamousȱwordsȱaboutȱtheȱoneȱreligionȱinȱaȱvarȬ ietyȱ ofȱ ritesȱ asȱ aȱ Muslimȱ argument,ȱ and,ȱ indeed,ȱ thisȱ isȱ whereȱ Nicholasȱfoundȱit:ȱfidesȱuna,ȱritusȱdiversusȱheȱnotedȱinȱtheȱmarginȱ ofȱhisȱcopyȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱinȱtheȱToledanȱCollectionȱ(Hagemannȱ 1986:ȱ 223).ȱ Butȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ acceptȱ thisȱ argument,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ doesȱ notȱ speakȱ theȱ truthȱ concerningȱ Christ.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ commendsȱ theȱ truthȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ scripȬ turesȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱbutȱdeviatesȱfromȱtheseȱscripturesȱonȱtheȱ other,ȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ displaysȱ inconsistency,ȱ andȱ thatȱ cannotȱ beȱ ascribedȱtoȱGodȱ(CAȱI.4.32).ȱInȱCusanus’ȱreadingȱofȱtheȱQur’an,ȱ thisȱ bookȱ admitsȱ thatȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ versesȱ haveȱ uncertainȱ meanȬ ings,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱGospelȱisȱthereforeȱtoȱbeȱpreferred.ȱ PiaȱInterpretatioȱasȱaȱNewȱHermeneuticalȱStrategyȱ Nextȱ toȱ theȱ oldȱ polemicalȱ hermeneuticalȱ strategy,ȱ thereȱ areȱ considerableȱtracesȱofȱaȱmoreȱbenevolentȱstrategyȱinȱtheȱCribraȬ tioȱAlkorani.ȱThisȱstrategyȱisȱderivedȱmainlyȱfromȱtheȱbasicȱideaȱ thatȱtheȱQur’anȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱconfirmingȱtheȱGospel,ȱandȱthisȱ impliesȱ thatȱ theȱ argumentsȱ concerningȱ theȱ authorshipȱ ofȱ thisȱ bookȱbeginȱtoȱshift.ȱInȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱanȱargumentationȱthatȱonlyȱ theȱ devilȱ couldȱ haveȱ inspiredȱ Muhammadȱ toȱ writeȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ confuseȱ theȱ Christians,ȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ mentionsȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ Muhammadȱ couldȱ haveȱ readȱ aȱ certainȱ verȬ sionȱofȱtheȱGospel,ȱandȱthatȱheȱcouldȱhaveȱderivedȱsomeȱrayȱofȱ truthȱfromȱit.ȱSo,ȱessentially,ȱtheȱQur’anȱcannotȱbringȱanythingȱ newȱbutȱcanȱonlyȱendorseȱtheȱGospel.ȱ [I]fȱ anyȱ beautyȱ orȱ truthȱ orȱ clarityȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Koran,ȱ itȱ mustȱbeȱaȱrayȱofȱtheȱmostȱlucidȱGospel.…ȱTherefore,ȱinȱtheȱ Koranȱ theȱ splendorȱ ofȱ theȱ Gospelȱ shinesȱ forthȱ toȱ theȱ wise,ȱ i.e.ȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ ledȱ byȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ Christȱ –ȱ [shinesȱ forth]ȱ evenȱ beyondȱ theȱ intentȱ ofȱ theȱ [Koran’s]ȱ author.ȱ Butȱ


37ȱ

[theȱ Gospel’sȱ splendorȱ does]ȱ notȱ [shineȱ forth]ȱ toȱ lewdȱ MuȬ hammadȱandȱtoȱthoseȱantichristsȱwhoȱpreferȱtheȱpresentȱageȱ toȱtheȱfutureȱoneȱandȱwhoȱjudgeȱthatȱnothingȱisȱgoodȱunlessȱ itȱ isȱ conformedȱ toȱ thisȱ worldȱ andȱ toȱ theirȱ ownȱ lusts.ȱ Theyȱ thinkȱ thatȱ God,ȱ asȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ Koran,ȱ confirmsȱ theirȱ corruptȱdesires;ȱandȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱrecognizeȱthatȱwhateverȱinȱ theȱ Koranȱ contradictsȱ theȱ Gospelȱ isȱ notȱ true.ȱ (CAȱ I.6.40Ȭ41;ȱ Hopkinsȱ94Ȭ95)ȱ

Thisȱ passageȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ twoȱ waysȱ ofȱ readingȱ theȱ Qur’an:ȱthereȱisȱtheȱreadingȱofȱtheȱMuslimsȱthatȱhelpsȱthemȱinȱ theirȱworldlyȱdesires,ȱandȱthereȱisȱtheȱreadingȱofȱtheȱwiseȱperȬ sonsȱthatȱconfirmsȱtheȱtruthȱofȱtheȱGospel.ȱNicholas’ȱtheologicalȱ readingȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱbasedȱonȱsuchȱaȱreadingȱ“beȬ yondȱ theȱ intentionȱ ofȱ theȱ author,”ȱ obviouslyȱ notȱ Godȱ norȱ theȱ antiȬChrist,ȱbutȱMuhammad.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱphrasingȱpraeterȱinȬ tentionemȱ auctorisȱ couldȱ beȱ readȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ Godȱ mayȱ haveȱ usedȱtheȱQur’anȱtoȱconfirmȱtheȱChristiansȱinȱtheirȱreadingȱofȱtheȱ Gospel.ȱInȱaȱsimilarȱway,ȱNicholasȱsuggestsȱinȱDeȱPaceȱFideiȱthatȱ theȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱTrinityȱbyȱJewsȱandȱMuslimsȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱ leadingȱChristiansȱtoȱaȱbetterȱunderstandingȱofȱtheirȱownȱfaith.ȱ Thisȱleadsȱsomeȱmodernȱscholarsȱtoȱstateȱthatȱtheȱrealȱmeaningȱ ofȱ theȱ Trinityȱ escapesȱ mostȱ Christians,ȱ andȱ thatȱ itȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ foundȱ“inȱdialogueȱwithȱthisȱIslamicȱdenial”ȱ(Bockenȱ2005:ȱ178Ȭ 79).ȱ Althoughȱ Iȱ basicallyȱ agreeȱ withȱ thisȱ observation,ȱ Iȱ amȱ afraidȱ thatȱ weȱ areȱ sometimesȱ temptedȱ toȱ readȱ ourȱ modernȱ mindsetȱ intoȱ Cusanus’ȱ words;ȱ althoughȱ someȱ ofȱ hisȱ phrasesȱ mayȱ sometimesȱ soundȱ amazinglyȱ pluralisticȱ (likeȱ theȱ famousȱ phraseȱunaȱreligioȱinȱrituumȱvarietate),ȱonȱcloserȱobservationȱCuȬ sanusȱ isȱ atȱ mostȱ anȱ inclusivistȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȬdayȱ tyȬ pologyȱinȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligions.ȱYetȱheȱsometimesȱseemsȱtoȱ comeȱtoȱthisȱinclusivistȱpositionȱbyȱmeanderingȱbetweenȱwidelyȱ divergingȱ pointsȱ ofȱ view.ȱ Inȱ theȱ followingȱ statementȱ heȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ quiteȱ pluralistic,ȱ ifȱ oneȱ ignoresȱ whatȱ isȱ omittedȱ throughȱ theȱellipsis.ȱHereȱisȱtheȱtruncatedȱstatement:ȱ Butȱ supposeȱ weȱ admitȱ …ȱ thatȱ theȱ goalȱ andȱ intentȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ ofȱ theȱ Koranȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ notȱ toȱ detractȱ fromȱ Godȱ theȱ CreatorȱorȱfromȱChristȱorȱfromȱGod’sȱprophetsȱandȱenvoysȱ orȱfromȱtheȱdivineȱbooksȱofȱtheȱTestament,ȱtheȱPsalter,ȱandȱ theȱ Gospel,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ giveȱ gloryȱ toȱ Godȱ theȱ Creator,ȱ toȱ praiseȱ andȱ toȱ bearȱ witnessȱ toȱ Christȱ (theȱ sonȱ ofȱ theȱ Virginȱ

38ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Mary)ȱ aboveȱ allȱ theȱ prophets,ȱ andȱ toȱ confirmȱ andȱ toȱ apȬ proveȱ ofȱ theȱ Testamentȱ andȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱ [Ifȱ so,]ȱ thenȱ whenȱ oneȱ readsȱ theȱ Koranȱ withȱ thisȱ understanding,ȱ assuredlyȱ someȱfruitȱcanȱbeȱelicitedȱ[fromȱit].ȱ(CAȱI.7.44;ȱHopkinsȱ96)ȱ

ThisȱwouldȱbeȱaȱmodernȱdialogicalȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱQur’an,ȱinȱ lineȱwithȱtheȱstatementȱaboveȱthatȱwiseȱmenȱcanȱreadȱtheȱKoranȱ inȱaȱfruitfulȱway.ȱYetȱtheȱclauseȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱomittedȱchangesȱ theȱentireȱsentence:ȱ“Butȱsupposeȱweȱadmitȱ–ȱasȱtheȱfollowersȱofȱ theȱ Koranȱ claimȱ ([aȱ claim]ȱ whoseȱ denialȱ allȱ theȱ wiseȱ andȱ zealȬ ousȱbelieve,ȱasȱwasȱmadeȱevidentȱabove)ȱ–ȱthatȱtheȱgoalȱandȱinȬ tentȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱtheȱKoranȱ….”ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ betweenȱ bracketsȱ seemsȱ toȱ wipeȱ awayȱ allȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ suggestedȱ before.ȱ Thisȱ time,ȱ theȱ wiseȱ peopleȱ beȬ lieveȱ thatȱ theȱ positiveȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ denied.ȱ Andȱ yetȱ Cusanusȱ goesȱ onȱ asȱ ifȱ thisȱ objectionȱ hadȱ neverȱ beenȱ phrased,ȱbecauseȱ–ȱafterȱhavingȱmentionedȱsomeȱplacesȱwhereȱ theȱQur’anȱcontradictsȱtheȱGospel,ȱwhichȱmakesȱsuchȱaȱfruitfulȱ readingȱdifficultȱ–ȱheȱconcludes:ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ whenȱ allȱ theȱ foregoingȱ [objections]ȱ areȱ consideredȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱtheyȱ[areȱviewedȱas]ȱservingȱ theȱ previouslyȱ mentionedȱ intent,ȱ thenȱ someȱ fruitȱ canȱ beȱ elicitedȱ [fromȱ theȱ Koran].ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ whenȱ someoneȱ readsȱtheȱ[recordȱof]ȱMuhammad’sȱlifeȱthatȱisȱwrittenȱinȱtheȱ Koran,ȱ heȱ understandsȱ immediatelyȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ insertedȱ withȱGod’sȱ permissionȱinȱorderȱforȱthereȱtoȱbeȱknownȱthatȱ Muhammadȱisȱneitherȱtoȱbeȱcomparedȱto,ȱnorȱpreferredȱto,ȱ ChristȱorȱMosesȱorȱotherȱprophets.ȱ(CAȱI.7.44;ȱHopkinsȱ96)ȱ

Again,ȱtheȱresultȱofȱthisȱconclusionȱisȱhighlyȱambiguous.ȱOnȱtheȱ oneȱhand,ȱCusanusȱstatesȱthatȱaȱfruitfulȱreadingȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱisȱ possibleȱdespiteȱtheȱobjectionsȱraised,ȱandȱthisȱpossibilityȱrestsȱ onȱtheȱfactȱthatȱGodȱmightȱnotȱbeȱtheȱauthorȱofȱtheȱQur’an,ȱalȬ thoughȱ heȱ didȱ permitȱ someȱ usefulȱ materialsȱ toȱ beȱ insertedȱ inȱ thisȱbook.2ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱthisȱfruitfulȱreadingȱdoesȱnotȱleadȱ

ȱCumȱquisȱlegitȱvitamȱMahumeti,ȱquaeȱinȱAlkoranoȱscribiturȱ(HageȬ mannȱ1986:ȱ40)ȱmayȱreferȱnotȱtoȱtheȱQur’anȱitselfȱbutȱtoȱtheȱvolumeȱofȱ theȱCorpusȱToletanumȱthatȱNicholasȱhadȱinȱfrontȱofȱhimȱwhenȱwritingȱ theȱ Cribratioȱ Alkorani.ȱ Heȱ frequentlyȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ Liberȱ Generationisȱ 2


39ȱ

toȱ aȱ pluralisticȱ butȱ toȱ anȱ apologeticȱ conclusion:ȱ Muhammadȱ cannotȱbeȱcomparedȱtoȱChrist.ȱ Inȱotherȱplaces,ȱhowever,ȱNicholasȱusesȱtheȱcentralȱplaceȱofȱ ChristȱtoȱmakeȱaȱChristianȱreadingȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱpossible,ȱsinceȱ heȱ findsȱ someȱ placesȱ inȱ thisȱ bookȱ thatȱ seemȱ toȱ placeȱ Christȱ aboveȱ otherȱ prophets.ȱ Whereverȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ speaksȱ theȱ truthȱ aboutȱChrist,ȱGodȱmustȱbeȱitsȱauthor;ȱbutȱwhereȱitȱsoundsȱheretȬ ical,ȱMuhammadȱorȱtheȱdevilȱmayȱbeȱitsȱauthor.ȱChristologicalȱ truthȱ isȱ theȱ criterionȱ here,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ leadȱ toȱ aȱ somewhatȱinconsistentȱapproachȱtoȱauthorship.3ȱInȱsomeȱplaces,ȱ heȱevenȱacceptsȱtheȱ Qur’anicȱ critiqueȱasȱ anȱ occasionȱ forȱChrisȬ tiansȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ preciseȱ inȱ theirȱ language:ȱ theyȱ shouldȱ refrainȱ fromȱsayingȱ“ChristȱisȱGod”ȱifȱthisȱseemsȱtoȱimplyȱthatȱChristȱisȱ anotherȱgod.ȱRather,ȱtheyȱshouldȱspeakȱaboutȱChristȱasȱtheȱSonȱ ofȱ God,ȱ ofȱ oneȱ substanceȱ withȱ theȱ Father,ȱ soȱ thatȱ Heȱ isȱ “theȱ sameȱGodȱasȱtheȱFatherȱandȱnotȱanotherȱGod”ȱ(CAȱI.11.57;ȱHopȬ kinsȱ102).ȱHeȱalsoȱadmitsȱthatȱtheȱQur’anȱisȱrightȱinȱpreferringȱ toȱ talkȱ aboutȱ theȱ Wordȱ ofȱ Godȱ insteadȱ ofȱ theȱ Sonȱ ofȱ God,ȱ beȬ causeȱsomeȱofȱtheȱlessȱeducatedȱArabsȱmightȱunderstandȱ“Son”ȱ inȱ aȱ physicalȱ senseȱ insteadȱ ofȱ inȱ anȱ intellectualȱ sense.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ wantsȱtoȱconveyȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱintellectualȱgeneration,ȱtheȱconȬ ceptȱ “Word”ȱ isȱ betterȱ suitedȱ thanȱ theȱ conceptȱ “Son”ȱ (CAȱ I.13.ȱ 62).ȱEvenȱsurahȱ112,ȱwhichȱstatesȱclearlyȱ“AllahȱisȱtheȱOneȱandȱ Only,ȱtheȱEternal,ȱAbsolute,ȱHeȱbegettethȱnot,ȱnorȱisȱHeȱbegotȬ ten.ȱAndȱthereȱisȱnoneȱlikeȱuntoȱHim,”ȱisȱexplainedȱasȱnotȱconȬ tradictingȱtheȱGospel:ȱ Iȱreplyȱthatȱthisȱsurahȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱinȱsuchȱwayȱ thatȱthroughȱitȱ[theȱKoran]ȱintendsȱtoȱgiveȱgloryȱtoȱGodȱandȱ notȱtoȱtakeȱawayȱpraiseȱfromȱChrist.ȱHence,ȱsinceȱtheȱincorȬ Mahumetȱthatȱcontains,ȱamongȱothers,ȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱlifeȱofȱMuȬ hammad.ȱ ȱThisȱisȱnotȱthatȱdifferentȱfromȱtheȱChristologicalȱexegesisȱofȱtheȱ Psalmsȱ andȱ otherȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ whereȱ someȱ placesȱ areȱ saidȱ toȱ referȱ explicitlyȱ andȱ trulyȱ toȱ Christȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ quotedȱ inȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theyȱ mayȱ literallyȱ referȱ toȱ David.ȱ Inȱ ThomasȱAquinas,ȱforȱinstance,ȱthisȱleadsȱtoȱaȱsimilarȱinconsistencyȱasȱ toȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ theȱ Christologicalȱ exegesisȱ ofȱ theȱ Psalmsȱ (Schootȱ andȱValkenbergȱ2004).ȱ 3

40ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ porealȱ Godȱ andȱ Hisȱ deityȱ areȱ theȱ same,ȱ thenȱ ifȱ Godȱ (ofȱ whomȱtheȱsurahȱspeaks)ȱisȱunderstoodȱtoȱbeȱtheȱdeity,ȱ[theȱ surah]ȱdoesȱnotȱcontradictȱtheȱGospel.ȱForȱsinceȱtheȱdeityȱisȱ theȱdivineȱessence,ȱitȱneitherȱbegetsȱnorȱisȱbegottenȱnorȱdoesȱ itȱ haveȱ anotherȱ deityȱ equalȱ toȱ itself.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ Fatherȱ beȬ getsȱaȱsonȱwhoȱisȱofȱtheȱsameȱessence.ȱ(CAȱI.14.63;ȱHopkinsȱ 105Ȭ06)ȱ

Inȱ theȱ secondȱ bookȱ ofȱ theȱ Cribratioȱ Alkorani,ȱ Cusanusȱ broachesȱtheȱtopicȱofȱtheȱTrinity,ȱandȱitȱisȱhereȱthatȱheȱusesȱhisȱ famousȱ formulaȱ ofȱ piaȱ interpretatio.ȱ Thisȱ expressionȱ hasȱ beenȱ translatedȱ differently.ȱ Ludwigȱ Hagemannȱ quiteȱ rightlyȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ dialogicalȱ intentȱ behindȱ thisȱ notion,ȱ whichȱ heȱ tendsȱ toȱ translateȱ asȱ aȱ “favorable,ȱ charitableȱ orȱ liberalȱ interpretation”ȱ (Hagemannȱ 1999:ȱ 69:ȱ “eineȱ ...ȱ wohlwollende,ȱ gutmütigeȱ undȱ weitherzigeȱAuslegungȱ...”).ȱJasperȱHopkinsȱobjectsȱthatȱsuchȱaȱ translationȱ doesȱ notȱ doȱ justiceȱ toȱ theȱ theologicalȱ intentȱ ofȱ CuȬ sanus’ȱ interpretation,ȱ andȱ heȱ proposesȱ translatingȱ piaȱ interpreȬ tatioȱ asȱ “devoutȱ interpretation”ȱ (Hopkinsȱ 1994:ȱ 51Ȭ54).ȱ Whileȱ agreeingȱwithȱHopkins’ȱmainȱanalysis,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱparticularlyȱlikeȱ theȱ pietisticȱ resonancesȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “devout,”ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ Iȱ proposeȱ translatingȱ piaȱ interpretatioȱ asȱ “faithfulȱ interpretation,”ȱ consideringȱ thatȱ theȱ wordȱ piusȱ inȱ medievalȱ Latin,ȱ justȱ likeȱ theȱ Germanȱ frommȱ orȱ theȱ Dutchȱ vroomȱ hasȱ theȱ connotationȱ ofȱ “steadfastȱ inȱ faith”ȱ (Valkenbergȱ 2007:ȱ 58).ȱ Theȱ wordȱ “faithful”ȱ hasȱ theȱ advantageȱ thatȱ itȱ indicatesȱ theȱ dualȱ bindȱ ofȱ anyȱ interȬ religiousȱ hermeneutics:ȱ itȱ triesȱ toȱ beȱ faithfulȱ toȱ one’sȱ ownȱ traȬ ditionȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplaceȱbutȱalsoȱattemptsȱtoȱgiveȱwhatȱisȱatȱleastȱ aȱpossibleȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱothers’ȱreligiousȱtext.ȱ TheȱfirstȱtextȱinȱwhichȱCusanusȱmentionsȱhisȱfaithfulȱinterȬ pretationȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱintroducesȱtheȱsecondȱbookȱasȱfollows:ȱ Letȱ meȱ nowȱ turnȱ toȱ aȱ clarificationȱ ofȱ [theȱ doctrineȱ of]ȱ theȱ Trinityȱthatȱweȱrevereȱinȱtheȱdivinity.ȱAndȱletȱmeȱshowȱthatȱ onȱ aȱ devoutȱ interpretationȱ theȱ Koranȱ doesȱ notȱ contradictȱ [theȱ doctrineȱ of]ȱ theȱ Trinityȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ whoȱ adhereȱ toȱ theȱ Gospelȱ speakȱ ofȱ trinity.ȱ (CAȱ II.1.86;ȱ Hopkinsȱ 115)ȱ

Nicholasȱproceedsȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱasȱinȱtheȱfirstȱbook:ȱMuslimsȱ mightȱ thinkȱ thatȱ theyȱ confessȱ singularityȱ inȱ God,ȱ whereasȱ Christiansȱ confessȱ pluralityȱ inȱ God.ȱ Butȱ accordingȱ toȱ mysticalȱ


41ȱ

theologyȱ–ȱweȱmightȱagainȱthinkȱofȱCusanus’ȱownȱideaȱofȱdoctaȱ ignorantiaȱhereȱ–ȱthereȱcannotȱbeȱpluralityȱinȱGod,ȱsinceȱGodȱisȱ notȱ oneȱ orȱ threeȱ orȱ Fatherȱ orȱ Sonȱ orȱ Spiritȱ butȱ transcendsȱ allȱ theseȱnames.4ȱAgain,ȱtheȱQur’anicȱcritiqueȱmayȱhelpȱChristiansȱ toȱrememberȱthatȱGodȱtranscendsȱallȱnames.ȱ TheȱsecondȱtimeȱNicholasȱusesȱtheȱphraseȱpiaȱinterpretatioȱisȱ inȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱreasonsȱforȱtheȱQur’anȱtoȱdenyȱtheȱcruciȬ fixionȱofȱChrist.ȱPerhapsȱthisȱwasȱbecauseȱMuhammadȱthoughtȱ thatȱ itȱ wouldȱ detractȱ fromȱ theȱ honorȱ ofȱ Christȱ asȱ aȱ prophetȱ ofȱ God,ȱbutȱifȱthatȱisȱtheȱcase,ȱheȱdidȱnotȱunderstandȱtheȱmysteryȱ ofȱ theȱ cross.ȱ Aȱ faithfulȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ revealsȱ diȬ vineȱpedagogyȱhere:ȱ Therefore,ȱ itȱ isȱ certainȱ thatȱ ifȱ withoutȱ anȱ explicationȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ[ofȱChrist’sȱdeath]ȱtheȱKoranȱhadȱopenlyȱaffirmedȱ toȱtheȱArabsȱthatȱChristȱwasȱcrucified,ȱitȱwouldȱnotȱ[thereȬ by]ȱhaveȱbeenȱmagnifyingȱChristȱinȱtheirȱminds.ȱTherefore,ȱ [theȱ Koran,]ȱ onȱ aȱ devoutȱ interpretationȱ [thereof,]ȱ aimedȱ toȱ hideȱ fromȱ theȱ Arabsȱ [Christ’s]ȱ lowlyȱ deathȱ andȱ toȱ affirmȱ thatȱHeȱwasȱstillȱlivingȱandȱwouldȱcomeȱ[again].ȱNow,ȱ[theȱ Koran]ȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ teachȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ reȬ surrectionȱ fromȱ theȱ deadȱ throughȱ Hisȱ powerȱ toȱ layȱ downȱ Hisȱlifeȱandȱtoȱtakeȱitȱupȱagainȱ(asȱHeȱavowsȱinȱtheȱGospel)ȱ unlessȱ itȱ hadȱ showedȱ Christȱ toȱ beȱ notȱ onlyȱ aȱ manȱ butȱ alsoȱ Godȱ –ȱ [aȱ view]ȱ whichȱ itȱ supposedȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ oddsȱ withȱ [theȱ doctrineȱ of]ȱ God’sȱ oneness,ȱ whichȱ itȱ wasȱ preaching.ȱ Moreover,ȱ itȱ wasȱ notȱ consistentȱ withȱ theȱ Koran’sȱ faithȱ toȱ maintainȱ thatȱ Christȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ risenȱ fromȱ theȱ deadȱ –ȱ asȱ willȱbeȱexplainedȱinȱaȱmoment.ȱSoȱperhapsȱtheseȱareȱtheȱreaȬ sonsȱthatȱ[theȱKoran]ȱspokeȱinȱtheȱwayȱitȱdid.ȱNevertheless,ȱ [theȱ Koran]ȱ makesȱ theseȱ [statements]ȱ inȱ suchȱ wayȱ thatȱ theȱ

ȱCAȱII.1.88:ȱ“Tuncȱcerte,ȱcumȱexcedatȱomnemȱsensumȱetȱomnemȱ intellectumȱetȱomneȱnomenȱetȱomneȱnominabile,ȱnecȱdiciturȱunusȱnecȱ trinusȱnecȱbonusȱnecȱsapiensȱnecȱpaterȱnecȱfiliusȱnecȱspirtusȱsanctusȱetȱ itaȱ deȱ omnibus,ȱ quaeȱ diciȱ autȱ cogitariȱ possunt,ȱ utiȱ Dionysiusȱ AreoȬ pagitaȱhocȱastruit,ȱquoniamȱomniaȱtaliaȱnominaȱexcellitȱetȱanteceditȱinȱ infinitum.”ȱAȱveryȱsimilarȱphraseȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱDeȱdoctaȱignorantiaȱ I.26;ȱcf.ȱValkenbergȱ2007:ȱ59. 4

42ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ wiseȱ canȱ inferȱ thatȱ theȱ Gospelȱ isȱ altogetherȱ true,ȱ asȱ willȱ beȱ evident.ȱ(CAȱII.13.124;ȱHopkinsȱ132)ȱ

TheȱlastȱtopicȱbroachedȱinȱBookȱIIȱisȱtheȱQur’anicȱdoctrineȱ ofȱParadise,ȱagainȱaȱtraditionalȱtopicȱwhereȱChristianȱpolemicsȱ haveȱbeenȱdeployedȱabundantly,ȱsinceȱ–ȱasȱCusanusȱobservesȱ–ȱ theȱpromisesȱofȱParadiseȱinȱtheȱQur’anȱdivergeȱmarkedlyȱfromȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱ Again,ȱ Nicholasȱ usesȱ hisȱ hermeneuticalȱ ruleȱ ofȱ faithfulȱ interpretation,ȱ butȱ thisȱ timeȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ leadȱ toȱ underȬ standingȱ butȱ renewsȱ theȱ polemicalȱ tradition.ȱ Heȱ firstȱ givesȱ theȱ argumentȱ ofȱ divineȱ pedagogyȱ thatȱ weȱ haveȱ metȱ before:ȱ MuȬ hammadȱhadȱ toȱ describeȱParadiseȱ inȱtermsȱ ofȱ carnalȱ pleasuresȱ sinceȱ heȱ hadȱ toȱ addressȱ theȱ uncivilizedȱ Arabs.ȱ Butȱ thisȱ timeȱ Cusanusȱdoesȱnotȱbuyȱtheȱargument.ȱHeȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱpersonallyȱ disappointedȱ inȱ hisȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ onȱ thisȱ point,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱtheȱfaithfulȱinterpretationȱsuggestedȱbyȱMuslimȱreadȬ ersȱlikeȱIbnȱSinaȱdoesȱnotȱworkȱforȱhim:ȱ Whileȱ Iȱ wasȱ readingȱ theȱ Koran,ȱ Iȱ noticedȱ thatȱ veryȱ oftenȱ mentionȱisȱmadeȱofȱtheȱdayȱofȱawesomeȱjudgmentȱasȱwellȱasȱ ofȱ Paradiseȱ andȱ ofȱ Hell.ȱ Andȱ [thisȱ mentionȱ is]ȱ alwaysȱ [made]ȱinȱdifferentȱwaysȱandȱthroughȱlikenesses,ȱsinceȱthatȱ whichȱ hasȱ neverȱ enteredȱ intoȱ humanȱ conceptionȱ cannotȱ beȱ describedȱ otherwiseȱ thanȱ conjecturally,ȱ byȱ referenceȱ toȱ sensibleȱthings,ȱwhichȱareȱimagesȱofȱintelligibleȱthings.ȱAndȱ becauseȱ Iȱ likewiseȱ sawȱ thatȱ theȱ Kingdomȱ ofȱ Heavenȱ isȱ beȬ figuredȱinȱtheȱGospelȱandȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱbyȱmeansȱofȱ differentȱlikenesses,ȱIȱtoldȱmyselfȱthatȱthisȱ[befiguringȱinȱtheȱ Koran]ȱ couldȱ beȱ excusedȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ devoutȱ interȬ pretationȱ byȱ theȱ followersȱ ofȱ [that]ȱ Book.ȱ Moreover,ȱ Iȱ readȱ inȱ theȱ Koranȱ [theȱ following]:ȱ thatȱ chastityȱ isȱ praisedȱ inȱ theȱ Virginȱ Maryȱ andȱ inȱ Johnȱ [theȱ son]ȱ ofȱ Zechariasȱ and,ȱ genȬ erallyȱ speaking,ȱ inȱ allȱ individualsȱ ….ȱ Butȱ subsequentlyȱ Iȱ wasȱ takenȱ abackȱ byȱ [theȱ Koran’s]ȱ soȱ oftenȱ havingȱ madeȱ mentionȱofȱmaidensȱandȱtheirȱbreastsȱandȱofȱlustfulȱphysicalȱ copulationȱinȱParadise.…ȱAndȱIȱwasȱashamedȱtoȱreadȱtheseȱ vileȱthings.ȱAndȱIȱsaidȱtoȱmyself:ȱ“IfȱMuhammadȱascribesȱtoȱ Godȱthisȱbookȱfullȱofȱvileness,ȱorȱifȱheȱhimselfȱwroteȱ[it]ȱandȱ attributesȱitsȱauthorityȱtoȱGod,ȱthenȱIȱamȱamazedȱthatȱthoseȱ wiseȱ andȱ chasteȱ andȱ virtuousȱ Arabs,ȱ Moors,ȱ Egyptians,ȱ Persians,ȱAfricans,ȱandȱTurksȱwhoȱareȱsaidȱtoȱbeȱofȱtheȱlawȱ esteemȱ Muhammadȱ asȱ aȱ prophet.ȱ [For]ȱ hisȱ lifeȱ cannotȱ beȱ


43ȱ

emulatedȱ byȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ aspiresȱ untoȱ theȱ Kingdomȱ ofȱ Heaven,ȱwhereȱpeopleȱdoȱnotȱmarryȱbutȱareȱlikeȱtheȱangels,ȱ asȱChristȱhasȱtaught.ȱ(CAȱII.19.154Ȭ155;ȱHopkinsȱ147)ȱ

NicholasȱhereȱrendersȱoneȱofȱtheȱtraditionalȱthemesȱinȱChristianȱ polemicsȱ againstȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ butȱ heȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ reallyȱ shockedȱ byȱ theȱ vulgarismsȱ heȱ read.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ doesȱ thisȱ hardlyȱ showȱMuhammadȱinȱaȱfavorableȱlight,ȱbutȱitȱisȱaȱblasphemyȱtoȱ suggestȱ thatȱ Godȱ wouldȱ haveȱ givenȱ lawsȱ suchȱ asȱ these.ȱ Andȱ yet,ȱ inȱ theȱ finalȱ paragraphȱ ofȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Cusanusȱ onceȱ moreȱ comesȱ backȱ toȱ hisȱ ideaȱ ofȱ faithfulȱ interpretation,ȱ andȱ heȱ sugȬ gestsȱthatȱGodȱhasȱwilledȱtoȱhideȱtheȱtruthȱbeneathȱtheȱmireȱofȱ theȱcarnalȱimagesȱinȱtheȱQur’an.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ Godȱ Almightyȱ willedȱ thatȱ amidȱ allȱ theseȱ filȬ thyȱ andȱ vainȱ things,ȱ andȱ thingsȱ suchȱ asȱ areȱ abominableȱ toȱ theȱ wiseȱ evenȱ amongȱ theȱ Arabs,ȱ thereȱ alsoȱ beȱ insertedȱ thingsȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ splendorȱ ofȱ theȱ Gospelȱ wasȱ soȱ conȬ tainedȱasȱhiddenȱthatȱitȱwouldȱmanifestȱitselfȱtoȱtheȱwiseȱifȱitȱ wereȱsoughtȱforȱwithȱdiligentȱeffort.ȱ(CAȱII.19.158;ȱHopkinsȱ 149)ȱ

Twoȱthingsȱareȱnoteworthyȱhere.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱplace,ȱnotȱonlyȱ canȱ Christiansȱ apparentlyȱ giveȱ aȱ faithfulȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱbutȱwiseȱmenȱamongȱtheȱArabsȱ–ȱIbnȱSinaȱisȱprobablyȱ hisȱexampleȱ–ȱcanȱdoȱsoȱasȱwell.ȱInȱtheȱsecondȱplace,ȱbyȱnowȱitȱ isȱclearȱhowȱGodȱcanȱuseȱevenȱtheȱQur’anȱtoȱshowȱsomeȱhintsȱofȱ theȱ truthȱ forȱ peopleȱ whoȱ understand.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ thisȱ truthȱ isȱ fullyȱ revealedȱ onlyȱ byȱ Christ,ȱ butȱ apparentlyȱ Muslimsȱ canȱ beȱ guidedȱbyȱaȱfaithfulȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱasȱwell,ȱanȱinȬ terpretationȱ thatȱ Cusanusȱ hopesȱ willȱ leadȱ themȱ towardȱ recogȬ nizingȱChrist.ȱ BackȱtoȱtheȱDefaultȱModeȱofȱReligiousȱPolemicsȱ InȱtheȱthirdȱbookȱofȱhisȱCribratioȱAlkorani,ȱNicholasȱofȱCusaȱreȬ turnsȱtoȱtheȱpolemicalȱhermeneuticsȱinȱwhichȱMuhammadȱisȱanȱ imposterȱ whoȱ madeȱ upȱ theȱ bookȱ thatȱ heȱ ascribedȱ toȱ God.ȱ Itȱ isȱ immediatelyȱconnectedȱonceȱagainȱwithȱtheȱthemeȱofȱviolence:ȱ althoughȱGodȱcommandedȱhimȱnotȱtoȱuseȱviolenceȱ(“Letȱthereȱ beȱ noȱ compulsionȱ inȱ religion”ȱ [2:256]),ȱ Muhammadȱ usedȱ vioȬ lenceȱtoȱpersecuteȱChristians.ȱHereȱNicholasȱdirectlyȱaddressesȱ


Muhammadȱ inȱ aȱ desperateȱ questionȱ thatȱ suddenlyȱ evokesȱ theȱ fallȱofȱConstantinople:ȱ Howȱ isȱ itȱ thatȱ youȱ manifestȱ yourselfȱ toȱ beȱ otherȱ [thanȱ graciousȱ andȱ gentle]ȱ inȱ yourȱ deedsȱ andȱ thatȱ youȱ renderȱ falseȱ God’sȱ attestation?ȱ Whyȱ isȱ itȱ thatȱ youȱ makeȱ yourȱ Godȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ oddsȱ withȱ Himselfȱ asȱ oftenȱ asȱ youȱ haveȱ changedȱ yourȱmind?ȱ…ȱWhy,ȱinȱChristians,ȱdoȱyouȱopposeȱChristȱtoȱ suchȱ anȱ extentȱ thatȱ youȱ persecuteȱ thoseȱ whomȱ youȱ doȱ notȱ denyȱtoȱbeȱsavedȱthroughȱtheirȱownȱlaw?ȱThereȱwereȱChrisȬ tiansȱbeforeȱyou.ȱAndȱbyȱmeansȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱfaithfulȱ toȱ Christ,ȱ Christȱ occupiedȱ aȱ largeȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ worldȱ –ȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ steadfastȱ obedience,ȱ evenȱ untoȱ death,ȱ ofȱ anȱ infiniteȱ numberȱ ofȱ martyrsȱ forȱ God.ȱ Whyȱ doȱ yourȱ folȬ lowersȱ persecuteȱ Christȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ doȱ awayȱ withȱ Hisȱ acȬ quiredȱpeople?ȱButȱweȱareȱcomfortedȱbyȱtheȱGospelȱ(againstȱ whichȱ youȱ offendȱ subsequentlyȱ toȱ yourȱ veryȱ manyȱ exȬ pressionsȱ ofȱ approval),ȱ whereȱ Christȱ says:ȱ “Blessedȱ areȱ thoseȱ whoȱ sufferȱ persecutionȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ justice,ȱ forȱ theirsȱisȱtheȱKingdomȱofȱHeaven.”ȱ(CAȱIII.6.180Ȭ81;ȱHopkinsȱ 160)ȱ

Theȱmostȱpolemicalȱpassageȱfollowsȱinȱchapterȱeightȱwhereȱ Cusanusȱ reproachesȱ Muhammadȱ forȱ usingȱ religionȱ toȱ gainȱ powerȱbyȱtheȱsword.ȱHeȱdidȱnotȱreallyȱbelieveȱinȱtheȱlawȱthatȱheȱ saidȱtoȱhaveȱreceivedȱfromȱGod,ȱsinceȱheȱdidȱnotȱliveȱaccordingȱ toȱthisȱlawȱ(CAȱIII.8.184).ȱSo,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱbasisȱinȱtheȱQur’anȱforȱ religiousȱwarfareȱagainstȱtheȱChristians;ȱitȱisȱgreedȱandȱtheȱwillȱ toȱ dominateȱ thatȱ areȱ theȱ drivingȱ factorsȱ behindȱ theȱ siegeȱ ofȱ Constantinople.ȱ Nicholasȱ comesȱ backȱ toȱ hisȱ basicȱ theologicalȱ approachȱwhenȱheȱsaysȱthatȱitȱisȱignoranceȱofȱChristȱthatȱmakesȱ Muhammadȱdoȱthis,ȱandȱignoranceȱofȱtheȱtrueȱGospel.ȱ Ifȱ onlyȱ youȱ hadȱ knownȱ howȱ toȱ readȱ andȱ writeȱ andȱ hadȱ studiedȱ atȱ leastȱ theȱ shortȱ canonicalȱ epistleȱ ofȱ thatȱ mostȱ beȬ lovedȱdiscipleȱofȱChrist,ȱtheȱevangelistȱJohn,ȱthenȱsurelyȱyouȱ wouldȱhaveȱbeenȱfreeȱofȱlaboringȱonȱtheȱKoranȱandȱwouldȱ haveȱ foundȱ reposeȱ inȱ thatȱ [Johannine]ȱ lightȱ ofȱ truth.ȱ (CAȱ III.11.197;ȱHopkinsȱ168)ȱ

Nicholasȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ saysȱ thatȱ religiousȱ pluralityȱ isȱ willedȱbyȱGod,ȱsoȱheȱwondersȱwhyȱMuhammadȱandȱhisȱfollowȬ ersȱactȱdifferentlyȱfromȱwhatȱGodȱcommandedȱthemȱ(CAȱIII.16.ȱ


45ȱ

218).ȱInȱtheȱend,ȱheȱaddressesȱtheȱsultanȱofȱBabylonȱ(MehmetȱII)ȱ whoȱalsoȱdeniedȱhisȱChristianȱfaithȱinȱorderȱtoȱbecomeȱpowerȬ ful.ȱHeȱsummonsȱtheȱsultanȱtoȱrestoreȱtheȱhonorȱofȱChristȱandȱ hisȱMotherȱlikeȱsoȱmanyȱemperorsȱofȱConstantinopleȱbeforeȱhimȱ did.ȱHeȱclosesȱthisȱaddressȱtoȱtheȱsultanȱwithȱanȱargumentȱthatȱ callsȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ procedureȱ ofȱ faithfulȱ interpretationȱ toȱ mindȱforȱtheȱlastȱtime:ȱ Theȱtimeȱisȱtoȱcomeȱ(asȱwasȱstatedȱearlierȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱ Koran)ȱwhenȱthereȱwillȱbeȱonlyȱtheȱfaithȱofȱChrist.ȱBeginȱtoȱ drawȱnearȱ[toȱthisȱfaith]ȱandȱallȱtheȱprincesȱofȱtheȱearthȱandȱ ofȱ thatȱ [Muslim]ȱ sectȱ willȱ followȱ you.ȱ Thenȱ thereȱ willȱ beȱ said:ȱ“Behold,ȱGodȱpermittedȱevilȱthingsȱtoȱbeȱdoneȱinȱorderȱ thatȱgoodȱthingsȱmightȱresult.”.ȱTheȱfaithȱofȱtheȱGospelȱwasȱ despisedȱ everywhereȱ byȱ theȱ idolatrousȱ Orientals.ȱ Theȱ lawȱ ofȱtheȱArabsȱcameȱasȱsomeoneȱunwillingȱtoȱconsentȱuntoȱtheȱ faithȱ[ofȱtheȱGospel]ȱandȱitȱledȱtheȱArabsȱuntoȱtheȱworshipȱ ofȱoneȱGod;ȱnevertheless,ȱtheȱGospelȱwasȱsecretlyȱapprovedȱ [byȱ theȱ Koran].ȱ Andȱ nowȱ itȱ hasȱ pleasedȱ Godȱ thatȱ theȱ apȬ provedȱGospel,ȱcoveredȱoverȱinȱtheȱKoranȱbyȱmanyȱfoolishȱ things,ȱshouldȱcomeȱtoȱlight,ȱevenȱasȱitȱwasȱoftenȱapprovedȱ ofȱ inȱ [that]ȱ sameȱ book.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ previouslyȱ wereȱtheȱmostȱstronglyȱresistantȱwillȱbeȱledȱfromȱtheȱlawȱofȱ theȱArabsȱuntoȱtheȱGospelȱ–ȱ[led]ȱforȱtheȱgloryȱofȱtheȱGreatȱ God,ȱ theȱ Kingȱ ofȱ kings,ȱ theȱ Creatorȱ andȱ Lordȱ ofȱ theȱ uniȬ verse.ȱ(CAȱIII.17.223;ȱHopkinsȱ181)ȱ

Thisȱ finalȱ passageȱ explainsȱ whyȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ wantedȱ toȱ writeȱthisȱbookȱinȱthisȱcontext:ȱheȱhopedȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱuncoverȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ Gospelȱ fromȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ andȱ inȱ thisȱ wayȱ conȬ vinceȱ theȱ sultanȱ toȱ stopȱ theȱ warȱ againstȱ theȱ Christiansȱ andȱ toȱ seekȱtheȱpeaceȱofȱfaith.ȱ Conclusion:ȱIsȱCusanusȱaȱForefatherȱofȱComparativeȱTheology?ȱ ItȱwouldȱofȱcourseȱbeȱanȱanachronismȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱNicholasȱ ofȱCusaȱcouldȱbeȱaȱforefatherȱofȱmodernȱdialogicalȱapproaches.ȱ EvenȱthoughȱsomeȱofȱhisȱphrasesȱmayȱsoundȱsurprisinglyȱmodȬ ern,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ worldȱ ofȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ conditionsȱ andȱ theȱtheologicalȱpresuppositionsȱwithȱwhichȱheȱworkedȱandȱtheȱ modernȱsituation.ȱYetȱIȱthinkȱthatȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱseeȱaȱfaintȱpreȬ


figurationȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱproceduresȱadoptedȱbyȱ modernȱcomparativeȱtheologiansȱinȱtheȱCribratioȱAlkorani.ȱ Inȱhisȱarticleȱonȱ“theȱroleȱofȱPiaȱInterpretatioȱinȱNicholasȱofȱ Cusa’sȱHermeneuticalȱApproachȱtoȱtheȱKoran,”ȱJasperȱHopkinsȱ sumsȱ upȱ fiveȱ “exegeticalȱ rules”ȱ thatȱ areȱ appliedȱ inȱ thisȱ workȱ (Hopkinsȱ1994:ȱ45Ȭ50).ȱTheyȱcanȱbeȱsummarizedȱasȱfollows:ȱ 1. InterpretȱtheȱQur’anȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱitȱisȱcompatibleȱ withȱtheȱChristianȱScriptures;ȱ 2. TryȱtoȱinterpretȱtheȱQur’anȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱtoȱrenderȱitȱ selfȬconsistent;ȱ 3. Whereȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ contradictsȱ theȱ Gospel,ȱ lookȱ forȱ theȱ humanȱauthor’sȱ(Muhammad’s)ȱtrueȱintention;ȱ 4. Interpretȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ asȱ intendingȱ toȱ giveȱ gloryȱ toȱ Godȱ withoutȱdetractingȱfromȱChrist;ȱ 5. Wheneverȱ possible,ȱ workȱ withȱ theȱ interpretationsȱ thatȱ theȱwiseȱamongȱtheȱMuslimsȱassignȱtoȱtheȱQur’an.ȱ Theologicallyȱ speaking,ȱ theȱ fourthȱ ruleȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ one,ȱ sinceȱ itȱ opensȱ upȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ aȱ Christianȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱQur’anȱthatȱdoesȱjusticeȱtoȱtheȱmonotheismȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱreliȬ giousȱ traditionsȱ haveȱ inȱ commonȱ whileȱ notȱ jeopardizingȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ roleȱ ofȱ Christȱ asȱ God’sȱ revealingȱ Wordȱ forȱ ChrisȬ tians.ȱInȱtheȱmeantime,ȱtheȱfifthȱruleȱbetraysȱanȱawarenessȱthatȱ theȱQur’anȱisȱtheȱrevealingȱWordȱofȱGodȱforȱMuslims,ȱandȱthatȱ noȱ Christianȱ interpretationȱ thatȱ wantsȱ toȱ doȱ justiceȱ toȱ theȱ reliȬ giousȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱcanȱbypassȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱMuslimȱ interpretation.ȱ Theseȱ twoȱ principlesȱ togetherȱ formȱ theȱ basicȱ principlesȱ ofȱ aȱ Christianȱ theologicalȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ Cribratioȱ Alkorani,ȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ hasȱ hiddenȱ someȱ nugȬ getsȱ ofȱ thisȱ newȱ theologicalȱ approachȱ amongȱ theȱ abundantȱ reȬ mainsȱ ofȱ theȱ apologeticȱ approachȱ thatȱ heȱ couldȱ neverȱ entirelyȱ shakeȱoffȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱhisȱtime.ȱItȱisȱupȱtoȱus,ȱlivingȱaȱfewȱ centuriesȱ later,ȱ toȱ siftȱ theȱ insightsȱ thatȱ guideȱ usȱ toȱ aȱ futureȱ ofȱ betterȱunderstandingȱbetweenȱMuslimsȱandȱChristiansȱfromȱtheȱ quicksandȱthatȱhasȱbroughtȱusȱintoȱsuchȱaȱprotractedȱimpasse.ȱ Literatureȱ Ali,ȱAbdullahȱYusuf.ȱ(2006).ȱTheȱMeaningȱofȱtheȱHolyȱQur’¬n.ȱBeltsvilleȱ MD:ȱAmanaȱPublications.ȱ Armour,ȱ Rollin.ȱ (2002).ȱ Islam,ȱ Christianity,ȱ andȱ theȱ West.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱ OrbisȱBooks.ȱ


47ȱ

Biechler,ȱ James.ȱ (2004).ȱ “Interreligiousȱ Dialogue.”ȱ In:ȱ C.M.ȱ Bellitto,ȱ T.M.ȱ Izbicki,ȱ andȱ G.ȱ Christiansonȱ (eds.).ȱ Introducingȱ Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusa:ȱ Aȱ Guideȱ toȱ aȱ Renaissanceȱ Man.ȱ Mahwah/Newȱ York:ȱ Paulistȱ Press.ȱPp.ȱ270Ȭ296.ȱ Bocken,ȱ Inigo.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Nicholasȱ ofȱ Cusaȱ andȱ theȱ Pluralityȱ ofȱ Religions.”ȱ In:ȱ Barbaraȱ Roggemaȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.).ȱ Theȱ Threeȱ Rings:ȱ Textualȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Historicalȱ Trialogueȱ ofȱ Judaism,ȱ Christianityȱ andȱIslam.ȱLouvain:ȱPeeters.ȱPp.ȱ163Ȭ80.ȱ Burman,ȱThomasȱE.ȱ(1998).ȱ“TafsÎrȱandȱTranslation:ȱTraditionalȱArabicȱ Qur’¬nȱ Exegesisȱ andȱ theȱ Latinȱ Qur’¬nsȱ ofȱ Robertȱ ofȱ Kettonȱ andȱ MarkȱofȱToledo.”ȱSpeculumȱ73:ȱ703Ȭ32.ȱ Casarella,ȱ Peterȱ J.ȱ (ed.).ȱ (2006).ȱ Cusanus:ȱ Theȱ Legacyȱ ofȱ Learnedȱ IgnorȬ ance.ȱ Washingtonȱ D.C.:ȱ Theȱ Catholicȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Americaȱ Press.ȱ Daniel,ȱNorman.ȱ(1993).ȱIslamȱandȱtheȱWest:ȱTheȱMakingȱofȱanȱImage.ȱOxȬ ford:ȱOneworld.ȱOriginallyȱpublishedȱ1960ȱ(Edinburgh).ȱ Davids,ȱ Adelbert,ȱ andȱ Pimȱ Valkenberg.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Johnȱ ofȱ Damascus:ȱ TheȱHeresyȱofȱtheȱIshmaelites.”ȱIn:ȱBarbaraȱRoggemaȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.).ȱ Theȱ Threeȱ Rings:ȱ Textualȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Historicalȱ Trialogueȱ ofȱ JudaȬ ism,ȱChristianityȱandȱIslam.ȱLouvain:ȱPeeters.ȱPp.ȱ71Ȭ90.ȱ Goddard,ȱHugh.ȱ(1995).ȱChristiansȱandȱMuslims:ȱFromȱDoubleȱStandardsȱ toȱMutualȱUnderstanding.ȱLondon:ȱRoutledgeCurzon.ȱ Hagemann,ȱ Ludwig.ȱ (1999).ȱ Christentumȱ contraȱ Islam:ȱ Eineȱ Geschichteȱ gescheiterterȱBeziehungen.ȱDarmstadt:ȱPrimusȱVerlag.ȱ (1986).ȱNicolaiȱdeȱCusaȱCribratioȱAlkorani.ȱEdiditȱcommentariisqueȱ illustravitȱLudovicusȱHagemann.ȱNicolaiȱdeȱCusaȱOperaȱOmniaȱ VIII.ȱHamburg:ȱFelixȱMeiner.ȱ Hopkins,ȱJasper.ȱ(1990).ȱNicholasȱofȱCusa’sȱDeȱPaceȱFideiȱandȱCribratioȱ Alkorani:ȱ Translationȱ andȱ Analysis.ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ Theȱ Arthurȱ J.ȱ BanningȱPress.ȱ Hopkins,ȱJasper.ȱ(1994).ȱAȱMiscellanyȱonȱNicholasȱofȱCusa.ȱMinneapolis:ȱ TheȱArthurȱJ.ȱBanningȱPress.ȱ Schoot,ȱHenk,ȱandȱPimȱValkenberg.ȱ(2004).ȱ“ThomasȱAquinasȱandȱJuȬ daism.”ȱ In:ȱ Jimȱ Fodorȱ andȱ Frederickȱ Christianȱ Bauerschmidtȱ (eds.).ȱ Aquinasȱ inȱ Dialogue:ȱ Thomasȱ forȱ theȱ TwentyȬFirstȱ Century.ȱ Malden/Oxford:ȱBlackwellȱPublishing.ȱ Valkenberg,ȱPim.ȱ(2007).ȱ“NicholasȱofȱCusaȱandȱtheȱRelationȱbetweenȱ LearnedȱIgnoranceȱandȱaȱFaithfulȱChristianȱInterpretationȱofȱtheȱ Qur’¬n.”ȱIn:ȱHenkȱJ.M.ȱSchootȱ(ed.).ȱJaarboekȱ2006.ȱUtrecht:ȱThomȬ asȱInstituut.ȱPp.ȱ35Ȭ61.ȱ

48ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ (1998).ȱ “Howȱ toȱ Talkȱ toȱ Strangers:ȱ Aquinasȱ andȱ Interreligiousȱ DialogueȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.”ȱIn:ȱHenkȱJ.M.ȱSchootȱ(ed).ȱJaarboekȱ 1997.ȱUtrecht:ȱThomasȱInstituut.ȱPp.ȱ9Ȭ47.ȱ Valkenberg,ȱ W.G.B.M.,ȱ andȱ F.J.S.ȱ Wijsen.ȱ (eds.).ȱ (1997).ȱ Theȱ Polemicalȱ Dialogue:ȱResearchȱintoȱDialogue,ȱTruth,ȱandȱTruthfulness.ȱNijmegenȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Developmentȱ andȱ Culturalȱ Changeȱ 42.ȱ Saarbrücken:ȱ VerlagȱfürȱEntwicklungspolitik.ȱ

AnȱExpositionȱandȱDefenceȱ ofȱJayantaȱBhatta’sȱInclusivismȱ ȱ DavidȱSlakterȱ ȱ

ȱ

Introductionȱ InȱtheȱAgamadambaraȱ(MuchȱAdoȱAboutȱReligion),ȱJayantaȱBhattaȱ presentsȱ anȱ argumentȱ forȱ anȱ inclusivistȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ probȬ lemȱ ofȱ religiousȱ diversity.ȱ Althoughȱ hisȱ argumentsȱ areȱ restricȬ tedȱ toȱ aȱ considerationȱ ofȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ Hinduismȱ particularȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱtimeȱandȱplace,ȱJayanta’sȱsolutionȱtoȱtheȱproblemȱofȱreliȬ giousȱ diversityȱ hasȱ wideȬrangingȱ relevanceȱ andȱ someȱ applicȬ abilityȱ toȱ contemporaryȱ debatesȱ inȱ theȱ philosophyȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Possibleȱpluralistȱobjectionsȱtoȱinclusivismȱareȱconsidered,ȱsuchȱ asȱthoseȱgivenȱbyȱJohnȱHickȱinȱAnȱInterpretationȱofȱReligionȱandȱ elsewhere.ȱ Inȱ responseȱ toȱ theseȱ objections,ȱ thisȱ contributionȱ proposesȱthatȱaȱformȱofȱinclusivismȱlikeȱJayanta’sȱaddressesȱallȱ theȱ reasonsȱ oneȱ mightȱ haveȱ forȱ adoptingȱ aȱ pluralistȱ positionȱ and,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ doesȱ soȱ betterȱ thanȱ theȱ pluralistsȱ byȱ remainingȱ withinȱaȱliveȱreligiousȱtradition.ȱ Jayanta’sȱArgumentȱforȱInclusivismȱ Jayanta’sȱ firstȱ pointȱ inȱ Actȱ IVȱ isȱ toȱ establishȱ thatȱ theȱ Vedasȱ areȱ actuallyȱtheȱresultȱofȱdivineȱauthorshipȱratherȱthanȱtheȱmysticalȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ rishis,ȱ aȱ viewȱ thatȱ putsȱ himȱ squarelyȱ withinȱ theȱTantricȱcamp.ȱHeȱprovidesȱaȱnumberȱofȱargumentsȱthatȱtheȱ Vedasȱ mustȱ beȱ divinelyȱ authoredȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ counterargumentsȱ toȱobjections,ȱtheȱdetailsȱofȱwhichȱareȱnotȱsignificantȱhere.ȱWhatȱ isȱ significantȱ isȱ theȱ inclusivistȱ religiousȱ epistemologyȱ DhairyaȬ rashiȱ derivesȱ fromȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ sacredȱ textsȱ heȱ followsȱ areȱ theȱproductȱofȱdivineȱauthorship.ȱ Beforeȱ proceeding,ȱ Jayantaȱ dismissesȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ polytheismȱbecauseȱmanyȱgodsȱcouldȱnotȱallȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱinȬ tention.ȱIfȱtheyȱhadȱdifferentȱintentions,ȱtheȱintentionsȱofȱsomeȱ wouldȱ beȱ thwarted,ȱ andȱ itȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ properȱ toȱ callȱ allȱ ofȱ themȱ gods.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ ifȱ thereȱ wereȱ manyȱ gods,ȱ theȱ worldȱ


“wouldȱ notȱ lastȱ long,ȱ likeȱ aȱ misgovernedȱ kingdom”ȱ (Jayantaȱ 2005:ȱ223,ȱ225).1ȱThereȱmust,ȱinstead,ȱbeȱ“oneȱpureȬmindedȱperȬ sonȱwhoseȱintentionsȱareȱalwaysȱrealized”ȱ(225).ȱThisȱpersonȱisȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ theȱ Vedas,ȱ butȱ isȱ alsoȱ “theȱ oneȱ andȱ onlyȱ authorȱofȱallȱscriptures”ȱ(227).ȱ Thisȱclaimȱisȱdefendedȱagainstȱtheȱobjectionȱthatȱaȱ“mutualȱ contradiction”ȱamongȱsacredȱtextsȱexistsȱbyȱtheȱreplyȱthat,ȱevenȱ withinȱtheȱVedas,ȱallegedȱcontradictionsȱareȱobviatedȱbyȱdistingȬ uishingȱ amongȱ theȱ contextsȱ inȱ whichȱ individualȱ statementsȱ orȱ injunctionsȱoccurȱ(227).ȱTheȱsameȱdefenceȱcanȱbeȱgiven,ȱheȱsays,ȱ “regardingȱ theȱ propositionsȱ ofȱ otherȱ religions”ȱ (227).ȱ Thisȱ deȬ fenceȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ“WithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱhighestȱhuȬ manȱ goal,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ contradictionȱ amongȱ scriptures,ȱ sinceȱ allȱ teachȱtheȱ veryȱ sameȱ reward:ȱ deliverance”ȱ (229).ȱ Thisȱ seemsȱanȱ implausibleȱ defence,ȱ sinceȱ distinctȱ claimsȱ aboutȱ theȱ sameȱ subȬ jectȱmatterȱareȱoftenȱwhatȱidentifyȱtwoȱstatementsȱorȱdoctrinesȱ asȱ contradictory.ȱ Toȱ makeȱ hisȱ point,ȱ Jayantaȱ returnsȱ toȱ theȱ divineȱauthorshipȱofȱtheȱVedas.ȱTheseȱareȱauthoritativeȱbecauseȱ theyȱ areȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ divineȱ authorship,ȱ andȱ heȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ shownȱ thatȱ thereȱ canȱ beȱ onlyȱ oneȱ God.ȱ Beyondȱ this,ȱ peopleȱ inȱ hisȱtraditionȱacceptȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ ThoughȱHeȱisȱone,ȱinasmuchȱasȱheȱassumesȱvariousȱbodiesȱ fashionedȱbyȱHisȱwillȱandȱteachesȱallȱkindsȱofȱscripturesȱforȱ theȱ benefitȱ ofȱ allȱ beings,ȱ Heȱ bearsȱ thoseȱ diverseȱ namesȱ whichȱareȱcelebratedȱinȱallȱtheȱworlds.ȱ(231)ȱ

Itȱmayȱbeȱthatȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱotherȱagamasȱare,ȱifȱnotȱGodȱhimȬ self,ȱthenȱmenȱinspiredȱbyȱGod,ȱforȱ“anȱextraordinary,ȱeminentȱ manȱclearlyȱbearsȱtheȱLord’sȱluster”ȱ(231).ȱ UnlessȱoneȱhasȱreasonȱtoȱthinkȱthatȱoneȱofȱtheȱhumanȱsourȬ cesȱofȱaȱsacredȱtraditionȱwasȱmotivatedȱbyȱgreed,ȱdeceit,ȱorȱothȬ erȱ ulteriorȱ motives,ȱ itȱ shouldȱ beȱ assumedȱ thatȱ suchȱ aȱ personȱ wasȱeitherȱGodȱHimselfȱorȱactingȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱHisȱwishȬ es.ȱ Oneȱ mightȱ suggestȱ thatȱ anȱ agamaȱ thatȱ containsȱ immoralȱ teachingsȱshouldȱnotȱcountȱasȱauthoritative,ȱandȱthisȱcutsȱtoȱtheȱ heartȱofȱtheȱmatterȱthatȱconcernsȱJayanta.ȱForȱwithinȱtheȱextraȬ ȱAllȱnumbersȱinȱparenthesesȱbelowȱreferȱtoȱthisȱwork.ȱ

1

JAYANTAȱBHATTA’SȱINCLUSIVISMȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ51ȱ

Vedicȱ traditionsȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ inȱ mind,ȱ “peopleȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ praisedȱpiety,”ȱasȱwellȱasȱ“nonviolence,ȱsincerity,ȱcontentment,ȱ purity,ȱ selfȬcontrol,ȱ munificence,ȱ compassionȱ andȱ theȱ like”ȱ (237).ȱ Theȱ orthodoxȱ mightȱ replyȱ thatȱ followersȱ ofȱ theȱ extraȬ Vedicȱ agamasȱ wereȱ inȱ factȱ deluded,ȱ butȱ oneȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ incredulousȱ toȱthinkȱthatȱbeliefsȱthatȱhadȱtheirȱbasisȱinȱdelusionȱ couldȱ beȱ widespreadȱ andȱ accepted,ȱ evenȱ amongȱ theȱ wise,ȱ andȱ highlyȱ regardedȱ sinceȱ timeȱ immemorial:ȱ delusionȱ mightȱ makeȱ themȱ lastȱ forȱ aȱ fewȱ days,ȱ butȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ fantasticȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ suchȱ delusionȱ persistsȱ forȱ aeonsȱ (243).ȱ Whateverȱ defenceȱ theyȱ canȱgiveȱforȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱtheȱVedasȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱgivenȱofȱtheȱ agamasȱofȱotherȱtraditions.ȱ AsȱforȱtheȱobjectionȱthatȱJayanta’sȱaccountȱwouldȱallowȱanyȱ traditionȱtoȱclaimȱauthority,ȱheȱgivesȱthisȱreply:ȱ Providedȱ itȱ hasȱ aȱ widelyȱ acknowledged,ȱ unbrokenȱ tradiȬ tion,ȱ providedȱ theȱ Aryasȱ areȱ notȱ repulsedȱ byȱ associatingȱ withȱ itȱ orȱ discussingȱ it,ȱ providedȱ itsȱ acceptedȱ practiceȱ isȱ neitherȱ antisocialȱ norȱ dangerous,ȱ providedȱ itȱ hasȱ notȱ justȱ recentlyȱ sprungȱ intoȱ being,ȱ providedȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ ramblingsȱ ofȱ aȱ madman,ȱ norȱ onȱ somethingȱ outlandish,ȱ norȱsimplyȱonȱsomethingȱlikeȱgreed:ȱforȱsuchȱscripturesȱthisȱ methodȱofȱvalidationȱisȱapplicable,ȱbutȱitȱcannotȱbeȱusedȱforȱ justȱanyȱtext.ȱ(247)ȱ

Althoughȱsomeȱofȱtheseȱcriteriaȱareȱvague,ȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱonlyȱ groupsȱ explicitlyȱ eliminatedȱ fromȱ theȱ policyȱ byȱ theseȱ criteriaȱ areȱ theȱ “BlackȬBlankets”ȱ (anȱ antinomianȱ groupȱ soȱ namedȱ forȱ theȱclothingȱtheyȱwore,ȱandȱunderȱwhichȱtheyȱperformedȱpublicȱ sexȱ acts)ȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ theȱ negativeȱ criteriaȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ appliedȱ conservativelyȱ(143).ȱ Atȱ theȱ conclusionȱ ofȱ theȱ play,ȱ theȱ king’sȱ menȱ andȱ theȱ asȬ sembledȱ religiousȱ leadersȱ agreeȱ onȱ twoȱ principles.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ mustȱ takeȱ itȱ uponȱ themselvesȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱ eachȱ particularȱ traditionȱ doesȱ notȱ exceedȱ itsȱ scopeȱ andȱthatȱtheȱtraditionsȱdoȱnotȱbecomeȱintertwined.ȱTheȱsecondȱ principleȱ onȱ whichȱ theyȱ agreeȱ isȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ rightfulȱ dutyȱ ofȱ theȱ kingȱ toȱ secureȱ publicȱ moralityȱ andȱ prosecuteȱ thoseȱ whoȱ mouthȱreligiousȱplatitudesȱ“andȱthenȱoverthrowȱbothȱscriptureȱ andȱDharmaȱwithȱtheirȱwickedȱbehavior”ȱ(251).ȱ ȱ


HickȱandȱPluralismȱvs.ȱInclusivismȱ ToȱexamineȱtheȱcontemporaryȱrelevanceȱofȱJayanta’sȱinclusiveȬ ism,ȱIȱhaveȱchosenȱtoȱcontrastȱhisȱpositionȱwithȱtheȱpluralismȱofȱ Johnȱ Hick.ȱ “Inclusivism”ȱ isȱ takenȱ hereȱ toȱ meanȱ thatȱ theȱ viewȱ thatȱ one’sȱ ownȱ particularȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ isȱ correctȱ andȱ anyȱ approximationȱtoȱtheȱtruthȱorȱsalvificȱefficacyȱfoundȱinȱanotherȱ traditionȱ isȱ becauseȱ itȱ bearsȱ someȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ sacredȱ orȱ diȬ vineȱinȱone’sȱownȱtradition.ȱ“Pluralism,”ȱorȱHick’sȱversionȱofȱit,ȱ isȱtheȱviewȱthatȱthereȱisȱsomeȱ“ultimateȱreality”ȱthatȱisȱbeyondȱ humanȱconceptionȱbutȱisȱexperiencedȱacrossȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱ andȱ servesȱ asȱ theirȱ causalȱ sourceȱ (Hickȱ 2004b:ȱ xix).ȱ Hickȱ charȬ acterisesȱreligiousȱinclusivismȱasȱeitherȱimperialistȱorȱasȱ“aȱplurȬ alityȱ ofȱ mutuallyȱ inclusiveȱ inclusivisms”ȱ (Hickȱ 1995:ȱ 23).ȱ Hickȱ suggestsȱ that,ȱ whenȱ pressed,ȱ inclusivismȱ collapsesȱ intoȱ plurȬ alism.ȱ JayantaȱwouldȱagreeȱwithȱHickȱwhenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱmatȬ terȱofȱwhatȱtheȱlatterȱcallsȱ“criticalȱtrust”ȱ(Hickȱ2004b:ȱxxv).ȱCritȬ icalȱtrustȱisȱwhenȱ“weȱapplyȱtoȱreligiousȱexperienceȱwithinȱtheȱ otherȱgreatȱworldȱfaithsȱtheȱsameȱprincipleȱthatȱweȱapplyȱtoȱourȱ own”ȱ(Hickȱ2004b:ȱxxv).ȱJayantaȱwould,ȱhowever,ȱdisagreeȱwithȱ Hick’sȱclaimȱthat,ȱwhenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱreligiousȱexperienceȱinȱotherȱ traditions,ȱifȱweȱdoȱnotȱacceptȱtheȱpluralistȱhypothesis,ȱ [w]eȱ shouldȱ haveȱ eitherȱ toȱ regardȱ allȱ theȱ reportedȱ experiȬ encesȱ asȱ illusoryȱ orȱ elseȱ returnȱ toȱ theȱ confessionalȱ positionȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ affirmȱ theȱ authenticityȱ ofȱ ourȱ ownȱ streamȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ whilstȱ dismissingȱ asȱ illusoryȱ thoseȱ occurringȱwithinȱotherȱtraditions.ȱ(Hickȱ2004a:ȱ249)ȱ

AsȱJayanta’sȱpositionȱinȱtheȱAgamadambaraȱshows,ȱthisȱisȱaȱfalseȱ dilemma.ȱItȱisȱclearlyȱpossibleȱtoȱrecogniseȱthatȱthereȱisȱasȱmuchȱ evidenceȱforȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱanotherȱtraditionȱasȱforȱone’sȱownȱ whileȱstillȱrationallyȱconfirmingȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱone’sȱownȱtraȬ dition.ȱThisȱdoesȱnotȱinȱanyȱwayȱentailȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱtheȱ religiousȱexperiencesȱadherentsȱofȱotherȱtraditionsȱhaveȱareȱilluȬ sory.ȱ Oneȱ mayȱ evenȱ sayȱ thatȱ suchȱ differingȱ experiencesȱ areȱ inȱ someȱwayȱdeficientȱorȱmisinterpreted,ȱbutȱthisȱisȱsimplyȱanotherȱ wayȱofȱsayingȱthatȱone’sȱownȱpositionȱisȱrightȱandȱanother’sȱisȱ not.ȱ Hickȱ furtherȱ claimsȱ that,ȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ experiencingȱ andȱinterpretingȱone’sȱreligiousȱsituation,ȱone’sȱapproachȱisȱeiȬ


therȱ appropriateȱ orȱ inappropriate,ȱ andȱ “[i]fȱ inappropriate,ȱ weȱ areȱ beingȱ profoundlyȱ deluded”ȱ (Hickȱ 2004a:ȱ 210).ȱ Onceȱ again,ȱ Jayantaȱ hasȱ anȱ appropriateȱ responseȱ toȱ thisȱ whenȱ heȱ saysȱ thatȱ “differingȱsalvificȱpathsȱareȱtaught,ȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱintellectȱofȱ theȱ beingsȱ toȱ beȱ favored”ȱ (Jayantaȱ 2005:ȱ 229).ȱ Jayantaȱ isȱ hereȱ claimingȱ thatȱ aȱ person’sȱ particularȱ culturalȱ circumstancesȱ doȱ notȱ impedeȱ Godȱ fromȱ leadingȱ thatȱ personȱ toȱ salvation.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ canȱlegitimatelyȱclaimȱthis,ȱHick’sȱargumentȱfromȱreligiousȱexȬ perienceȱ losesȱ muchȱ ofȱ itsȱ appeal,ȱ andȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ reasonȱ toȱ claimȱthatȱanotherȱtraditionȱthatȱmeetsȱsomeȱminimumȱcriteriaȱ ofȱacceptabilityȱisȱinappropriate.ȱ Hickȱsaysȱthat,ȱbecauseȱone’sȱownȱreligiousȱviewsȱareȱculȬ turallyȱ relative,ȱ “theȱ Realȱ anȱ sichȱ isȱ postulatedȱ byȱ usȱ asȱ aȱ preȬ suppositionȱ ...ȱ ofȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ andȱ theȱ religiousȱ life”ȱ (Hickȱ 2004a:ȱ 243;ȱ cf.ȱ alsoȱ Hickȱ 1995:ȱ 67Ȭ68).ȱ Theȱ problemȱ withȱ Hick’sȱargumentȱisȱthatȱitȱreliesȱtooȱheavilyȱonȱreligiousȱexperiȬ ence.ȱTheȱnotionȱofȱ criticalȱ realismȱisȱhardlyȱ aȱnewȱ realisation;ȱ presumably,ȱ somethingȱ likeȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ whatȱ motivatesȱ anyȱ philosophicallyȱinclinedȱtradition.ȱTheȱrealisationȱthatȱanyȱindiȬ vidual’sȱinterpretationȱofȱhisȱexperienceȱisȱatȱleastȱinfluencedȱbyȱ hisȱ traditionȱ saysȱ nothingȱ aboutȱ theȱ authorityȱ orȱ accuracyȱ ofȱ thatȱtradition.ȱ ReasonȱandȱTraditionȱ Theȱ failureȱ toȱ accountȱ forȱ meansȱ ofȱ knowingȱ withinȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ otherȱ thanȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ leadsȱ Hickȱ toȱ overȬ lookȱotherȱplausibleȱresponsesȱtoȱtheȱproblemȱofȱreligiousȱdiverȬ sity.ȱLikeȱHick,ȱJayantaȱrecognisesȱthatȱthereȱmustȱbeȱmoralȱcriȬ teriaȱforȱdelineatingȱwhichȱtraditionsȱareȱsociallyȱacceptableȱandȱ whichȱ areȱ not.ȱ Theȱ primaryȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ isȱ thatȱ Jayantaȱ thinksȱ theȱ moralȱ criteriaȱ shouldȱ beȱ basedȱ onȱ varȬ nashramaȬdharmaȱ whileȱ Hickȱ believesȱ theyȱ shouldȱ beȱ basedȱ onȱ modernȱliberalȱideology.ȱWhenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱmeansȱofȱknowing,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ latterȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ justȱ asȱ muchȱ aȱ productȱ ofȱ traditionȱasȱtheȱformer.ȱInȱfact,ȱpoliticalȱphilosophersȱandȱothersȱ oftenȱspeakȱofȱ“theȱliberalȱtradition.”ȱTheȱrealisationȱthatȱone’sȱ beliefsȱareȱtheȱproductȱofȱone’sȱtraditionȱisȱnotȱsufficientȱreasonȱ enoughȱtoȱsurrenderȱthoseȱbeliefs.ȱBeforeȱHickȱcanȱdismissȱtheȱ authorityȱ ofȱ individualȱ traditionsȱ andȱ theirȱ greatȱ persons,ȱ andȱ thusȱshowȱthatȱthoseȱwhoȱfollowȱthemȱareȱwrongȱtoȱtakeȱtheirȱ


traditionȱ toȱ beȱ superiorȱ toȱ othersȱ inȱ someȱ way,ȱ heȱ mustȱ firstȱ showȱthemȱtoȱbeȱwrong.ȱ Hickȱ respondsȱ toȱ thisȱ problemȱ byȱ promotingȱ aȱ radicallyȱ liberalȱ theologyȱ inȱ eachȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ religions,ȱ generallyȱ disȬ missingȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ traditionȱ inȱ theȱ epistemologyȱ ofȱ each.ȱTradition,ȱinȱhisȱview,ȱisȱsimplyȱanotherȱmeansȱbyȱwhichȱ weȱmayȱcomeȱtoȱtheȱrealisationȱofȱtheȱReal.ȱHeȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱ interpretationȱ thatȱ heȱ offersȱ ofȱ eachȱ tradition,ȱ whereȱ itȱ isȱ difȬ ferentȱfromȱhowȱtheȱtraditionȱviewsȱitself,ȱ“isȱaȱvirtueȱandȱnotȱaȱ vice”ȱ (Hickȱ 1995:ȱ 45).ȱ Hickȱ has,ȱ inȱ effect,ȱ createdȱ hisȱ ownȱ reliȬ gion.ȱ Theȱ genesisȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ religionȱ seemsȱ inevitableȱ whenȱ heȱ saysȱ thatȱ heȱ intendsȱ toȱ giveȱ aȱ “religiousȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ reliȬ gion”ȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱcomeȱdownȱinȱfavourȱofȱanyȱparticularȱreliȬ gionȱ (Hickȱ 2004a:ȱ 1).ȱ Hickȱ claimsȱ thatȱ allȱ religionȱ isȱ “theȱ reȬ sponseȱ toȱ aȱ transcendentȱ reality,”ȱ but,ȱ byȱ drainingȱ thatȱ realityȱ ofȱ mostȱ ofȱ itsȱ content,ȱ heȱ hasȱ postulatedȱ aȱ religiousȱ entityȱ inȱ whichȱveryȱfewȱpeopleȱbelieveȱ(Hickȱ2004a:ȱ2).ȱ Compareȱ thisȱ approachȱ toȱ Jayanta’s,ȱ whichȱ successfullyȱ situatesȱitselfȱwithinȱaȱparticularȱtraditionȱwhileȱaddressingȱallȱ ofȱtheȱsignificantȱepistemic,ȱsalvific,ȱandȱmoralȱconcernsȱdrivingȱ Hickȱ towardsȱ theȱ pluralistȱ hypothesis.ȱ Hickȱ mightȱ haveȱ goodȱ reasonȱtoȱobjectȱtoȱsomeȱofȱJayanta’sȱreligiousȱbeliefs,ȱbutȱwouldȱ Hick’sȱ oppositionȱ toȱ evilsȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ casteȱ systemȱ notȱ haveȱ someȱbasisȱinȱtheȱmodernȱliberalȱtradition?ȱThisȱisȱnotȱtoȱshowȱ thatȱ Hickȱ isȱ wrongȱ inȱ beingȱ criticalȱ ofȱ socialȱ injusticesȱ perpeȬ tratedȱwithȱreligiousȱsanction,ȱbutȱtheȱcondemnationȱofȱsuchȱinȬ justiceȱoftenȱhasȱitsȱownȱbasisȱinȱaȱparticularȱtradition.ȱAsȱwithȱ theȱscepticalȱschools,ȱHick’sȱapproachȱcallsȱintoȱquestionȱeveryȱ traditionȱbutȱhisȱown.ȱJayanta’sȱapproachȱhasȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱreȬ cognisingȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ traditionȱ whileȱ alsoȱ allowingȱ aȱ spaceȱinȱwhichȱtheȱclaimsȱofȱanyȱparticularȱtraditionȱcanȱbeȱsubȬ jectedȱtoȱpublicȱscrutiny.ȱ IȱtakeȱHick’sȱpluralismȱorȱsomethingȱlikeȱitȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmostȱ plausibleȱ rivalȱ toȱ Jayanta’sȱ position,ȱ soȱ itȱ isȱ worthwhileȱ toȱ critiqueȱtheȱformer.ȱJayantaȱhimselfȱseemsȱmoreȱconcernedȱwithȱ eitherȱrefutingȱtheȱexclusivistsȱwithinȱhisȱownȱtraditionȱorȱelseȱ theȱ adherentsȱ ofȱ otherȱ traditions.ȱ Iȱ takeȱ it,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ hisȱ positionȱ isȱ alsoȱ thatȱ theȱ promotionȱ ofȱ Hick’sȱ pluralism,ȱ givenȱ theȱdutyȱofȱtheȱfollowersȱofȱeachȱtraditionȱtoȱpreserveȱtheirȱownȱ tradition’sȱ teachings,ȱ wouldȱ beȱ somethingȱ thatȱ shouldȱ beȱ preȬ


ventedȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ externalȱ toȱ theȱ traditionȱ inȱ question,ȱ thoughȱ perhapsȱnotȱlegallyȱproscribed.ȱIȱhaveȱnotȱfocusedȱasȱmuchȱonȱ Jayanta’sȱargumentsȱagainstȱtheȱexclusivistsȱwithinȱhisȱownȱtraȬ dition,ȱ asȱ Iȱ takeȱ theseȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ successfulȱ andȱ expectȱ thatȱsimilarȱapproachesȱareȱalsoȱviableȱwithinȱmanyȱotherȱtradiȬ tions.ȱ Literatureȱ Hick,ȱJohn.ȱ(2004a).ȱAnȱInterpretationȱofȱReligion:ȱHumanȱResponsesȱtoȱtheȱ Transcendent.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱLondon:ȱYaleȱUP.ȱ (2004b).ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ theȱ Secondȱ Edition.ȱ Anȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ Religion:ȱ Humanȱ Responsesȱ toȱ theȱ Transcendent.ȱ 2ndȱ ed.ȱ London:ȱ YaleȱUniversityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱxviiȬxlii.ȱ (1995).ȱ Theȱ Rainbowȱ ofȱ Faiths:ȱ Criticalȱ Dialoguesȱ onȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism.ȱChatham:ȱSCM.ȱ JayantaȱBhatta.ȱ(2005).ȱMuchȱAdoȱAboutȱReligion.ȱTransl.ȱCsabaȱDezsæ.ȱ BuryȱStȱEdmunds:ȱNYUȱPress.ȱ (1978).ȱNy¬yaȬMañjari:ȱTheȱCompendiumȱofȱIndianȱSpeculativeȱLogic.ȱ Trans.ȱJ.V.ȱBhattacharyya.ȱVol.ȱ1.ȱDelhi:ȱMotilal.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ PartȱIIȱ

ScripturalȱReasoningȱ andȱInterreligiousȱHermeneuticsȱ

ScripturalȱReasoningȱ andȱInterfaithȱHermeneuticsȱ ȱ ȱ NicholasȱAdamsȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱisȱaȱwellȬestablishedȱpracticeȱofȱtextȱstudyȱ betweenȱ Jews,ȱ Christians,ȱ andȱ Muslimsȱ (Fordȱ andȱ Pecknoldȱ 2006;ȱ Adamsȱ 2006:ȱ 234Ȭ55;ȱ Fordȱ 2007:ȱ 273Ȭ303;ȱ Ochsȱ andȱ JohnȬ sonȱ 2009).ȱ Untilȱ recently,ȱ itȱ wasȱ locatedȱ largelyȱ inȱ universityȱ contexts,ȱprincipallyȱatȱtheȱAmericanȱAcademyȱofȱReligionȱbutȱ alsoȱinȱprojectsȱinȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱVirginiaȱ(ledȱbyȱoneȱofȱtheȱ foundersȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning,ȱ Peterȱ Ochs),ȱ inȱ Princetonȱ (atȱ theȱCenterȱofȱTheologicalȱInquiry)ȱandȱinȱCambridgeȱ(inȱtheȱFaȬ cultyȱ ofȱ Divinity,ȱ ledȱ byȱ theȱ Cambridgeȱ InterȬFaithȱ ProȬ gramme).ȱOverȱtheȱlastȱfewȱyearsȱitȱhasȱspreadȱasȱaȱcivicȱpracȬ tice,ȱespeciallyȱinȱVirginiaȱandȱinȱLondon.ȱ Myȱtaskȱhereȱisȱtoȱanswerȱtheȱquestion:ȱHowȱfruitfulȱmightȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱbeȱasȱaȱmodelȱforȱinterȬreligiousȱhermenȬ eutics?ȱThisȱquestionȱarises,ȱinȱpart,ȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱperhapsȱsurȬ prisingȱintensityȱwithȱwhichȱscripturesȱareȱnowȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱ muchȱ interfaithȱ encounter.ȱ Makingȱ senseȱ ofȱ thisȱ phenomenonȱ requiresȱusȱtoȱconsiderȱdifferentȱformsȱofȱthisȱintenseȱfocusȱonȱ scriptures,ȱtoȱdescribeȱthemȱasȱfullyȱasȱpossible,ȱandȱtoȱconsiderȱ theȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱpresentȱopportunitiesȱandȱchallengesȱtoȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ membersȱ ofȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Iȱ willȱ claimȱ thatȱScripturalȱReasoningȱaddressesȱcertainȱquiteȱspecificȱneedsȱ amongȱspecificȱparticipantsȱwhoȱshareȱcertainȱspecificȱassumpȬ tionsȱaboutȱtheirȱownȱtraditionsȱandȱtheirȱrelationsȱwithȱothers.ȱ Partȱofȱmyȱtaskȱwillȱbeȱtoȱelaborateȱthoseȱassumptions.ȱTheȱfirstȱ partȱofȱmyȱargumentȱdescribesȱsomeȱofȱtheȱfeaturesȱthatȱIȱtakeȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ toȱ display.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ partȱ discussesȱ isȬ suesȱ ofȱ worldȬdisclosureȱ andȱ problemȬsolving,ȱ andȱ suggestsȱ whyȱ thisȱ wayȱ ofȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ mightȱbeȱfruitful.ȱIȱargueȱthatȱScripturalȱReasoningȱoffersȱanȱimȬ portantȱcontributionȱtoȱinterfaithȱencounterȱinȱthreeȱways.ȱFirst,ȱ itȱ offersȱ aȱ modelȱ forȱ privilegingȱ understandingȱ aboveȱ agreeȬ ment;ȱ second,ȱ itȱ enablesȱ theȱ pursuitȱ ofȱ collegialityȱ withoutȱ reȬ

60ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ

quiringȱconsensus;ȱthird,ȱitȱembodiesȱtheȱrightȱrelationȱbetweenȱ worldȬdisclosureȱandȱproblemȬsolving.ȱ KeyȱFeaturesȱofȱScripturalȱReasoningȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ onlyȱ practiceȱ ofȱ interfaithȱ enȬ gagementȱ whereȱ participantsȱ readȱ oneȱ another’sȱ scriptures,ȱ inȱ thisȱcaseȱtheȱTanakh,ȱtheȱNewȱTestament,ȱandȱtheȱQur’an.ȱTheȱ Shalomȱ Hartmanȱ Instituteȱ inȱ Jerusalemȱ hasȱ anȱ annualȱ conferȬ enceȱ inȱ whichȱ interfaithȱ hevrutaȱ isȱ conducted.1ȱ Asȱ theseȱ twoȱ practicesȱ areȱ oftenȱ takenȱ toȱ beȱ identicalȱ andȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ usefulȱ toȱ throwȱ intoȱ reliefȱ whatȱ makesȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ distinctive,ȱ comparingȱtheȱtwoȱmayȱofferȱsomeȱusefulȱresources.2ȱIȱwillȱreferȱ toȱHartmanȱHevrutaȱandȱScripturalȱReasoningȱasȱnamesȱforȱtheȱ twoȱtypes.ȱ Toȱbeginȱwith,ȱitȱisȱusefulȱtoȱidentifyȱwhatȱtheyȱshare.ȱThisȱ is,ȱ inȱ anyȱ case,ȱ whatȱ Iȱ thinkȱ wouldȱ strikeȱ anyȱ newȱ participantȱ whoȱ hasȱ anȱ opportunityȱ toȱ participate.ȱ Aȱ topicȱ isȱ chosenȱ byȱ aȱ committee.ȱ Scripturalȱ textsȱ relatingȱ toȱ thatȱ topicȱ areȱ selected,ȱ alongȱwithȱcommentaryȱinȱtheȱtraditions.ȱTanakhȱtextsȱareȱnorȬ mallyȱchosenȱbyȱJews;ȱNewȱTestamentȱtextsȱareȱnormallyȱchosȬ enȱbyȱChristians;ȱQur’anȱtextsȱareȱnormallyȱchosenȱbyȱMuslims.ȱ TheȱscripturalȱtextsȱareȱdiscussedȱinȱsmallȱgroupsȱofȱhalfȱaȱdozȬ enȱpeople.ȱTheseȱsmallȱgroupsȱareȱcomposedȱofȱmembersȱofȱtheȱ differentȱtraditions,ȱalthoughȱnotȱalwaysȱinȱequalȱnumbersȱfromȱ eachȱ tradition.ȱ Plenaryȱ sessionsȱ areȱ heldȱ inȱ whichȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ issuesȱ areȱ explored.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ anȱ explicitȱ ethos:ȱ participantsȱ areȱ notȱrequiredȱtoȱsetȱasideȱtheirȱstrongȱcommitmentsȱtoȱtheirȱtraȬ ditions;ȱtheyȱareȱnotȱexpectedȱorȱencouragedȱtoȱagreeȱwithȱeachȱ otherȱaboutȱanyȱspecificȱissue;ȱtheyȱareȱnotȱattemptingȱtoȱsolveȱ someȱurgentȱproblemȱusingȱscripturalȱstudyȱasȱaȱmethod.ȱ

ȱwww.hartmaninstitute.com.ȱForȱitsȱownȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱtheoȬ logyȱ conferenceȱ seeȱ http://www.hartman.org.il/Center_Adv/Programȱ _View.ȱasp?ȱProgram_Id=9ȱ(accessedȱonȱ19ȱMayȱ2010).ȱ 1

ȱ Forȱ aȱ blogȱ whichȱ describes,ȱ inȱ detail,ȱ aȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ conversationȱseeȱtheȱdescriptionȱbyȱHigtonȱ2010. 2

SCRIPTURALȱREASONINGȱANDȱINTERFAITHȱHERMENEUTICSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ61ȱ

Thereȱ are,ȱ however,ȱ significantȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱpractices.ȱHartmanȱHevrutaȱscripturalȱtextsȱareȱselectedȱbyȱ anȱinvitedȱspeaker,ȱwhoȱalsoȱselectsȱtheȱcommentary.ȱTextsȱareȱ distributedȱatȱtheȱopeningȱofȱtheȱconference.ȱTheȱspeakerȱintroȬ ducesȱtheȱtexts,ȱperhapsȱexplainingȱwhyȱtheyȱwereȱchosen.ȱTheȱ conferenceȱbreaksȱupȱintoȱsmallȱgroupsȱtoȱstudyȱtheȱtexts.ȱTheȱ conferenceȱ reconvenesȱ asȱ plenary,ȱ andȱ theȱ speakerȱ presentsȱ someȱinterpretationsȱofȱtheȱtexts,ȱafterȱwhichȱthereȱisȱopportunȬ ityȱforȱquestionsȱandȱwiderȱdiscussion.ȱTheȱtextsȱfromȱeachȱtraȬ ditionȱareȱgivenȱtheirȱownȱseparateȱsessions:ȱaȱdayȱisȱspentȱonȱ textsȱ fromȱ oneȱ tradition;ȱ andȱ aȱ secondȱ dayȱ isȱ spentȱ onȱ textsȱ fromȱ aȱ secondȱ tradition,ȱ andȱ soȱ forth.ȱ Smallȱ groupsȱ haveȱ oneȱ sessionȱforȱeachȱofȱtheȱtraditions:ȱoneȱsessionȱonȱJewish,ȱoneȱonȱ Christian,ȱ andȱ oneȱ onȱ Muslimȱ texts.ȱ Inȱ plenaryȱ discussion,ȱ questionsȱandȱcommentsȱareȱfirstȱinvitedȱfromȱmembersȱofȱtheȱ traditionȱwhoseȱtextsȱareȱbeingȱstudied,ȱoftenȱcalledȱ“theȱinnerȱ circle.”ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ ifȱ thatȱ day’sȱ studyȱ isȱ devotedȱ toȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ hadithȱ andȱ mysticalȱ texts,ȱ itȱ willȱ beȱ Muslimsȱ whoȱ enȬ gageȱfirstȱwithȱtheȱspeaker,ȱandȱtheȱdiscussionȱwillȱgraduallyȱbeȱ openedȱ outȱ toȱ Jewsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ afterȱ aȱ suitableȱ period.ȱ Theȱ reasonȱforȱthisȱisȱsometimesȱexplicitlyȱstatedȱforȱnewcomers:ȱtoȱ startȱ withȱ theȱ “innerȱ circle”ȱ isȱ toȱ displayȱ theȱ varietyȱ ofȱ interȬ pretationsȱ withinȱ aȱ traditionȱ andȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱ aȱ falseȱ homoȬ geneityȱisȱnotȱgeneratedȱunderȱpressureȱfromȱquestionsȱoutsideȱ theȱcommunity.ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ textsȱ areȱ selectedȱ byȱ aȱ committee,ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ selectȱ theȱ commentaryȱ (althoughȱ commentaryȱ mayȱ notȱbeȱselected).ȱTheȱtextsȱareȱnotȱnormallyȱintroduced,ȱbutȱareȱ distributedȱ inȱ advance,ȱ andȱ membersȱ areȱ encouragedȱ toȱ studyȱ themȱ individuallyȱ beforehand.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ normallyȱ noȱ namedȱ speakers.ȱTheȱprimaryȱactivityȱisȱsmallȱgroupȱstudyȱ(alsoȱoftenȱ calledȱ hevruta).ȱ Ifȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ plenaryȱ gatheringȱ becauseȱ thereȱ isȱ moreȱthanȱoneȱsmallȱgroup,ȱthereȱmayȱbeȱsomeȱreportingȱbackȱ ofȱwhatȱwasȱdiscovered.ȱInȱsomeȱmeetings,ȱparticipantsȱmayȱbeȱ encouragedȱ byȱ theȱ organisersȱ toȱ reflectȱ onȱ whatȱ theyȱ wereȱ doingȱandȱinȱacademicȱsettingsȱmayȱbeȱaskedȱhowȱitȱrelatesȱtoȱ theȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱmodernȱuniversity,ȱespeciallyȱinȱrelationȱtoȱ theȱstudyȱofȱscripturalȱtexts.ȱTheȱscripturalȱtextsȱfromȱtheȱthreeȱ traditionsȱareȱ presentedȱ together,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ leftȱ toȱ smallȱ groupsȱ toȱdetermineȱifȱtheyȱstudyȱoneȱorȱmoreȱtextsȱfromȱoneȱtraditionȱ


orȱ multipleȱ traditions.ȱ Itȱ isȱ quiteȱ commonȱ forȱ smallȱ groupsȱ toȱ meetȱ severalȱ timesȱ duringȱ aȱ meetingȱ (overȱ aȱ fewȱ days)ȱ andȱ toȱ buildȱupȱaȱsetȱofȱreadingsȱofȱtheȱtexts.ȱByȱtheȱend,ȱitȱisȱexpectedȱ thatȱ textsȱ fromȱ theȱ differentȱ traditionsȱ willȱ interactȱ withȱ eachȱ other.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱrequirementȱthatȱmembersȱfromȱaȱparticularȱ traditionȱwillȱguideȱstudyȱofȱthatȱtradition’sȱtexts,ȱalthoughȱthisȱ oftenȱhappensȱinȱpractice.ȱ PerhapsȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱdifferenceȱisȱthatȱHartmanȱHeȬ vrutaȱisȱaȱsmall,ȱselectȱgroupȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱworld’sȱbestȱscholȬ arsȱinȱJudaism,ȱChristianity,ȱandȱIslamȱ–ȱtheyȱnumberȱperhapsȱ fifty,ȱandȱattendanceȱisȱbyȱinvitationȱonly.ȱScripturalȱReasoning,ȱ byȱcontrast,ȱconsciouslyȱseeksȱtoȱreproduceȱitselfȱinȱaȱvarietyȱofȱ newȱcontextsȱandȱinȱaȱvarietyȱofȱdifferentȱforms.ȱ Thisȱ alsoȱ introducesȱ anȱ importantȱ differenceȱ relatingȱ toȱ whoȱdoesȱthisȱkindȱofȱtextȱstudy.ȱWhoȱisȱinvited?ȱWhoȱisȱnotȱinȬ vited?ȱCanȱpeopleȱbeȱuninvited?ȱCanȱpeopleȱbeȱexcluded,ȱandȱifȱ soȱhowȱareȱdecisionsȱmade?ȱWhereȱdoesȱexecutiveȱpowerȱlie?ȱ ItȱisȱhazardousȱtoȱgeneraliseȱtooȱenergeticallyȱonȱthisȱquesȬ tion,ȱasȱthereȱareȱimportantȱdifferencesȱdependingȱonȱtheȱkindsȱ ofȱ group,ȱ howȱ longȱ theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ meeting,ȱ howȱ wellȱ theȱ participantsȱknowȱoneȱanother,ȱandȱsoȱforth.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱbothȱ Hartmanȱ Hevrutaȱ andȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning,ȱ whereȱ thereȱ areȱ groupsȱthatȱhaveȱbeenȱmeetingȱforȱsomeȱtime,ȱoverȱaȱperiodȱofȱ years,ȱandȱwhereȱthereȱisȱwellȬestablishedȱtrustȱamongȱtheȱlongȬ standingȱ membersȱ fromȱ theȱ threeȱ traditions,ȱ questionsȱ ofȱ thisȱ kindȱ areȱ handledȱ throughȱ consultationȱ byȱ theȱ organisersȱ (whoȱ willȱ typicallyȱ comeȱ fromȱ allȱ threeȱ traditions),ȱ withȱ deferenceȱ givenȱtoȱthoseȱorganisersȱfromȱtheȱsameȱtraditionȱasȱtheȱpersonȱ orȱ personsȱ concerned.ȱ Inȱ myȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ ReasonȬ ing,ȱ itȱ isȱ generallyȱ Christiansȱ whoȱ inviteȱ Christians,ȱ Muslimsȱ whoȱ inviteȱ Muslims,ȱ andȱ Jewsȱ whoȱ inviteȱ Jews.ȱ Mostȱ peopleȱ whoȱ participateȱ inȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ haveȱ beenȱ invitedȱ byȱ someoneȱ fromȱ theȱ sameȱ traditionȱ (oftenȱ calledȱ theȱ sameȱ “house”).ȱ Theȱ sameȱ isȱ trueȱ forȱ difficultȱ casesȱ whereȱ groupsȱ seemȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ flourishingȱ becauseȱ ofȱ disruptiveȱ behaviour.ȱ Inȱ myȱ experience,ȱ questionsȱ ofȱ exclusionȱ areȱ generallyȱ handledȱ withinȱhouses;ȱonlyȱwhereȱthereȱareȱlongȬtermȱrelationshipsȱofȱ trustȱ areȱ theseȱ mattersȱ discussedȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ membersȱ ofȱ otherȱ houses.ȱ


Anȱ exampleȱ mayȱ helpȱ toȱ clarifyȱ someȱ ofȱ theseȱ questions.ȱ Thereȱisȱaȱgroupȱofȱscholarsȱwhoȱmeetȱannuallyȱtoȱreflectȱonȱtheȱ roleȱofȱScripturalȱReasoningȱinȱtheȱacademy.ȱItȱmeetsȱtwiceȱeachȱ year,ȱ forȱ twoȱ orȱ threeȱ daysȱ atȱ aȱ time.ȱ Itȱ recentlyȱ devotedȱ twoȱ yearsȱtoȱstudyingȱtextsȱaboutȱwomenȱfromȱtheȱTanakh,ȱtheȱNewȱ Testament,ȱandȱtheȱQur’an.ȱTheseȱincludeȱnarrativeȱtexts,ȱsuchȱ asȱ thoseȱ inȱ Genesisȱ relatingȱ toȱ Jacobȱ andȱ hisȱ wives;ȱ andȱ alsoȱ moreȱpastoralȱtexts,ȱsuchȱasȱPaulȱonȱrelationsȱbetweenȱmenȱandȱ womenȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ Godȱ andȱ theȱ church,ȱ andȱ Qur’anicȱ textsȱ aboutȱdiscipliningȱwivesȱinȱrelationȱtoȱfamilyȱlife.ȱTheȱgroupȱreȬ turnedȱtoȱtheȱsameȱtextsȱinȱsuccessiveȱyears,ȱsometimesȱaddingȱ toȱ orȱ subtractingȱ fromȱ them.ȱ Asȱ theȱ twoȱ yearsȱ elapsed,ȱ theȱ lengthȱ ofȱ theȱ scripturalȱ passagesȱ presentedȱ forȱ studyȱ wasȱ reȬ duced.ȱ Thisȱ reflectedȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ groupȱ wasȱ moreȱ deeplyȱ immersedȱ inȱ theȱ texts,ȱ soȱ thatȱ longerȱ wasȱ requiredȱ forȱ each;ȱ itȱ wasȱ alsoȱ aȱ practicalȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ anȱ increasedȱ volumeȱ ofȱ commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ table.ȱ Theȱ introductionȱ ofȱ commentaryȱ reȬ flectedȱ aȱ growingȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ transmissionȱ ofȱ priorȱ generaȬ tions’ȱreadingsȱofȱthoseȱsameȱtexts.ȱTheȱgroupȱdidȱnotȱfindȱtheseȱ textsȱ onȱ womenȱ straightforwardȱ toȱ read,ȱ andȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ smallȱ groupsȱ displayedȱ keenȱ awarenessȱ thatȱ theseȱ textsȱ haveȱ been,ȱandȱare,ȱusedȱtoȱlegitimateȱpracticesȱthatȱareȱungenerousȱ atȱbestȱandȱprofoundlyȱviolentȱatȱworst.ȱTheȱstudyȱprovedȱimȬ menselyȱ fruitfulȱ forȱ discoveringȱ sharedȱ challengesȱ toȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ changingȱ attitudesȱ toȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ modernȱ world,ȱ inȱ eachȱtradition,ȱandȱforȱfindingȱoutȱdifferencesȱofȱemphasis,ȱdifȬ ferentȱ kindsȱ ofȱ resistanceȱ toȱ change,ȱ andȱ differentȱ kindsȱ ofȱ opennessȱaboutȱtheȱissues.ȱ Twoȱ aspectsȱ concerningȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ discussionȱ andȱ theȱ kindsȱofȱattitudeȱitȱexhibitsȱareȱespeciallyȱnoteworthy.ȱFirst,ȱitȱisȱ obviousȱthatȱdiscussionȱinȱScripturalȱReasoningȱisȱnotȱprimarilyȱ orientedȱ toȱ agreement.ȱ Itȱ isȱ orientedȱ toȱ understanding.ȱ Thatȱ meansȱ membersȱ ofȱ smallȱ groupsȱ areȱ notȱ tryingȱ toȱ agreeȱ withȱ oneȱ anotherȱ aboutȱ howȱ toȱ thinkȱ aboutȱ womenȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ families,ȱ husbands,ȱ fathers,ȱ mothers,ȱ brothersȱ andȱ sisters,ȱ reliȬ giousȱlife,ȱreligiousȱauthority,ȱcivicȱauthority,ȱorȱtheȱworkplace.ȱ Ifȱ agreementsȱ areȱ reached,ȱ thatȱ isȱ interestingȱ andȱ sometimesȱ veryȱhighlyȱvalued.ȱButȱtheȱmainȱgoalȱisȱtoȱunderstandȱourȱownȱ traditions,ȱ oneȱ another’sȱ traditions,ȱ andȱ theȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ traditionsȱonȱtheȱissuesȱunderȱdiscussion.ȱ


Second,ȱinsteadȱofȱattemptingȱtoȱgenerateȱconsensusȱwithinȱ groups,ȱtheȱmainȱfruitsȱofȱdiscussionȱareȱperhapsȱbestȱdescribedȱ asȱ collegiality.ȱ Iȱ meanȱ thisȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ formingȱ aȱ bondȱ inȱ whichȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ longȬtermȱ sharedȱ action.ȱ Inȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱthereȱisȱnoȱformingȱofȱaȱgangȱorȱaȱnewȱreȬ ligiousȱgroup.ȱInȱmyȱexperienceȱofȱtenȱyearsȱofȱScripturalȱReaȬ soning,ȱconsensusȱinȱtheȱsmallȱgroupsȱhasȱbeenȱratherȱrare,ȱbutȱ thereȱhasȱbeenȱaȱsteadyȱflourishingȱofȱcollegiality.ȱ Thisȱpictureȱisȱpartial,ȱandȱsomeȱcaveatsȱneedȱtoȱbeȱvolunȬ teered.ȱFirstȱofȱall,ȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱdiscussingȱScripturalȱReasoningȱ asȱ itȱ takesȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ university.ȱ Theȱ participantsȱ haveȱ typȬ icallyȱ undertakenȱ advancedȱ studyȱ inȱ theirȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ haveȱlargeȱinternalȱlibrariesȱatȱtheirȱdisposal,ȱareȱawareȱofȱdisaȬ greementsȱwithinȱtheirȱtraditions,ȱandȱcanȱreadilyȱidentifyȱfalseȱ claimsȱaboutȱtheirȱtraditions.ȱRulesȱforȱwhoȱspeaksȱwhen,ȱhowȱ authorityȱ isȱ determined,ȱ andȱ howȱ disagreementsȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ handledȱ areȱ allȱ wellȱ establishedȱ inȱ theȱ academicȱ sphere.ȱ Butȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ nowȱ alsoȱ takesȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ civicȱ realm,ȱ amongȱ participantsȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ haveȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ background.ȱ Theȱ Cambridgeȱ InterȬFaithȱ Programmeȱ hasȱ conȬ ductedȱ researchȱ intoȱ this,ȱandȱ itsȱpreliminaryȱ findingsȱ areȱ thatȱ civicȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ worksȱ bestȱ whenȱ theȱ participantsȱ meetȱinȱtheirȱownȱtraditionsȱbeforehand,ȱandȱwhereȱtheyȱhaveȱaȱ clearlyȱ articulatedȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ expectationsȱ aboutȱ handlingȱ disagreement,ȱ disruption,ȱ andȱ anxieties.ȱ Thisȱ researchȱ isȱ workȱ inȱprogress,ȱbutȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱScripturalȱReasoningȱoutsideȱtheȱ universityȱhasȱaȱdistinctlyȱdifferentȱcharacter.ȱ Second,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ notȱ saidȱ anythingȱ aboutȱ theȱ rationaleȱ ofȱ thoseȱwhoȱdoȱScripturalȱReasoning.ȱWhyȱdoȱtheyȱdoȱit?ȱInȱanȬ sweringȱthisȱquestion,ȱIȱthinkȱitȱisȱvitalȱtoȱrememberȱthatȱthereȱ areȱthreeȱdifferentȱtraditionsȱinȱplay.ȱInȱtheȱmodernȱuniversity,ȱ weȱ areȱ usedȱ toȱ havingȱ sharedȱ setsȱ ofȱ rulesȱ forȱ describing,ȱ analysing,ȱinterpreting,ȱandȱcriticisingȱthings.ȱConsiderȱfeministȱ theoryȱorȱpostȬcolonialȱcritique.ȱWeȱareȱnotȱquiteȱinȱtheȱhabitȱofȱ distinguishingȱ Christian,ȱ Jewish,ȱ andȱ Muslimȱ feminisms,ȱ orȱ Jewish,ȱMuslim,ȱandȱChristianȱpostȬcolonialȱdiscourses.ȱWeȱcanȱ doȱitȱifȱweȱtry,ȱbutȱtheȱhabitsȱareȱnotȱdeeplyȱingrained.ȱMyȱsecȬ ondȱcaveatȱisȱthatȱwhereȱthereȱareȱthreeȱtraditionsȱinȱplay,ȱthereȱ needȱtoȱbeȱthreeȱsetsȱofȱdescriptions,ȱthreeȱsetsȱofȱanalysis,ȱthreeȱ setsȱofȱinterpretations,ȱandȱthreeȱsetsȱofȱcritiques.ȱ


Myȱ answerȱ toȱ theȱ question,ȱ “Whyȱ doȱ Scripturalȱ ReasonȬ ing?”ȱisȱaȱChristianȱrationale.ȱIȱmightȱexperimentȱwithȱimaginȬ ingȱaȱMuslimȱrationale;ȱifȱIȱhadȱbeenȱattentiveȱinȱotherȱcontextsȱIȱ mightȱ evenȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ reportȱ actualȱ Muslimȱ rationales.ȱ Butȱ Iȱ wouldȱ beȱ doingȱ somethingȱ quiteȱ differentȱ fromȱ speakingȱ asȱ aȱ Christian,ȱ tryingȱ toȱ makeȱ senseȱ ofȱ myȱ ownȱ tradition’sȱ waysȱ ofȱ understandingȱhospitalityȱandȱloveȱofȱone’sȱneighbour.ȱ Toȱsummarise,ȱthreeȱslogansȱcanȱbeȱgenerated:ȱ (1)ȱunderstandingȱaboveȱagreement;ȱ (2)ȱcollegialityȱaboveȱconsensus;ȱ (3)ȱnotȱoneȱaccountȱofȱ(orȱrationaleȱfor)ȱScripturalȱReasonȬ ing,ȱbutȱthree.ȱ Iȱ claimedȱ earlierȱ thatȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ addressesȱ cerȬ tainȱ specificȱ needsȱ amongȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ certainȱ specificȱ asȬ sumptions.ȱ Whereȱ thoseȱ needsȱ andȱ assumptionsȱ areȱ absent,ȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱmayȱnotȱbeȱfruitful.ȱTheȱneedsȱwillȱtakeȱusȱ intoȱ theȱ secondȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ enquiry,ȱ onȱ worldȬdisclosureȱ andȱ problemȬsolving.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ assumptionsȱ amongȱ participantsȱ inȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱthatȱtheȱthreeȱtraditionsȱareȱlikelyȱtoȱpersist,ȱinȱrelaȬ tionȱ toȱ oneȱ another,ȱ forȱ theȱ longȱ term.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ prospectȱ ofȱ massȱconversionsȱfromȱoneȱtraditionȱtoȱanother;ȱnoȱprospectȱofȱ agreementȱonȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ coreȱ issuesȱ atȱ theȱheartȱofȱ theȱ tradiȬ tions’ȱ accountsȱ ofȱ oneȱ another;ȱ noȱ prospectȱ ofȱ consensusȱ onȱ mattersȱofȱinterpretationȱofȱsacredȱtexts.ȱThereȱisȱalsoȱnoȱcauseȱ forȱ worryȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ thisȱ lackȱ ofȱ prospects.ȱ Toȱ putȱ itȱ ratherȱ crudely:ȱ ifȱ Judaism,ȱ Christianity,ȱ andȱ Islamȱ areȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱuntilȱtheȱeschaton,ȱitȱisȱprobablyȱwiseȱtoȱdevelopȱmodesȱ ofȱunderstandingȱdisagreementȱthatȱareȱwellȱfittedȱforȱtheȱlongȱ haul.ȱSuchȱmodesȱshouldȱgenerateȱhigherȱqualityȱdisagreementȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ doneȱ well.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ anȱ urgentȱ need.ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ experiencedȱinȱinterreligiousȱengagementȱfrequentlyȱreportȱthatȱ oneȱofȱtheȱmostȱseriousȱproblemsȱisȱthatȱfellowȱparticipantsȱofȬ tenȱdoȱnotȱknowȱevenȱtheȱbasicsȱofȱoneȇsȱtradition,ȱandȱthatȱoneȱ isȱforcedȱtoȱrunȱroughshodȱoverȱtheȱsubtletiesȱandȱcomplexitiesȱ ofȱ oneȇsȱ traditions,ȱ ironingȱ outȱ disagreementsȱ whereȱ theyȱ matterȱgreatly.ȱAȱMuslimȱcolleagueȱonceȱputȱitȱtoȱmeȱlikeȱthis:ȱ “WhenȱIȱargueȱwithȱChristiansȱIȱfindȱthatȱoftenȱIȱamȱnotȱarguȬ ingȱ atȱ allȱ butȱ teachingȱ Islamȱ 101.”ȱ Ifȱ practicesȱ likeȱ Scripturalȱ


Reasoningȱcanȱhelpȱproduceȱbetterȱqualityȱdisagreement,ȱthatȱisȱ aȱsignificantȱcontribution.ȱ WorldȬDisclosureȱandȱProblemȬSolvingȱ ConsiderȱtheȱfollowingȱtextȱfromȱtheȱNewȱTestament:ȱ Theȱ firstȱ is,ȱ “Hear,ȱ Oȱ Israel:ȱ theȱ Lordȱ ourȱ God,ȱ theȱ Lordȱ isȱ one;ȱyouȱshallȱloveȱtheȱLordȱyourȱGodȱwithȱallȱyourȱheart,ȱ andȱwithȱallȱyourȱsoul,ȱandȱwithȱallȱyourȱmind,ȱandȱwithȱallȱ yourȱ strength.”ȱ Theȱ secondȱ isȱ this,ȱ “Youȱ shallȱ loveȱ yourȱ neighbourȱ asȱ yourself.”ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ otherȱ commandmentȱ greaterȱ thanȱ these.ȱ (Markȱ 12:29Ȭ31;ȱ Newȱ Revisedȱ Standardȱ Version)ȱ

Thisȱ text,ȱ repeatedȱ withȱ variationsȱ inȱ theȱ gospelsȱ ofȱ Matthewȱ (Matthewȱ 22:37Ȭ40)ȱ andȱ Lukeȱ (Lukeȱ 10:25Ȭ28),ȱ offersȱ aȱ strikingȱ juxtapositionȱ andȱ combinationȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ tasksȱ ofȱ philosophy:ȱ worldȬdisclosureȱandȱproblemȬsolving.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ termsȱ worldȬdisclosureȱ andȱ problemȬsolvingȱ beȬ cameȱsignificantȱfociȱofȱdebateȱafterȱtheirȱuseȱbyȱJürgenȱHaberȬ masȱ inȱ hisȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ Heideggerȱ andȱ Derridaȱ inȱ Philosophicalȱ Discourseȱ ofȱ Modernityȱ (Habermasȱ 1987:ȱ 131Ȭ60,ȱ 185Ȭ210).3ȱ Theȱ termȱworldȬdisclosureȱ(Weltentdeckung)ȱisȱelaboratedȱinȱHeidegȬ gerȇsȱdiscussionsȱofȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱweȱoccupyȱaȱhorizonȱofȱ meaningsȱ thatȱ appearȱ inȱ variousȱ waysȱ andȱ areȱ especiallyȱ disȬ closedȱ throughȱ poetry.ȱ Habermasȱ famouslyȱ insistsȱ onȱ aȱ difȬ ferentiationȱ ofȱ theȱ tasksȱ ofȱ poetryȱ andȱ literature,ȱ whichȱ quiteȱ properlyȱ discloseȱ theȱ worldȱ toȱ us,ȱ andȱ philosophy,ȱ whichȱ disȬ chargesȱaȱdifferentȱtask,ȱnamely,ȱsolvingȱproblemsȱthroughȱhabȬ itsȱofȱargumentation.ȱHabermasȱstronglyȱarguesȱagainstȱDerridaȱ who,ȱ inȱ Habermas’ȱ account,ȱ elidesȱ theseȱ twoȱ tasksȱ inȱ hisȱ deȬ scriptionsȱofȱphilosophyȱasȱakinȱtoȱliteraryȱcriticism.ȱ Habermasȱ isȱ promptedȱ toȱ raiseȱ theseȱ issuesȱ becauseȱ heȱ discernsȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ elideȱ judgementsȱ ofȱ truthȱ withȱ judgeȬ mentsȱofȱtasteȱthatȱaccompanies,ȱheȱargues,ȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱelideȱ problemȬsolvingȱ andȱ worldȬdisclosure.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ isȱ toȱ distinguishȱ judgementsȱofȱtruthȱfromȱjudgementsȱofȱtaste,ȱoneȱneedsȱtoȱdisȬ ȱSeeȱespeciallyȱpp.ȱ147Ȭ54ȱandȱ205Ȭ09.ȱ

3


tinguishȱpracticesȱofȱselfȬexpressionȱfromȱphilosophy’sȱspecialȬ isedȱpracticesȱofȱargumentation.ȱIȱthinkȱHabermasȱisȱrightȱtoȱbeȱ promptedȱ byȱ thisȱ worry,ȱ but,ȱ asȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱ inȱ moreȱ detailȱ elsewhere,ȱIȱthinkȱhisȱsolutionȱoffersȱtooȱmuchȱclarityȱaboutȱtheȱ tasksȱ ofȱ philosophyȱ (Adamsȱ 2006:ȱ 234Ȭ55).ȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ articuȬ lateȱ “theȱ tasksȱ ofȱ philosophy”ȱ orȱ identifyȱ “whatȱ philosophersȱ shouldȱ do,”ȱ itȱ seemsȱ moreȱ fruitfulȱ toȱ identifyȱ actualȱ practicesȱȱ thatȱseemȱtoȱmodelȱtheȱrightȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱproblemȬsolȬ vingȱandȱworldȬdisclosureȱandȱtoȱmakeȱsenseȱofȱthem.ȱIȱfindȱinȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱjustȱsuchȱaȱmodel.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱsomeȱ practicesȱofȱsomeȱphilosophersȱofferȱotherȱmodelsȱofȱthisȱkind,ȱ butȱitȱisȱstrikingȱthatȱHabermasȱdoesȱnotȱofferȱdetailedȱinvestiȬ gationsȱintoȱsuchȱpracticesȱ–ȱhisȱtendencyȱisȱtoȱgeneraliseȱaboutȱ “philosophy,”ȱandȱIȱseeȱthisȱasȱaȱweakness.ȱIȱargueȱthatȱinȱScripȬ turalȱ Reasoningȱ questionsȱ ofȱ truthȱ doȱ notȱ becomeȱ elidedȱ withȱ questionsȱ ofȱ taste.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ makesȱ mostȱ senseȱ ifȱ oneȱ interpretsȱ truthȱ claimsȱ asȱ productsȱ ofȱ chainsȱofȱreasoningȱthatȱrestȱonȱaxiomsȱandȱacknowledgesȱthatȱ whatȱ isȱ axiomaticȱ forȱ oneȱ participantȱ mayȱ beȱ hypotheticalȱ forȱ another.ȱTheseȱcondensedȱremarksȱcallȱforȱelaboration.ȱ Iȱ considerȱ theseȱ themesȱ asȱ signsȱ ofȱ aȱ familiarȱ problemȱ inȱ modernȱphilosophy:ȱtheȱtendencyȱtoȱseparateȱthingsȱthatȱbelongȱ togetherȱ andȱ thenȱ tryingȱ (oftenȱ unsuccessfully)ȱ toȱ findȱ someȱ wayȱtoȱjoinȱthemȱagain.ȱ WorldȬdisclosureȱ evokesȱ theȱ horizonȱ ofȱ meaningsȱ againstȱ whichȱweȱmakeȱsenseȱofȱourȱactionsȱandȱourȱplaceȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱ Thisȱhorizonȱisȱdisclosedȱwhenȱweȱencounterȱthingsȱthatȱcauseȱ usȱ toȱ noticeȱ theȱ patternsȱ ofȱ meaningfulnessȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ areȱ embedded.ȱWheneverȱweȱstruggleȱtoȱmakeȱsenseȱofȱsomething,ȱ orȱ areȱ obligedȱ toȱ interpretȱ somethingȱ ratherȱ thanȱ encounterȱ itȱ unthinkingly,ȱ theȱ webȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȇsȱ meaningsȱ forȱ usȱ isȱ disȬ closed.ȱDeath,ȱtheȱsublime,ȱtheȱpoetic:ȱtheseȱareȱallȱoccasionsȱforȱ worldȬdisclosure.ȱ ProblemȬsolvingȱdirectsȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱformationȱandȱtestȬ ingȱ ofȱ hypotheses,ȱ withȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ respondingȱ toȱ someȱ problemȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱItȱidentifiesȱfallacies,ȱhighlightsȱambiguiȬ ties,ȱ proposesȱ patternsȱ forȱ inquiry,ȱ establishesȱ rulesȱ forȱ testingȱ claims,ȱ settlesȱ criteriaȱ forȱ successȱ andȱ failure.ȱ Marxistȱ analysesȱ ofȱeconomicȱinjustice,ȱFreudianȱanalysesȱofȱpsychologicalȱcomȬ plexes,ȱ criticalȬtheoreticalȱ analysesȱ ofȱ authoritarianism:ȱ theseȱ


wouldȱ allȱ beȱ examplesȱ ofȱ problemȬsolving,ȱ asȱ wouldȱ activitiesȱ suchȱasȱinvestigatingȱquestionsȱofȱmedicalȱethicsȱorȱlawȱfromȱaȱ philosophicalȱperspective.ȱ InȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱChristianȱtraditionȱ(andȱperhapsȱothȬ ers)ȱworldȬdisclosureȱcanȱbeȱheardȱasȱanȱechoȱofȱtheȱcommandȬ mentȱtoȱloveȱGod,ȱandȱproblemȬsolvingȱcanȱbeȱheardȱasȱanȱechoȱ ofȱtheȱcommandmentȱtoȱloveȱourȱneighbour.ȱToȱloveȱGodȱisȱtoȱ knowȱ ourselvesȱ calledȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ anȱ agencyȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ ours,ȱtoȱturnȱtoȱGodȱforsakingȱallȱotherȱgods,ȱandȱtoȱattuneȱourȱ heartsȱandȱlivesȱtoȱGod’sȱservice.ȱItȱisȱsimultaneouslyȱtoȱidentifyȱ theȱworldȱasȱGodȇsȱcreationȱandȱtoȱdiscoverȱourȱplaceȱinȱit.ȱToȱ loveȱourȱneighbourȱisȱtoȱrecogniseȱourȱsocialȱembeddedness,ȱtoȱ respondȱ toȱ another’sȱsuffering,ȱ toȱ turnȱtoȱ thoseȱ inȱ needȱandȱ toȱ serveȱthem.ȱItȱisȱsimultaneouslyȱtoȱidentifyȱourȱneighboursȱandȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ Godȇsȱ relationȱ toȱ creation.ȱ WorldȬdisclosureȱ soundsȱtheȱnoteȱofȱworship;ȱproblemȬsolvingȱsoundsȱtheȱnoteȱofȱ healing.ȱ Ifȱ Habermas’ȱ diagnosisȱ isȱ right,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ thatȱ theȱ twenȬ tiethȱcenturyȱsawȱsomethingȱofȱaȱpolarisationȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱwaysȱ ofȱthinkingȱaboutȱphilosophy.ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱHeideggerȱandȱ Gadamerȱ madeȱ aȱ hermeneuticalȱ turnȱ withȱ slogansȱ suchȱ asȱ “Languageȱ isȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ being”ȱ (Heidegger)ȱ orȱ “Beingȱ thatȱ canȱbeȱunderstoodȱisȱlanguage”ȱ(Gadamer).ȱTheseȱwereȱaccomȬ paniedȱ byȱ evocativeȱ readingsȱ ofȱ Hölderlinȇsȱ poetryȱ andȱ susȬ tainedȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ traditionȱ exercisesȱ auȬ thorityȱoverȱtheȱthinkingȱsubject.ȱLikewise,ȱinȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱ twentiethȱ century,ȱ analyticalȱ philosophyȱ inȱ theȱ EnglishȬspeakȬ ingȱ worldȱ comprehensivelyȱ turnedȱ awayȱ fromȱ questionsȱ ofȱ flourishingȱ andȱ sufferingȱ towardsȱ narrowlyȱ focusedȱ questionsȱ aboutȱ wellȬformedȱ sentencesȱ andȱ theȱ criteriaȱ forȱ identifyingȱ meaningfulȱorȱmeaninglessȱclaims.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱFrankȬ furtȱ Schoolȱ developedȱ aȱ criticalȱ theoryȱ thatȱ wasȱ focusedȱ onȱ questionsȱ ofȱ flourishingȱ andȱ suffering;ȱ itȱ developedȱ responsesȱ toȱinadequateȱconceptionsȱofȱ“reason”ȱandȱarticulatingȱforȱphilȬ osophyȱitsȱvocationȱasȱaȱproblemȬsolvingȱenterprise.ȱHabermasȇȱ sustainedȱcritiquesȱofȱHeideggerȱandȱGadamerȱ(andȱlaterȱDerriȬ daȱandȱothers)ȱ–ȱorientedȱtoȱtheirȱreluctanceȱtoȱarticulateȱtheȱvoȬ cationȱ ofȱ philosophyȱ asȱ critiqueȱ –ȱ isȱ emblematicȱ ofȱ theseȱ conȬ trastingȱconceptionsȱofȱphilosophy.ȱ


Theȱ analogyȱ withȱ theȱ twoȱ greatȱ commandmentsȱ revealsȱ twoȱ formsȱ ofȱ oneȬsidednessȱ inȱ Heideggerȱ andȱ Habermas.ȱ Onȱ theȱoneȱside,ȱweȱhaveȱaȱturnȱtowardsȱtheȱloveȱofȱGodȱdivorcedȱ fromȱ loveȱ ofȱ neighbourȱ –ȱ worldȬdisclosureȱ thatȱ neglectsȱ probȬ lemȬsolving.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱside,ȱweȱhaveȱaȱturnȱtowardsȱtheȱloveȱ ofȱ neighbourȱ withoutȱ loveȱ ofȱ Godȱ –ȱ problemȬsolvingȱ thatȱ neȬ glectsȱworldȬdisclosure.ȱ InȱtheȱtwentyȬfirstȱcentury,ȱthisȱpolarisationȱisȱwellȱunderȬ stood,ȱandȱvariousȱattemptsȱareȱmadeȱtoȱovercomeȱit.ȱTheȱworkȱ ofȱJ.M.ȱBernstein,ȱAndrewȱBowie,ȱandȱPeterȱDews,ȱandȱmostȱexȬ plicitlyȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Nikolasȱ Kompridis,ȱ exemplifiesȱ thisȱ wellȱ (Dallmayrȱ 1991;ȱ Bernsteinȱ 1995;ȱ Bowieȱ 2003,ȱ 2007;ȱ Peterȱ Dewsȱ 2008;ȱ Kompridisȱ 2006).ȱ Theirȱ projectsȱ addressȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ responsesȱ toȱ sufferingȱ areȱ boundȱ upȱ inȱ complexȱ waysȱ withȱ questionsȱ ofȱ whatȱ isȱ nowȱ calledȱ aestheticsȱ butȱ inȱ olderȱ timesȱwouldȱsimplyȱbeȱcalledȱbeauty.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ moreȱ significantȱ forȱ thoseȱ interestedȱ inȱ interfaithȱ hermeneuticsȱisȱtheȱrecognitionȱthatȱbothȱtheȱproblemȱ(theȱpolȬ arisationȱinȱHeideggerȱandȱHabermas)ȱandȱtheȱrepairȱ(inȱBernȬ steinȱ andȱ others)ȱ isȱ oftenȱ pursuedȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ recognisesȱ itsȱ theologicalȱ characterȱ butȱ doesȱ notȱ engageȱ withȱ theȱ problemsȱ theologically.ȱNearlyȱeveryȱmajorȱphilosopherȱtodayȱisȱengagedȱ inȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ “religiousȱ turn,”ȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ payingȱ attenȬ tionȱ toȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ religiousȱ practicesȱ andȱ beliefs.ȱ Thisȱ includesȱ theȱrecentȱworkȱofȱHabermasȱhimselfȱ(e.g.ȱHabermasȱ2003,ȱ2008;ȱ HabermasȱandȱRatzingerȱ2005).ȱWhetherȱsympatheticȱorȱhostile,ȱ religiousȱlifeȱisȱhardȱtoȱignore.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱquiteȱtheȱsameȱasȱpayȬ ingȱattentionȱtoȱtheology,ȱbyȱwhichȱIȱmeanȱhereȱacknowledgingȱ andȱinvestigatingȱtheȱlongȱhistoriesȱofȱscripturalȱinterpretation,ȱ developmentȱ ofȱ doctrine,ȱ andȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ practicesȱ ofȱ worȬ shipȱwithȱaȱviewȱtoȱaddressingȱcontemporaryȱconcerns.ȱ Itȱ isȱ strikingȱ thatȱ theȱ turnȱ toȱ “tradition”ȱ andȱ “horizonsȱ ofȱ meaning”ȱinȱHeideggerȱandȱothers,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱturnȱtoȱ“sufȬ fering”ȱ andȱ “communicativeȱ action”ȱ inȱ Habermas,ȱ isȱ notȱ preȬ sentedȱ asȱ aȱ recoveryȱ ofȱ anyȱ traditionȱ inȱ particular,ȱ norȱ toȱ anyȱ particularȱ teachingȱ aboutȱ whoȱ theȱ neighbourȱ is,ȱ toȱ whoseȱ sufȬ feringȱ Iȱ shouldȱ respond,ȱ andȱ inȱ responseȱ toȱ whoseȱ claimsȱ Iȱ shouldȱseekȱtoȱreachȱunderstandingȱinȱtheȱpublicȱsphere.ȱ TheȱbestȱcriticsȱofȱHeideggerȱandȱHabermasȱrecogniseȱthatȱ theȱ splitȱ betweenȱ worldȬdisclosureȱ andȱ problemȬsolvingȱ isȱ notȱ


dueȱtoȱaȱfailureȱofȱindividualȱphilosophersȱtoȱkeepȱthemȱtogethȬ er.ȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ Heideggerȱ andȱ Habermasȱ expressesȱ actualȱ trendsȱ andȱ rupturesȱ inȱ culturalȱ life.ȱ Keepingȱ theȱ twoȱ dimenȬ sionsȱofȱthoughtȱinȱproperȱrelationȱtoȱeachȱotherȱisȱnotȱaȱmatterȱ ofȱfixingȱmistakesȱinȱtheȱphilosophicalȱargumentsȱofȱHeideggerȱ andȱ Habermas.ȱ Itȱ isȱ moreȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ diagnosingȱ howȱ theȱ splitȱisȱdisplayedȱinȱvariousȱculturalȱforms.ȱForȱexample,ȱKantȇsȱ splitȱ betweenȱ truth,ȱ moralȱ worth,ȱ andȱ aestheticȱ judgementȱ isȱ notȱhisȱownȱinventionȱbutȱreflectsȱtheȱalreadyȱgrowingȱtrendȱtoȱ separateȱ factȱ andȱ value,ȱ orȱ theȱ sociallyȱ widespreadȱ beliefȱ thatȱ mattersȱofȱ“taste”ȱareȱnotȱamenableȱtoȱargumentation.ȱHeidegȬ gerȱandȱHabermasȱdoȱnotȱcauseȱtheȱsplit:ȱtheyȱreflectȱaȱsplitȱthatȱ alreadyȱexists.ȱTheyȱalsoȱdeepenȱit.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ readilyȱ identifyȱ tendenciesȱ inȱ culturalȱ lifeȱ todayȱ thatȱseemȱtoȱjustifyȱaȱseparationȱofȱworldȬdisclosureȱfromȱprobȬ lemȬsolving.ȱ Music,ȱ poetry,ȱ literature,ȱ andȱ worshipȱ areȱ generȬ allyȱviewedȱasȱ“expressive.”ȱMedicine,ȱpharmaceuticals,ȱenginȬ eeringȱ andȱ politicsȱ areȱ generallyȱ viewedȱ asȱ “practical.”ȱ Musicȱ disclosesȱworlds.ȱMedicineȱsolvesȱproblems.ȱ Theȱbestȱphilosophersȱrecogniseȱthisȱandȱengageȱinȱcarefulȱ detailedȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ seeminglyȱ separateȱ spheresȱ ofȱ humanȱ actionȱ areȱ inȱ factȱ deeplyȱ involvedȱ withȱ oneȱ another.ȱAndrewȱBowieȇsȱrecentȱMusic,ȱPhilosophyȱandȱModernityȱ isȱ aȱ modelȱ ofȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ work.ȱ Heȱ showsȱ howȱ questionsȱ ofȱ musicalȱexpressionȱareȱthoroughlyȱboundȱupȱwithȱquestionsȱofȱ languageȱandȱethics,ȱforȱexampleȱ(Bowieȱ2007).ȱTheȱstrikingȱfeaȬ tureȱofȱthisȱkindȱofȱworkȱisȱthatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱtryȱtoȱtakeȱtwoȱsepȬ arateȱthingsȱandȱfuseȱthemȱbutȱpatientlyȱdiagnosesȱtheȱwaysȱinȱ whichȱtheȱseeminglyȱseparateȱthingsȱare,ȱinȱfact,ȱalreadyȱjoined.ȱ ThisȱdoesȱnotȱdenyȱthatȱthereȱareȱattemptsȱbyȱreputableȱphiloȬ sophersȱ toȱ considerȱ themȱ separate.ȱ Yetȱ itȱ doesȱ recogniseȱ thatȱ treatingȱ themȱ asȱ separateȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ merelyȱ academicȱ mistake:ȱ itȱ systematicallyȱ distortsȱ ourȱ abilityȱ toȱ makeȱ senseȱ ofȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ humanȱactions.ȱItȱceasesȱtoȱbeȱobvious,ȱasȱitȱshouldȱbe,ȱthatȱuniȬ versitiesȱ areȱ forȱ formingȱ youngȱ personsȇȱ charactersȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ forȱdevelopingȱcognitiveȱskillsȱorȱstretchingȱtheȱimagination.ȱItȱ ceasesȱ toȱ beȱ obvious,ȱ asȱ itȱ shouldȱ be,ȱ thatȱ hospitalsȱ areȱ placesȱ whereȱpeopleȱconfrontȱtheirȱdeepestȱhopesȱandȱfearsȱasȱwellȱasȱ diseasesȱandȱtheirȱunwelcomeȱsymptomsȱandȱconsequences.ȱ


Despiteȱ theȱ modernȱ tendencyȱ toȱ separateȱ complexȱ interȬ relatingȱpatternsȱofȱactionȱthatȱbelongȱtogether,ȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱ areȱ stubbornlyȱ resistantȱ inȱ aȱ positiveȱ way,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ markȱ ofȱ theȱbestȱphilosophicalȱinvestigationȱthatȱitȱrecognisesȱtheȱalreadyȱ connectedȱpatternsȱofȱhumanȱaction,ȱandȱworksȱtowardsȱbetterȱ modelsȱ andȱ maps,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ tryingȱ –ȱ throughȱ superȬhumanȱ butȱ ultimatelyȱ vainȱ effortȱ –ȱ toȱ forceȱ seeminglyȱ separateȱ thingsȱ together.ȱ Thisȱ detourȱ intoȱ philosophicalȱ territoryȱ leadsȱ usȱ backȱ toȱ ScripturalȱReasoning.ȱReadingȱscripturesȱcanȱbeȱaȱmodelȱforȱadȬ dressingȱ andȱ embodyingȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ disclosingȱ theȱ worldȱandȱsolvingȱproblemsȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱneglectȱimȬ portantȱ theologicalȱ dimensions.ȱ Theȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ Godȇsȱ creaȬ tionȱ ofȱ theȱ world,ȱ theȱ establishmentȱ andȱ renewalȱ ofȱ theȱ coveȬ nantȱ withȱ Israel,ȱ theȱ pursuitȱ ofȱ wisdom,ȱ Jesus’ȱ preachingȱ andȱ healing:ȱ theseȱ allȱ simultaneouslyȱ discloseȱ theȱ world,ȱ nameȱ itsȱ suffering,ȱ andȱ describeȱ itsȱ healing.ȱ Itȱ isȱ worthȱ repeatingȱ thatȱ mineȱisȱaȱdistinctivelyȱChristianȱaccountȱofȱScripturalȱReasoning,ȱ andȱ thatȱ thisȱ remainsȱ inadequateȱ untilȱ itȱ isȱ joinedȱ byȱ correȬ spondingȱJewishȱandȱMuslimȱaccounts.ȱ WhileȱworldȬdisclosureȱandȱproblemȬsolvingȱareȱconstantȬ lyȱinȱrelationȱtoȱeachȱotherȱinȱscripture,ȱtheyȱareȱnotȱinȱrelationȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ wayȱ forȱ theȱ communitiesȱ thatȱ readȱ scripture.ȱ Peterȱ Ochsȱ hasȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ inȱ timesȱ ofȱ peaceȱ andȱ prosperity,ȱitȱisȱtheȱdisclosureȱofȱtheȱworldȱthatȱisȱtheȱdominantȱ note:ȱ theȱ evocationȱ ofȱ whatȱ worldȱ itȱ isȱ thatȱ weȱ liveȱ in,ȱ theȱ deȬ scriptionȱofȱwhoȱweȱareȱinȱrelationȱtoȱGodȱandȱtheȱworld,ȱandȱinȱ relationȱtoȱoneȱanother.ȱInȱtimesȱofȱsufferingȱandȱpain,ȱitȱisȱtheȱ repairȱofȱtheȱworldȱthatȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱfore:ȱtheȱrestorationȱofȱtheȱ woundedȱ covenant,ȱ theȱ healingȱ ofȱ theȱ sick,ȱ theȱ atonementȱ (Ochsȱ2005).ȱ Theȱreaderȱofȱgreatestȱserviceȱtoȱtheȱcommunityȱisȱtheȱoneȱ whoȱknowsȱhowȱtoȱinterpretȱscriptureȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱtoȱdisȬ closeȱtheȱworldȱandȱindicateȱitsȱrepairȱinȱwaysȱthatȱdescribeȱtheȱ communityȱinȱrelationȱtoȱitsȱcircumstances,ȱwhetherȱinȱtimesȱofȱ peaceȱorȱofȱsuffering.ȱ InȱScripturalȱReasoningȱweȱdoȱnotȱreadȱforȱ“theȱcommuniȬ ty”ȱinȱthisȱway,ȱbecauseȱweȱareȱatȱleastȱthreeȱcommunities.ȱIȱsayȱ “atȱ least,”ȱ becauseȱ onceȱ Judaism,ȱ Christianity,ȱ andȱ Islamȱ haveȱ beenȱ named,ȱ thisȱ merelyȱ beginsȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ describingȱ theȱ


communitiesȱfromȱwhichȱreadersȱcome.ȱIȱdoȱnotȱonlyȱmeanȱthatȱ withinȱJudaismȱthereȱareȱOrthodox,ȱConservative,ȱandȱProgresȬ siveȱforms,ȱthatȱwithinȱChristianityȱthereȱareȱEasternȱandȱWestȬ ernȱ traditions,ȱ orȱ thatȱ withinȱ Islamȱ thereȱ areȱ Sunniȱ andȱ Shiȇaȱ traditions.ȱ Admittedly,ȱ theseȱ areȱ importantȱ clarifications.ȱ Iȱ meanȱthatȱthereȱareȱalsoȱtraditionsȱofȱreadingȱlearnedȱinȱtheȱuniȬ versity,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theseȱ haveȱ strikinglyȱ differentȱ philosophicalȱ formations.ȱ Rationalist,ȱ Idealist,ȱ andȱ Pragmatistȱ stylesȱ ofȱ reaȬ soningȱ cutȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Thisȱ oftenȱ happensȱ inȱ suchȱaȱwayȱthatȱaȱChristianȱandȱaȱJewȱwhoȱareȱbothȱpragmatistsȱ mayȱoftenȱreachȱstrongerȱandȱdeeperȱunderstandingȱwithȱeachȱ otherȱthanȱtwoȱChristians,ȱoneȱofȱwhomȱisȱaȱrationalistȱandȱtheȱ otherȱ aȱ pragmatist,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ theȱ twoȱ Christiansȱ belongȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱnarrowȱdenomination.ȱ Becauseȱ thereȱ areȱ atȱ leastȱ threeȱ communities,ȱ theȱ qualitiesȱ ofȱ worldȬdisclosureȱ andȱ problemȬsolvingȱ areȱ significantlyȱ difȬ ferentȱfromȱhowȱtheyȱappearȱwithinȱanyȱoneȱofȱtheȱthreeȱbroadȱ Abrahamicȱ houses.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ differentȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ becauseȱ theȱ scripturesȱ areȱ different.ȱ Again,ȱ theseȱ differencesȱ areȱ atȱ leastȱ three.ȱAtȱtheȱmostȱbasicȱlevel,ȱtheȱscripturesȱthemselvesȱareȱdifȬ ferent.ȱThereȱisȱtheȱTanakh,ȱtheȱChristianȱBible,ȱandȱtheȱQur’an.ȱ Atȱ theȱ nextȱ level,ȱ thereȱ areȱ someȱ interestingȱ complexities:ȱ theȱ Tanakh,ȱ interpretedȱ byȱ theȱ Talmud,ȱ isȱ inȱ someȱ senseȱ theȱ sameȱ textȱasȱtheȱOldȱTestament,ȱinterpretedȱbyȱPatristicȱtheology.ȱYetȱ theȱ Tanakhȱ existsȱ inȱ theȱ Masoreticȱ (Hebrew)ȱ andȱ Septuagintȱ (Greek)ȱversions,ȱwhichȱareȱnotȱtheȱsameȱasȱeachȱother.ȱAndȱofȱ courseȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ areȱ repeated,ȱ oftenȱ withȱsignificantȱvariations,ȱinȱtheȱQur’an.ȱAtȱtheȱhighestȱlevelȱofȱ complexity,ȱ theȱ textsȱ areȱ obviouslyȱ notȱ readȱ “cold,”ȱ byȱ andȱ large,ȱ butȱ areȱ refractedȱ andȱ receivedȱ throughȱ generationsȱ ofȱ commentary,ȱ whichȱ isȱ oftenȱ commentaryȱ onȱ commentary.ȱ Theȱ linesȱofȱcommentaryȱspiralȱinȱmanyȱdifferentȱdirections.ȱInȱmyȱ ownȱtradition,ȱnearlyȱeveryȱtheologianȱknowsȱwhatȱisȱmeantȱifȱ oneȱ refersȱ toȱ Augustine,ȱ Thomasȱ Aquinas,ȱ Luther,ȱ Calvin,ȱ Schleiermacher,ȱorȱBarthȱinȱrelationȱtoȱhowȱtheyȱreadȱscripture.ȱ Theȱ sameȱ fineȬgrainedȱ issuesȱ areȱ alsoȱ foundȱ inȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Muslimȱcommentaryȱonȱscripture.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ anȱ interestingȱ featureȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theseȱ questionsȱ ofȱ worldȬdisclosureȱ andȱ problemȬ solving,ȱhowever.ȱTheȱscripturalȱtextsȱmayȱbeȱdifferentȱbetweenȱ


theȱAbrahamicȱtraditions,ȱandȱtheȱlinesȱofȱdiverseȱcommentaryȱ mayȱbeȱdifferentȱwithinȱeachȱtradition.ȱButȱtheȱproblemsȱfacedȱ byȱtheseȱcommunitiesȱareȱpeculiarȱinȱthatȱtheȱcommunitiesȱhaveȱ oftenȱbeenȱtheȱproblemȱforȱoneȱanother.ȱEngagementsȱbetweenȱ ChristiansȱandȱMuslimsȱhaveȱoftenȱbeenȱwhatȱpromptedȱcertainȱ interpretationsȱofȱscripture,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱhighȱMiddleȱAges.ȱ Engagementsȱ betweenȱ Jewsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ toȱ aȱ significantȱ extentȱpromptedȱtheirȱattemptsȱtoȱsecureȱtheirȱparticularȱidentiȬ ties.ȱ Forȱ Jews,ȱ Christians,ȱ andȱ Muslimsȱ toȱ turnȱ toȱ scriptureȱ toȱ repairȱtheseȱproblemsȱisȱtoȱseeȱtheirȱreligiousȱdifferencesȱ–ȱdisȬ playedȱinȱtheirȱdifferentȱscripturesȱandȱtheirȱdifferentȱhabitsȱofȱ interpretingȱ scripturesȱ –ȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ solution,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱofȱsevereȱproblems.ȱ IȱtakeȱseriouslyȱHabermasȇȱconcernȱthatȱtoȱelideȱphilosophyȱ withȱ literaryȱ criticismȱ risksȱ elidingȱ judgementsȱ ofȱ truthȱ withȱ judgementsȱ ofȱ taste.ȱ Inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ concern,ȱ itȱ mightȱ appearȱthatȱScripturalȱReasoningȱisȱconcernedȱonlyȱwithȱjudgeȬ mentsȱ ofȱ taste:ȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ practiceȱ whereȱ differentȱ interpretaȬ tionsȱ areȱ juxtaposed,ȱ butȱ judgementsȱ ofȱ truthȱ areȱ indefinitelyȱ postponed.ȱItȱmightȱseemȱthatȱifȱthereȱareȱthreeȱsetsȱofȱdescripȬ tions,ȱthreeȱsetsȱofȱtextsȱandȱthreeȱtraditionsȱofȱinterpretationȱ–ȱ eachȱwithȱitsȱownȱhistoricallyȱspecificȱcategoriesȱ–ȱquestionsȱofȱ truthȱmustȱsurelyȱbeȱoffȱtheȱtable.ȱThisȱprovesȱnotȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcase,ȱ however.ȱ Itȱisȱnotȱanȱeasyȱmatterȱtoȱtalkȱofȱ“religiousȱtruthȱclaims”ȱinȱ general,ȱgivenȱtheȱdifferentȱhistoriesȱofȱargumentationȱinheritedȱ inȱ Judaism,ȱ Christianity,ȱ andȱ Islam.ȱ Restrictingȱ remarksȱ toȱ myȱ ownȱChristianȱtraditionȱdoesȱnotȱsolveȱallȱofȱtheȱproblems,ȱbutȱ itȱdoesȱsignificantlyȱreduceȱtheȱscopeȱforȱconfusion.ȱItȱisȱworthȱ consideringȱ Christianȱ truthȱ claims,ȱ suchȱ asȱ “Jesusȱ isȱ fullyȱ Godȱ andȱ fullyȱ man”ȱ orȱ “Godȱ isȱ threeȱ inȱ one.”ȱ Theseȱ claimsȱ areȱ notȱ generallyȱ presentedȱ asȱ theȱ concludingȱ partsȱ ofȱ aȱ chainȱ ofȱ reaȬ soning,ȱ althoughȱ atȱ aȱ certainȱ pointȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Christianȱ theologyȱtheyȱdidȱhaveȱthisȱstatus.ȱTheyȱwereȱonceȱanswersȱtoȱ questions.ȱ Today,ȱ theyȱ areȱ presentedȱ asȱ axioms.ȱ Toȱ treatȱ theseȱ claimsȱasȱaxiomsȱisȱpartȱofȱwhatȱitȱmeansȱtoȱbeȱaȱChristian.ȱItȱisȱ quiteȱ possibleȱ toȱ treatȱ theseȱ claimsȱ asȱ hypothesesȱ insteadȱ (asȱ oneȱmightȱwhenȱteachingȱdoctrineȱ–ȱtoȱdemonstrateȱwhatȱisȱatȱ stake,ȱandȱwhatȱkindsȱofȱargumentȱsupportȱtheȱclaims)ȱbutȱemȬ phaticallyȱ toȱ transformȱ axiomsȱ ofȱ thisȱ kindȱ intoȱ hypothesesȱ isȱ


probablyȱtoȱceaseȱbeingȱaȱChristianȱtheologian.ȱTheseȱclaimsȱareȱ notȱ seriouslyȱ inȱ doubtȱ inȱ Christianȱ theology.ȱ Ifȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ takenȱ toȱ beȱ true,ȱ thenȱ muchȱ liturgicalȱ practiceȱ becomesȱ mereȱ spectacle,ȱandȱceasesȱtoȱenactȱtheȱrenewalȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱmeetȱ“inȱ Christ.”ȱ AsȱwellȱasȱtheȱclaimsȱthemselvesȱhavingȱanȱaxiomaticȱstatȬ us,ȱtheȱcategoriesȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱposed,ȱandȱtheȱcategoriesȱinȱ whichȱ furtherȱ explicationȱ ofȱ theirȱ meaningȱ isȱ couched,ȱ alsoȱ haveȱ aȱ specialȱ status.ȱ Unlikeȱ categoriesȱ suchȱ asȱ “substance,”ȱ “time,”ȱ “language,”ȱ orȱ “knowledge,”ȱ whichȱ undergoȱ periodicȱ radicalȱreinterpretationȱinȱtheȱphilosophicalȱtradition,ȱtheologyȱ isȱ markedȱ byȱ otherȱ moreȱ stableȱ categoriesȱ suchȱ asȱ “grace,”ȱ “love,”ȱ “faith,”ȱ “hope.”ȱ Theseȱ categoriesȱ certainlyȱ undergoȱ changeȱ overȱ time,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ significantlyȱ slowerȱ thanȱ whatȱ oneȱ seesȱinȱmoreȱprovisionalȱphilosophicalȱcategories.ȱToȱengageȱinȱ aȱradicalȱreinterpretationȱofȱ“grace”ȱisȱasȱtheologicallyȱproblemȬ aticȱ asȱ convertingȱ coreȱ axiomsȱ suchȱ asȱ “Jesusȱ isȱ fullyȱ Godȱ andȱ fullyȱ man”ȱ intoȱ hypotheses:ȱ itȱ isȱ probablyȱ toȱ suspendȱ oneȇsȱ membershipȱofȱtheȱtradition.ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ isȱ anȱ interestingȱ contextȱ inȱ whichȱ toȱ considerȱtheȱarticulationȱofȱsuchȱaxioms,ȱcouchedȱinȱsuchȱcateȬ gories.ȱItȱisȱinterestingȱbecauseȱwhenȱthereȱareȱthreeȱtraditionsȱ inȱ play,ȱ thereȱ areȱ differentȱ inheritedȱ historiesȱ ofȱ axiomsȱ andȱ categoriesȱ inȱ play.ȱ Aȱ Christianȱ whoȱ claimsȱ “Jesusȱ isȱ fullyȱ Godȱ andȱfullyȱman”ȱtakesȱthisȱtoȱbeȱanȱaxiom.ȱAȱJewȱwhoȱuttersȱtheȱ sameȱ wordsȱ canȱ onlyȱ entertainȱ itȱ asȱ aȱ hypothesis:ȱ toȱ doȱ otherȬ wiseȱ wouldȱ beȱ toȱ becomeȱ aȱ Christian.ȱ Similarly,ȱ aȱ Christianȱ whoȱ exploresȱ thisȱ claimȱ byȱ drawingȱ onȱ categoriesȱ suchȱ asȱ “grace”ȱhasȱquiteȱaȱlimitedȱscopeȱtoȱmanoeuvreȱinȱregardȱtoȱitsȱ meaningsȱandȱisȱnotȱfreeȱtoȱabandonȱtheȱcategoryȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱ challengesȱ orȱ difficulties.ȱ Toȱ beȱ aȱ Christianȱ theologianȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ preparedȱtoȱshoulderȱtheȱdifficultiesȱassociatedȱwithȱcategoriesȱ likeȱ “grace”ȱ andȱ toȱ workȱ throughȱ problemsȱ thatȱ mayȱ arise.ȱ Aȱ Muslimȱ whoȱ investigatesȱ theȱ claimȱ aboutȱ Jesus’ȱ divinityȱ andȱ humanityȱisȱnotȱconstrainedȱinȱtheȱsameȱway.ȱHeȱmayȱentertainȱ theȱuseȱofȱaȱcategoryȱlikeȱ“grace,”ȱbutȱheȱcanȱbeȱrelativelyȱfreeȱ inȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱthis,ȱandȱ–ȱbecauseȱitȱisȱnotȱaȱcentralȱIsȬ lamicȱcategoryȱ–ȱisȱfreeȱtoȱjettisonȱitȱinȱfavourȱofȱotherȱseemingȬ lyȱmoreȱfruitfulȱcategories.ȱ


Theȱ matterȱ canȱ beȱ putȱ plainly.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ axiomaticȱ forȱ aȱ ChristianȱmayȱbeȱhypotheticalȱforȱaȱJew;ȱaȱcategoryȱthatȱisȱinviȬ olableȱ forȱ aȱ Christianȱ mayȱ beȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ indifferenceȱ forȱ aȱ Muslim.ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ argueȱ thatȱ thisȱ phenomenonȱ nicelyȱ showsȱ howȱ truthȱclaimsȱareȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱabandonedȱorȱruledȱoutȱinȱScripȬ turalȱReasoning.ȱTheȱclaimȱ“JesusȱisȱfullyȱGodȱandȱfullyȱman”ȱisȱ aȱtruthȱclaim.ȱButȱitsȱstatusȱisȱdifferentȱinȱeachȱtradition.ȱItȱisȱnotȱ aȱmatterȱofȱitȱbeingȱ“trueȱforȱmeȱbutȱfalseȱforȱyou.”ȱItȱisȱaȱtruthȱ claimȱthatȱisȱeitherȱtrueȱorȱfalse.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱ“forȱme”ȱinȱmattersȱ ofȱtruth.ȱButȱthereȱisȱanȱobviousȱdifference,ȱwhichȱhasȱpracticalȱ consequences,ȱbetweenȱtakingȱitȱasȱanȱaxiomȱandȱtakingȱitȱasȱaȱ hypothesis.ȱ Similarly,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ expectationȱ thatȱ membersȱ ofȱ differentȱtraditionsȱwillȱmakeȱuseȱofȱtheȱsameȱcategoriesȱorȱ–ȱifȱ theyȱdoȱsoȱ–ȱaccordȱthemȱtheȱsameȱinviolabilityȱorȱprovisionalȬ ity.ȱ Againȱ thisȱ hasȱ practicalȱ consequences:ȱ forȱ prayer,ȱ forȱ witness,ȱforȱselfȬunderstanding.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ isȱ seriousȱ aboutȱ interfaithȱ encounter,ȱ whereȱ particiȬ pantsȱareȱableȱtoȱengageȱasȱmembersȱofȱtheirȱtraditions,ȱwithoutȱ bracketingȱ theirȱ habitsȱ ofȱ actionȱ andȱ thought,ȱ andȱ withoutȱ surrenderingȱ theirȱ deeplyȱ formedȱ identities,ȱ truthȱ claimsȱ mustȱ surelyȱ playȱ aȱ fullȱ roleȱ inȱ thatȱ encounter.ȱ Admittedly,ȱ thereȱ isȱ moreȱ toȱ aȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ thanȱ truthȱ claims,ȱ butȱ withoutȱ themȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱthatȱthereȱisȱanythingȱtoȱthoseȱtraditionsȱatȱ all.ȱ Itȱisȱaȱregrettablyȱcommonȱexperienceȱinȱinterfaithȱdialogueȱ toȱfindȱChristiansȱsayingȱstrangeȱthingsȱlikeȱ“Iȱamȱaȱfollowerȱofȱ Jesusȱ(peaceȱbeȱuponȱHim),”ȱtoȱhearȱChristianȱprayersȱinȱwhichȱ mentionȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ orȱ theȱ Trinityȱ isȱ tactfullyȱ omitted,ȱ orȱ evenȱ toȱ discoverȱ thatȱ theȱ “Oldȱ Testament”ȱ isȱ convenientlyȱ (butȱ tempȬ orarily)ȱ transformedȱ intoȱ theȱ “Hebrewȱ Bible.”ȱ Scripturalȱ ReaȬ soningȱisȱaȱpracticeȱthatȱhasȱtheȱcapacityȱtoȱabolishȱtheseȱawkȬ wardnesses.ȱThisȱisȱbecause,ȱinȱeachȱcase,ȱtheyȱariseȱasȱaȱresultȱ ofȱ theȱ mistakenȱ beliefȱ thatȱ theȱ situationȱ requiresȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ wordsȱthatȱisȱacceptableȱtoȱall.ȱScripturalȱReasoningȱpermitsȱtheȱ acknowledgementȱ thatȱ theȱ situationȱ actuallyȱ requiresȱ differentȱ formsȱ ofȱ wordsȱ orȱ identicalȱ formsȱ ofȱ wordsȱ thatȱ areȱ treatedȱ differentlyȱ byȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ traditions.ȱ Itȱ isȱ Muslimsȱ whoȱ say,ȱ “peaceȱ beȱ uponȱ him,”ȱ notȱ Christians;ȱ itȱ isȱ Christiansȱ andȱnotȱJewsȱorȱMuslimsȱwhoȱprayȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱJesusȱChrist;ȱ


itȱisȱJewsȱwhoȱreadȱtheȱTanakhȱandȱChristiansȱwhoȱreadȱtheȱOldȱ Testament.ȱThisȱisȱaȱnaturalȱextensionȱofȱtheȱinsightȱthatȱwhatȱisȱ axiomaticȱforȱmeȱmayȱbeȱhypotheticalȱforȱanother.ȱ TheseȱconsiderationsȱmayȱnotȱmatterȱterriblyȱmuchȱifȱinterȬ faithȱdialogueȱisȱaȱmeetingȱbetweenȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱrelativelyȱlibȬ eral,ȱtheologicallyȱspeaking,ȱorȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱstudiedȱoneȱanȬ other’sȱ traditionsȱ inȱ enoughȱ depthȱ toȱ addressȱ oneȱ anotherȱ fluȬ entlyȱinȱtheirȱrespectiveȱnativeȱlanguages.ȱButȱifȱoneȱseeksȱinterȬ faithȱ encounterȱ betweenȱ orthodoxȱ Jews,ȱ evangelicalȱ Christiansȱ andȱtraditionalȱ Muslims,ȱaȱ robustȱ frameworkȱ isȱ needed.ȱ ScripȬ turalȱReasoningȱhasȱprovenȱtoȱbeȱresilientȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱsuchȱ meetings,ȱperhapsȱbecauseȱeachȱpersonȱspeaksȱconfidentlyȱfromȱ theȱ depthsȱ ofȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ traditionȱ withȱ noȱ needȱ toȱ establishȱ aȱ commonȱgroundȱonȱwhichȱtoȱbuildȱsuchȱspeech.ȱInsteadȱofȱreȬ quiringȱ commonȱ ground,ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ distributesȱ axiȬ omsȱ andȱ hypothesesȱ asymmetrically,ȱ assignsȱ categoriesȱ differȬ entȱ statuses,ȱ andȱ notȱ onlyȱ permitsȱ butȱ requiresȱ participantsȱ toȱ speakȱinȱtheirȱownȱtongues.ȱ Conclusionȱ TheseȱremarksȱonȱScripturalȱReasoningȱcanȱbeȱconcludedȱwithȱaȱ briefȱ summary.ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ isȱ aȱ practiceȱ ofȱ interfaithȱ encounterȱ thatȱ isȱ particularlyȱ hospitableȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ notȱ confidentȱthatȱcommonȱgroundȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱwithȱmembersȱofȱ otherȱ traditions.ȱ Itȱ isȱ cheerfullyȱ agnosticȱ onȱ ifȱ suchȱ commonȱ groundȱisȱavailable:ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱrequireȱitȱandȱnorȱdoesȱitȱruleȱitȱ out.ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ isȱ aȱ practiceȱ thatȱ isȱ structurallyȱ sceptical,ȱinȱaȱlowȬkeyȱway,ȱonȱtheȱquestionȱifȱconsensusȱonȱimȬ portantȱ issuesȱ isȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ found.ȱ Theȱ discoveryȱ ofȱ commonȱ groundȱandȱtheȱgenerationȱofȱconsensusȱareȱpossibleȱoutcomes,ȱ butȱtheyȱareȱnotȱnecessaryȱconditions.ȱ Instead,ȱ itȱ encouragesȱ practicesȱ ofȱ textualȱ studyȱ inȱ whichȱ understandingȱisȱprivilegedȱaboveȱagreement.ȱIfȱtheȱproductȱisȱ higherȱ qualityȱ disagreementȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ abolitionȱ ofȱ disaȬ greementȱ–ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱifȱtheȱdisagreementsȱareȱactuallyȱinȬ tensifiedȱinȱcertainȱrespectsȱ–ȱthisȱisȱaȱmarkȱofȱsuccess,ȱnotȱfailȬ ure.ȱItȱencouragesȱhabitsȱofȱengagementȱinȱwhichȱcollegialityȱisȱ privilegedȱ aboveȱ consensus.ȱ Collegialityȱ isȱ aȱ friendlyȱ termȱ forȱ engagingȱlongȬtermȱwithȱthoseȱwithȱwhomȱoneȱanticipatesȱsusȬ tainedȱ andȱ persistentȱ disagreements.ȱ Butȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ moreȱ thanȱ


this.ȱDisagreementsȱactuallyȱrequireȱaȱgoodȱdealȱofȱagreement:ȱ onȱtermsȱofȱreference,ȱonȱtheȱquestionsȱbeingȱposed,ȱonȱwhatȱisȱ atȱ stake.ȱ Beyondȱ this,ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ permitsȱ persistentȱ divergenceȱonȱwhichȱcategoriesȱareȱinȱplay,ȱandȱonȱtheȱstatusȱofȱ thoseȱcategoriesȱthatȱareȱshared.ȱItȱsoundsȱratherȱbleakȱperhaps,ȱ butȱScripturalȱReasoningȱpermitsȱtheȱpersistenceȱofȱindifferenceȱ inȱrelationȱtoȱcertainȱquestions,ȱcertainȱclaimsȱandȱcertainȱcateȬ gories.ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ alsoȱ finelyȱ balancesȱ theȱ needsȱ ofȱ worldȬdisclosureȱandȱproblemȬsolving.ȱItȱisȱneitherȱexclusivelyȱ narrativeȱ norȱ oneȬsidedlyȱ reparative.ȱ Itȱ canȱ beȱ practisedȱ inȱ orderȱtoȱdiscoverȱwhatȱkindȱofȱworldȱoneȇsȱcolleaguesȱtakeȱusȱtoȱ beȱlivingȱin;ȱitȱcanȱbeȱundertakenȱtoȱfixȱdamagedȱrelationsȱorȱtoȱ broadenȱ restrictedȱ imaginations.ȱ Itȱ simultaneouslyȱ acknowlȬ edgesȱ theȱ commandȱ toȱ loveȱ Godȱ andȱ loveȱ one’sȱ neighbour:ȱ readingȱ scripturesȱ enactsȱ obedienceȱ toȱ bothȱ commandsȱ simulȬ taneously.ȱ Finally,ȱitȱisȱworthȱrepeatingȱaȱdesideratumȱthatȱthisȱpaperȱ necessarilyȱ failsȱ toȱ meet.ȱ Thereȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ threeȱ setsȱ ofȱ deȬ scriptionȱofȱScripturalȱReasoning;ȱthreeȱsetsȱofȱcategories;ȱthreeȱ historiesȱofȱinterpretation.ȱMyȱpresentationȱattemptsȱtoȱdisplayȱ theȱvirtueȱofȱacknowledgingȱthisȱneed,ȱbutȱitȱobviouslyȱcannotȱ dischargeȱ itsȱ tasks.ȱ Toȱ discoverȱ ifȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ isȱ aȱ suitableȱmodelȱforȱinterfaithȱhermeneutics,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱaddȱ atȱ leastȱ twoȱ moreȱ voices.ȱ Iȱ suggestȱ thatȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ possibleȱ modesȱofȱactionȱinȱwhichȱsuchȱvoicesȱcanȱbeȱaddedȱisȱtoȱpractiseȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱandȱnotȱmerelyȱtalkȱaboutȱit.ȱ Literatureȱ Adams,ȱNicholasȱ(2006).ȱHabermasȱandȱTheology.ȱCambridge:ȱCUP.ȱ Bernstein,ȱJ.M.ȱ(1995).ȱRecoveringȱEthicalȱLife.ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Bowie,ȱ Andrew.ȱ (2007).ȱ Music,ȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ Modernity.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ CUP.ȱ (2003).ȱAestheticsȱandȱSubjectivity.ȱManchester:ȱManchesterȱUP.ȱ Dallmayr,ȱFred.ȱ(1991).ȱLifeȬWorld,ȱModernityȱandȱCritique.ȱCambridge:ȱ Polity.ȱ Dews,ȱPeter.ȱ(2008).ȱTheȱIdeaȱofȱEvil.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Ford,ȱDavid.ȱ(2007).ȱChristianȱWisdom.ȱCambridge:ȱCUP.ȱ

78ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ andȱ CCȱ Pecknold.ȱ (2006).ȱ Theȱ Promiseȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ Oxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ www.hartmaninstitute.com.ȱ www.hartman.org.il/Center_Adv/Program_View.asp?Program_Id=9ȱ (Accessedȱ19ȱMayȱ2010).ȱ Habermas,ȱ Jürgen.ȱ (2008).ȱ Betweenȱ Naturalismȱ andȱ Religion.ȱ Transl.ȱ C.ȱ Cronin.ȱCambridge:ȱPolity.ȱ (2003).ȱTheȱFutureȱofȱHumanȱNature.ȱCambridge:ȱPolity.ȱ (1987).ȱ Philosophicalȱ Discourseȱ ofȱ Modernity.ȱ Transl.ȱ F.ȱ Lawrence,ȱ Cambridge:ȱPolityȱPress.ȱ andȱ Josephȱ Ratzinger.ȱ (2005).ȱ Theȱ Dialecticsȱ ofȱ Secularization.ȱ Sanȱ Francisco:ȱIgnatius.ȱ Higton,ȱMike.ȱ“AȱSessionȱofȱScripturalȱReasoning”ȱhttp://goringe.net/ȱ theology/?p=179ȱ(Accessedȱ19ȱMayȱ2010).ȱ Kompridisȱ Nikolas.ȱ (2006).ȱ Critiqueȱ andȱ Disclosure:ȱ Criticalȱ Theoryȱ beȬ tweenȱPastȱandȱFuture.ȱCambridge:ȱMIT.ȱ Ochs,ȱPeter.ȱ(2005).ȱ“Scripture.”ȱIn:ȱDavidȱFord,ȱBenȱQuash,ȱandȱJanetȱ MartinȱSoskiceȱ(eds.).ȱFieldsȱofȱFaith:ȱTheologyȱandȱReligiousȱStudiesȱ inȱtheȱTwentyȬFirstȱCentury.ȱCambridge:ȱCUP.ȱPp.ȱ104Ȭ18.ȱ andȱ Williamȱ Stacyȱ Johnsonȱ (eds.).ȱ (2009).ȱ Crisis,ȱ Callȱ andȱ LeaderȬ shipȱinȱtheȱAbrahamicȱTraditions.ȱBasingstoke:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan.ȱ

ScripturalȱReasoningȱ ȱ AȱFeministȱResponseȱ ȱ

ȱ HeleneȱEgnellȱ ȱ ȱ

Letȱ meȱ firstȱ stateȱ thatȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ familiarȱ withȱ theȱ methodȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ fromȱ personalȱ experience.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ gaȬ thered,ȱIȱhope,ȱtheȱbasicsȱofȱitȱthroughȱmaterialȱonȱtheȱScripturalȱ Reasoningȱhomepage,ȱandȱfromȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱpresentedȱatȱthisȱ conference.ȱ Iȱ knowȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ allȬwomenȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ groupsȱ–ȱatȱleastȱIȱknowȱofȱoneȱ–ȱandȱmyȱfirstȱimpressionȱisȱthatȱ itȱisȱaȱmethodȱthatȱinȱsomeȱwaysȱisȱveryȱmuchȱinȱlineȱwithȱfemȬ inistȱideasȱandȱfeministȱmethodology:ȱstartingȱwithȱtheȱconcreteȱ problemsȱ andȱ challengesȱ ofȱ life,ȱ andȱ doingȱ thisȱ inȱ aȱ groupȱ whereȱthereȱisȱaȱmethodologyȱtoȱensureȱthatȱeveryoneȱisȱheard.ȱ Theȱ intentionȱ toȱ avoidȱ splitsȱ andȱ dualismsȱandȱ toȱ keepȱ thingsȱ likeȱproblemȬsolvingȱandȱworldȬdisclosureȱtogetherȱhasȱalwaysȱ beenȱ aȱ hallmarkȱ ofȱ feministȱ theologyȱ –ȱ thoughȱ admittedlyȱ inȱ practiceȱitȱhasȱbeenȱgearedȱmoreȱtowardsȱproblemȬsolving.ȱTheȱ tensionȱbetweenȱfreedomȱandȱlimitationȱisȱalsoȱanȱissue,ȱwhereȱ weȱ haveȱ theȱ wholeȱ rangeȱ fromȱ “Jesusȱ wasȱ aȱ feminist”ȱ typeȱ ofȱ argumentationȱ toȱ theȱ postȬChristianȱ “Whyȱ bother?”ȱ (botherȱ withȱ misogynistȱ scriptures,ȱ thatȱ is).ȱ Theȱ slogansȱ “understandȬ ingȱ aboveȱ agreement”ȱ andȱ “friendshipȱ aboveȱ consensus”ȱ areȱ alsoȱinȱlineȱwithȱwhatȱcharacterizesȱinterfaithȱdialogueȱinȱaȱfemȬ inistȱperspective.ȱ IfȱsearchingȱtheȱscripturesȱtogetherȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱanȱimporȬ tantȱ partȱ ofȱ feministȱ interfaithȱ dialogueȱ toȱ aȱ greatȱ extent,ȱ thenȱ learningȱfromȱoneȱanother’sȱhermeneuticsȱhas.ȱGrapplingȱwithȱ theȱsameȱproblemsȱofȱfreedomȱandȱlimitation,ȱofȱhowȱtoȱdiscovȬ erȱ theȱ liberatingȱ andȱ lifeȬgivingȱ strandsȱ ofȱ scriptureȱ andȱ tradiȬ tion,ȱandȱwhatȱtoȱdoȱwithȱthatȱwhichȱisȱexperiencedȱasȱoppresȬ siveȱandȱdestructiveȱisȱaȱcommonȱstruggleȱbetweenȱfeministsȱinȱ allȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ Itȱ is,ȱ however,ȱ notȱ alwaysȱ easyȱ evenȱ amongȱ feministsȱ toȱ trustȱanotherȱtoȱtreatȱone’sȱscripturesȱwithȱrespect.ȱLastȱyear,ȱatȱ theȱInterreligiousȱConferenceȱofȱEuropeanȱWomenȱTheologians,ȱ


whoseȱthemeȱwasȱ“Women’sȱInterpretationȱofȱScriptureȱasȱaȱReȬ sourceȱ forȱ Equalityȱ andȱ Interreligiousȱ Communication,”ȱ theȱ Muslimȱ speakerȱdidȱ notȱ wantȱtheȱparticipantsȱ toȱ studyȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱQur’anȱinȱgroupsȱ–ȱasȱweȱdidȱwithȱtheȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱ scripturesȱ –ȱ becauseȱ sheȱ apparentlyȱ hadȱ negativeȱ experiencesȱ withȱ thatȱ kindȱ ofȱactivity.ȱ TheȱpracticeȱofȱScripturalȱReasoningȱ couldȱperhapsȱhaveȱprovidedȱaȱmethodȱtoȱalleviateȱsuchȱfears.ȱIȱ alsoȱ foundȱ Adams’ȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ groupȱ dealingȱ withȱ textsȱ aboutȱwomenȱveryȱencouragingȱindeed.ȱ However,ȱIȱalsoȱhaveȱsomeȱquestionsȱaboutȱtheȱmethodȱofȱ ScripturalȱReasoning,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱboiledȱdownȱtoȱtheȱclassicalȱ feministȱ issuesȱ ofȱ power:ȱ powerȱ overȱ theȱ discourse,ȱ overȱ whoȱ setsȱtheȱagenda,ȱwhoȱdefinesȱwhatȱtheȱproblemȱis,ȱwhoȱdecidesȱ whatȱpartsȱofȱscriptureȱareȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱproblem,ȱetc.ȱ Asȱsomeoneȱwho,ȱalthoughȱIȱamȱnotȱcomfortableȱwithȱtheȱ wordȱ“liberal”ȱ(Iȱpreferȱprogressiveȱorȱradical),ȱwouldȱprobablyȱ beȱlabelledȱsuch,ȱwhatȱconcernsȱmeȱisȱtheȱstrongȱconnection,ȱasȱ Iȱ understandȱ it,ȱ betweenȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ andȱ Georgeȱ Lindbeck’sȱ “postliberal”ȱ theology.ȱ Doesȱ theȱ methodȱ presupȬ poseȱtheȱideaȱofȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱasȱclosedȱculturalȬlinguisticȱ systems?ȱ Muchȱ feministȱ thinking,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ considersȱ thisȱ viewȱ aȱ culȬdeȬsac.ȱ Jeannineȱ Hillȱ Fletcherȱdescribesȱcontemporaryȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱasȱbeingȱ caughtȱ inȱ anȱ impasseȱ betweenȱ Hickianȱ ideasȱ ofȱ samenessȱ andȱ postliberalȱ ideasȱ ofȱ difference.ȱ Sheȱ proposesȱ thatȱ feministȱ inȬ sightsȱaboutȱmultipleȱandȱhybridȱidentitiesȱcouldȱprovideȱaȱwayȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ impasseȱ (Fletcherȱ 2005).ȱ Feministsȱ areȱ keenlyȱ awareȱ ofȱ beingȱ partȱ ofȱ differentȱ communitiesȱ (suchȱ asȱ theȱ Christianȱ andȱtheȱfeministȱcommunities)ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱandȱofȱtheȱvastȱ internalȱ differencesȱ withinȱ traditionsȱ (whereȱ oneȱ strandȱ ofȱ theȱ traditionȱcanȱaccommodateȱbothȱidentitiesȱwhereasȱanotherȱseesȱ themȱ asȱ incompatible)ȱ onȱ theȱ other.ȱ Soȱ whileȱ Nicholasȱ Adamsȱ arguesȱ thatȱ thereȱ mustȱ beȱ threeȱ accountsȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ ReasonȬ ing,ȱJeannineȱHillȱFletcherȱwouldȱargueȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱmultitudeȱ ofȱ accounts,ȱ where,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ accountsȱ ofȱ someȱ Jewish,ȱ Christianȱ andȱ Muslimȱ feministsȱ wouldȱ haveȱ moreȱ inȱ commonȱ withȱ oneȱ anotherȱ thanȱ theyȱ wouldȱ withȱ someȱ ofȱ theirȱ coȬreliȬ gionists.ȱ

SCRIPTURALȱREASONING:ȱAȱFEMINISTȱRESPONSEȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ81ȱ

WeȱalsoȱliveȱinȱaȱtimeȱwhenȱweȱspeakȱincreasinglyȱofȱmulȬ tipleȱreligiousȱidentities.ȱDoesȱScripturalȱReasoningȱpresupposeȱ thatȱoneȱ isȱ firmlyȱ rootedȱ withinȱ justȱ oneȱ tradition,ȱorȱ couldȱ thereȱbeȱroomȱforȱaȱJewishȱBuddhistȱorȱaȱMuslimȬChristian?ȱOr,ȱ putȱdifferently,ȱisȱthereȱaȱriskȱ(ifȱweȱconsiderȱitȱaȱrisk)ȱthatȱtheȱ methodȱ reifiesȱtheȱ boundariesȱ betweenȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ raȬ therȱthanȱenablingȱpeopleȱtoȱcrossȱsuchȱboundaries?ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ isȱ aȱ methodȱ forȱ tryingȱ toȱ solveȱ contemporaryȱ problemsȱ withȱ theȱ helpȱ ofȱ religiousȱ scriptures.ȱ Fromȱaȱ feministȱpointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ oneȱ mightȱ askȱ ifȱ theȱ procedureȱ couldȱ beȱ reversed:ȱ letȱ contemporaryȱ issuesȱ andȱ valuesȱ helpȱ solveȱ problematicȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱ scriptures.ȱ Forȱ feminists,ȱ theȱ scripturesȱ themselvesȱ poseȱ hugeȱ problems.ȱ Howȱ muchȱ roomȱ isȱ thereȱ forȱtheȱhermeneuticsȱofȱsuspicionȱinȱScripturalȱReasonȬ ing?ȱ Couldȱ itȱ alsoȱ beȱ aȱ methodȱ forȱ lettingȱ contemporaryȱ issuesȱ andȱ valuesȱ helpȱ solveȱ problematicȱ partsȱ ofȱ ourȱ scripȬ tures?ȱ Manyȱ feministȱ theologians,ȱ especiallyȱ thoseȱ fromȱ Asia,ȱ likeȱKwokȱPuiȬLanȱandȱChungȱHyunȱKyung,ȱalsoȱquestionȱtheȱ predominanceȱ ofȱ scriptureȱ inȱ Christianity.ȱ Kwokȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ oralȱ traditions,ȱ ofȱ storytellingȱ (Kwokȱ 2000:ȱ 53Ȭ54),ȱandȱChungȱstatesȱfrankly:ȱ“Weȱareȱtheȱ text,ȱ theȱ Bibleȱisȱ theȱcontext”ȱ (Chungȱ 1991:ȱ 111).ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ knowȱ whereȱ thatȱ fitsȱ intoȱ theȱ splitȱ betweenȱ worldȬdisclosureȱ andȱ problemȬsolvingȱ –ȱ Chungȱ wouldȱ probablyȱ sayȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ issueȱ –ȱ butȱ itȱ clearlyȱprivilegesȱworldȱoverȱword.ȱCanȱthatȱpriorityȱbeȱaccomȬ modatedȱwithinȱtheȱScripturalȱReasoningȱparadigm?ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ alsoȱ entailsȱ theȱ furtherȱ questionȱ ofȱ howȱ weȱ viewȱtheȱworld.ȱScripturalȱReasoningȱ toȱ meȱ seemsȱ veryȱ preocȬ cupiedȱ withȱ humanȱ suffering,ȱ withȱ whatȱ isȱ wrongȱ withȱ theȱ world,ȱwithȱproblems,ȱwithȱwhatȱtheologiansȱdescribeȱasȱaȱfallȬ en,ȱbroken,ȱorȱtornȱworld.ȱ Feministȱ theologyȱ isȱ wellȱ awareȱ ofȱ humanȱ sufferingȱ andȱ preoccupiedȱ withȱ howȱ toȱ alleviateȱ it,ȱ butȱ itȱ alsoȱ stressesȱ theȱ goodnessȱ ofȱ creationȱ andȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ celebrate.ȱ Iȱ wonder,ȱ isȱ thereȱalsoȱroomȱinȱScripturalȱReasoningȱforȱtheȱcelebrationȱandȱ affirmationȱofȱlifeȱandȱofȱwhatȱisȱgood?ȱ Relatedȱ toȱ this,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ isȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ whoȱ definesȱ whatȱaȱproblemȱis.ȱGenerally,ȱofȱcourse,ȱmostȱofȱusȱwouldȱagreeȱ onȱ generalȱ thingsȱ suchȱasȱ condemningȱviolenceȱandȱinjusticeȱ–ȱ butȱ whenȱ weȱ getȱ toȱ moreȱ specificȱissuesȱ itȱ mightȱ beȱ moreȱdifȬ


ficult.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ someȱreligiousȱpeopleȱ seeȱsecularisationȱasȱ aȱmajorȱproblem,ȱwhereasȱothersȱseeȱitȱasȱaȱblessing.ȱ Genderȱ issuesȱ andȱ “family”ȱ valuesȱ areȱ contestedȱ areasȱ withinȱ allȱ religiousȱ communities.ȱ Isȱ theȱ highȱ divorceȱ rateȱ aȱ problem?ȱ Andȱ ifȱ so,ȱ whatȱ isȱ soȱ problematicȱ aboutȱ it?ȱ Whyȱ wouldȱit,ȱ asȱ someȱclaim,ȱbeȱ aȱ problemȱ thatȱ theȱ majorityȱofȱ theȱ householdsȱ inȱ Stockholmȱ areȱ singleȬpersonȱ households?ȱ So,ȱ whoȱhasȱtheȱpowerȱofȱdefiningȱtheȱproblem?ȱAndȱwhoȱhasȱtheȱ powerȱtoȱdecideȱwhichȱportionsȱofȱscriptureȱareȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱ problemȱinȱquestion?ȱ Oneȱ lastȱ point,ȱ relatedȱ toȱ allȱ theȱ others,ȱ isȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ changeȱ withinȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Feministsȱ canȱ meetȱ acrossȱ religiousȱtraditionsȱinȱtheirȱdesireȱtoȱchangeȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ IsȱthereȱroomȱinȱScripturalȱReasoningȱforȱthisȱdesireȱforȱchange,ȱ canȱitȱevenȱbeȱaȱvehicleȱforȱsuchȱchange?ȱ So,ȱtoȱsumȱup,ȱmyȱconcernȱisȱifȱScripturalȱReasoningȱallowsȱ forȱaȱviewȱofȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱandȱidentitiesȱasȱinternallyȱdiȬ verse,ȱ fluid,ȱ andȱ changing,ȱ ifȱ thereȱ isȱ anȱ acknowledgementȱofȱ theȱambiguityȱofȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱandȱscriptures,ȱandȱifȱthereȱ isȱanȱawarenessȱofȱpowerȱissues,ȱandȱanȱopennessȱtoȱtheȱneedȱtoȱ changeȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ Literatureȱ Chung,ȱH.K.ȱ(1991).ȱStruggleȱtoȱBeȱtheȱSunȱAgain.ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ Fletcher,ȱJ.H.ȱ(2005).ȱMonopolyȱonȱSalvation?ȱAȱFeministȱApproachȱtoȱReȬ ligiousȱPluralism.ȱNewȱYork/London:ȱContinuum.ȱ Kwok,ȱP.L.ȱ(2000).ȱIntroducingȱAsianȱFeministȱTheology.ȱSheffield:ȱShefȬ fieldȱAcademicȱPress.ȱ ȱ

ScripturalȱReasoningȱorȱSymbiosisȱ CanȱanȱAsianȱParadigmȱHaveȱaȱMessageȱ forȱEurope?ȱ ElizabethȱJ.ȱHarrisȱ

Introductionȱ TheȱOxfordȱEnglishȱDictionaryȱdefinesȱ“symbiosis”ȱasȱ“aȱmutuȬ allyȱ advantageousȱ associationȱ orȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ perȬ sons.”ȱ Inȱ theȱ animalȱ world,ȱ aȱ symbioticȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ organismsȱ isȱ oneȱ inȱ whichȱ eachȱ organismȱ drawsȱ somethingȱ fromȱ theȱ otherȱ forȱ itsȱ survival.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ isȱ notȱ normallyȱ usedȱ forȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ religions.ȱ Scholarsȱ ofȱ interfaithȱ relaȬ tionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ moreȱ concernedȱ withȱ otherȱ wordsȱ –ȱ assimilaȬ tion,ȱaccommodation,ȱsyncretism,ȱsynthesis,ȱborrowing,ȱseparaȬ tion,ȱconfrontation,ȱexclusivism,ȱinclusivism,ȱandȱpluralism.ȱ Inȱ theȱ lastȱ twoȱ decades,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ comeȱ acrossȱ twoȱ scholarsȱ whoȱhaveȱusedȱtheȱterm,ȱsymbiosis,ȱtoȱdescribeȱinteractionȱbeȬ tweenȱreligions,ȱDavidȱSeyfortȱRueggȱandȱAloysiusȱPieris.ȱSeyȬ fortȱ Ruegg,ȱ anȱ expertȱ onȱ earlyȱ Indianȱ andȱ Tibetanȱ Buddhism,ȱ hasȱ usedȱ itȱ toȱ contestȱ twoȱ theoriesȱ aboutȱ theȱ relationshipȱ beȬ tweenȱ earlyȱ Buddhismȱandȱ Brahmanism.ȱ Theȱfirstȱ isȱ thatȱ BudȬ dhismȱborrowedȱfromȱBrahmanismȱandȱtheȱsecondȱthatȱtheȱreȬ lationshipȱwasȱmarkedȱbyȱsupercessionismȱandȱantagonism,ȱasȱ indicatedȱbyȱtheȱiconographyȱofȱBuddhistȱfiguresȱtramplingȱonȱ Brahmanicalȱfigures.ȱRejectingȱbothȱofȱthese,ȱSeyfortȱRueggȱhasȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ relationshipȱ wasȱ “aȱ complexȱ historicalȱ andȱ religiousȱsymbioticȱinteractionȱthatȱmight,ȱonȱoccasion,ȱalsoȱinȬ volveȱ criticalȱ engagementȱ andȱ struggle”ȱ (Seyfortȱ Rueggȱ 2008:ȱ 2).ȱThereȱwasȱaȱsubstratum,ȱaȱcommonȱground,ȱofȱreligiousȱbeȬ liefȱ andȱ practiceȱ inȱ India,ȱ heȱ hasȱ suggested,ȱ whichȱ bothȱ BrahȬ manismȱ andȱ Buddhismȱ drewȱ on.ȱ Theȱ interactionȱ betweenȱ theȱ two,ȱ therefore,ȱ didȱ notȱ involveȱ borrowingȱ butȱ aȱ muchȱ moreȱ complexȱinteractionȱthatȱgaveȱmutualȱbenefitȱtoȱboth,ȱasȱwellȱasȱ someȱstruggle.ȱSeyfortȱRueggȱemploysȱtheȱtermȱsymbiosisȱasȱaȱ middleȱwayȱbetweenȱaȱborrowingȱmodelȱ–ȱBuddhismȱborrowedȱ itsȱcosmologyȱfromȱBrahmanismȱ–ȱandȱaȱsupercessionistȱmodelȱ


–ȱBuddhismȱsoughtȱtoȱdominateȱBrahmanismȱbyȱappropriatingȱ andȱ subtlyȱ changingȱ it.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ middleȱ wayȱ thatȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ eachȱ religiousȱ current,ȱ drawingȱ fromȱ aȱ commonȱ parentȱ andȱ eachȱ other,ȱ antagonisticȱ towardsȱ eachȱ otherȱ atȱ certainȱ points,ȱ wasȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱotherȱinȱaȱbeneficialȱway.ȱ Aloysiusȱ Pieris,ȱ aȱ Sriȱ Lankanȱ Jesuit,ȱ liberationȱ theologian,ȱ andȱ Indologist,ȱ hasȱ employedȱ theȱ termȱ toȱ throwȱ lightȱ onȱ twoȱ formsȱofȱcontemporaryȱactivity.ȱFirst,ȱheȱhasȱusedȱitȱtoȱdescribeȱ theȱ interreligiousȱ encounterȱ thatȱ arisesȱ inȱ basicȱ humanȱ comȬ munitiesȱ whereȱ theȱ members,ȱ drawnȱ fromȱ differentȱ faiths,ȱ areȱ committedȱ toȱ empoweringȱ theȱ poor.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ “aȱ veritableȱ symbiosisȱ ofȱ religions”ȱ occursȱ withinȱ suchȱ multifaithȱ communitiesȱinȱAsia,ȱstating,ȱ“Eachȱreligion,ȱchallengedȱbyȱtheȱ otherȱ religion’sȱ uniqueȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ liberationistȱ aspirationȱ ofȱtheȱpoorȱ…ȱdiscoversȱandȱreȬnamesȱitselfȱinȱitsȱspecificityȱinȱ responseȱtoȱotherȱapproaches”(Pierisȱ1996:ȱ161).ȱSecond,ȱheȱhasȱ usedȱ theȱ wordȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ whatȱ heȱ hasȱ termed,ȱ atȱ theȱ promptingȱ ofȱ Premanȱ Niles,ȱ “crossȬscriptureȱ reading,”ȱ whereȱ heȱhasȱencouragedȱaȱ“symbioticȱapproach”ȱ(Pierisȱ2002:ȱ239).ȱInȱ bothȱcontexts,ȱheȱhasȱcontrastedȱtheȱsymbioticȱwithȱsyncretismȱ andȱ synthesis.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ inȱ factȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theȱ triadȱ ofȱ synȬ cretism,ȱ synthesis,ȱ andȱ symbiosisȱ could,ȱ inȱ Asia,ȱ replaceȱ theȱ Westernȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ exclusivism,ȱ inclusivism,ȱ andȱ pluralismȱ (Pierisȱ1996:ȱ155Ȭ56).ȱ Inȱthisȱpaper,ȱIȱintendȱtoȱexamineȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱsymȬ biosisȱinȱinterreligiousȱdiscourseȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱPieris’ȱusageȱ ratherȱthanȱtoȱSeyfortȱRuegg’s.ȱMyȱaimȱisȱtoȱaskȱifȱthisȱusageȱhasȱ anythingȱ toȱ giveȱ toȱ interreligiousȱ relationsȱ inȱ Europe,ȱ particuȬ larlyȱ toȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ nowȱ knownȱasȱScripturalȱReasoningȱinȱWesternȱdiscourseȱgrewȱfromȱ aȱ “textualȱ reasoning”ȱ groupȱ foundedȱ inȱ 1991ȱ inȱ Americaȱ toȱ enableȱ intrareligiousȱ dialogueȱ betweenȱ Jewishȱ scholarsȱ andȱ Jewishȱphilosophersȱandȱtheologians.ȱWhenȱChristiansȱbeganȱtoȱ attendȱ textualȱ reasoningȱ sessionsȱ atȱ theȱ Americanȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Religionȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱScripturalȱReasoningȱasȱaȱmultifaithȱ activityȱwasȱborn.ȱMuslimsȱjoinedȱinȱtheȱlateȱ1990sȱ(Fordȱ2006:ȱ 3Ȭ4).ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ groupsȱ thatȱ bringȱ togetherȱ ChrisȬ tians,ȱJews,ȱandȱMuslimsȱnowȱexistȱinȱbothȱBritainȱandȱAmerica.ȱ Aȱtypicalȱsessionȱfocusesȱonȱwhatȱlightȱtheȱsacredȱscripturesȱofȱ eachȱ participatingȱ faithȱ canȱ throwȱ onȱ aȱ themeȱ ofȱ commonȱ inȬ

SCRIPTURALȱREASONINGȱORȱSYMBIOSISȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ85ȱ

terest.ȱ Theȱ Octoberȱ 2009ȱ Londonȱ andȱ Oxfordȱ meetingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ Societyȱ inȱ Britain,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ wereȱ onȱ theȱ followingȱ themes:ȱ Conversion;ȱ Biblicalȱ Versesȱ Citedȱ inȱ theȱ Qur’anȱandȱinȱtheirȱBiblicalȱContext;ȱCreation;ȱandȱJustificationȱ ofȱWar.ȱ Pierisȱ wasȱ speakingȱ ofȱ symbiosisȱ betweenȱ religionsȱ atȱ aboutȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ as,ȱ orȱ maybeȱ slightlyȱ before,ȱ theȱ termȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ wasȱ beingȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ West.ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ notȱ dreamȱofȱspeakingȱonȱbehalfȱofȱPierisȱinȱthisȱpaper.ȱHisȱprolificȱ outputȱofȱalmostȱtwoȱhundredȱarticlesȱandȱseveralȱbooksȱspeaksȱ forȱitself.ȱHowever,ȱIȱspentȱnearlyȱeightȱyearsȱinȱSriȱLankaȱfromȱ 1986Ȭ1993ȱandȱwasȱonȱtheȱstaffȱofȱTulana,ȱtheȱresearchȱcentreȱofȱ whichȱ Pierisȱ isȱ theȱ director,ȱ forȱ partȱ ofȱ thatȱ time.ȱ Iȱ continueȱ toȱ visitȱalmostȱeveryȱyear.ȱAsȱforȱScripturalȱReasoning,ȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱ involvedȱ inȱ formalȱ dialoguesȱ inȱ theȱ West,ȱ rootedȱ inȱ scripture,ȱ forȱ manyȱ years,ȱ and,ȱ althoughȱ Iȱ haveȱ notȱ beenȱ partȱ ofȱ anȱ ofȬ ficiallyȱlabelledȱScripturalȱReasoningȱgroup,ȱIȱamȱaȱmemberȱofȱaȱ moreȱlongȬstandingȱJewishȬChristianȬMuslimȱdialogueȱgroupȱinȱ Britain:ȱ theȱ Manorȱ Houseȱ Group.ȱ Myȱ approachȱ toȱ thisȱ theme,ȱ therefore,ȱ willȱ beȱ rootedȱ bothȱ inȱ experienceȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ relationsȱinȱAsiaȱandȱtheȱWestȱandȱtheȱtheoretical.ȱ FirstȱIȱwillȱofferȱaȱcaseȱstudyȱofȱsymbiosisȱasȱPierisȱhasȱreȬ presentedȱ it.ȱ Iȱ willȱ thenȱ exploreȱ theȱ parallelsȱ andȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ thisȱ representationȱ ofȱ symbiosisȱ andȱ Scripturalȱ ReaȬ soning,ȱbringingȱtheȱtwoȱintoȱdialogueȱwithȱoneȱanotherȱinȱorȬ derȱtoȱask:ȱ“IsȱPieris’ȱconceptȱofȱsymbiosisȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱEuroȬ peanȱcontext?”ȱ AloysiusȱPierisȱSJȱ Aloysiusȱ Pierisȱ isȱ Directorȱ ofȱ Tulanaȱ Researchȱ Centreȱ inȱ aȱ vilȬ lageȱ areaȱ outsideȱ Colombo,ȱ nearȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ reveredȱ cenȬ tresȱofȱBuddhistȱpilgrimageȱinȱtheȱisland,ȱKelaniya.ȱTheȱCentreȱ isȱanȱaestheticȱjewel.ȱThereȱisȱanȱappreciationȱofȱbeautyȱdownȱtoȱ theȱlastȱdetail.ȱLeavesȱandȱpetalsȱareȱdrawnȱintoȱtheȱstoneȱofȱtheȱ pathwayȱbetweenȱtheȱmeditationȱroomȱandȱoneȱofȱtheȱlibraries,ȱ spanningȱaȱsmallȱpondȱfilledȱwithȱlotusȱflowersȱintoȱwhichȱrainȬ waterȱdrainsȱnaturally.ȱWorksȱofȱartȱrepresentingȱBuddhistȱandȱ ChristianȱthemesȱgreetȱtheȱvisitorȱasȱtheyȱwalkȱtoȱtheȱmainȱenȬ tranceȱ andȱ intoȱ theȱ receptionȱ room.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ tulanaȱ comesȱ fromȱ Paliȱ andȱ Sanskritȱ andȱ canȱ beȱ definedȱ asȱ discernment,ȱ


weighingȱ thingsȱ up,ȱ considerationȱ orȱ discerningȱ action.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ wordȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ Paliȱ textsȱ ofȱ Therav¬daȱ Buddhismȱ inȱ conȬ nectionȱ withȱ aȱ disciple’sȱ attitudeȱ toȱ aȱ teacherȱ orȱ theȱ teachings.ȱ TheȱCentre’sȱworkȱfocusesȱonȱthreeȱactivitiesȱlinkedȱtoȱthisȱconȬ cept:ȱ researchȱ andȱ reflection,ȱ criticalȱ deliberation,ȱ andȱ encounȬ ter/action,ȱ allȱ withinȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ understandȬ ing,ȱparticularlyȱChristianȬBuddhistȱunderstanding.ȱ Aloysiusȱ Pierisȱ wasȱ bornȱ inȱ 1934ȱ andȱ joinedȱ theȱ Jesuitsȱ inȱ 1953,ȱ alreadyȱ havingȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ Latinȱ andȱ Pali.ȱ Heȱ didȱ hisȱ novitiateȱinȱIndiaȱandȱeventuallyȱtookȱaȱLondonȱdegreeȱinȱPaliȱ andȱSanskrit.ȱHeȱhasȱtwoȱdoctorates,ȱoneȱinȱBuddhismȱandȱoneȱ inȱ Christianȱ theology.ȱ Heȱ wasȱ theȱ firstȱ Christian,ȱ letȱ aloneȱ priest,ȱtoȱobtainȱaȱPh.D.ȱinȱBuddhismȱ(inȱ1971)ȱatȱwhatȱwasȱthenȱ theȱUniversityȱofȱSriȱLanka.ȱHisȱsuperiorsȱhadȱdestinedȱhimȱforȱ theȱGregorianȱatȱthisȱpoint,ȱbutȱaȱperiodȱofȱdiscernmentȱresultedȱ inȱ himȱ remainingȱ inȱ Sriȱ Lankaȱ “toȱ serveȱ theȱ ruralȱ youthȱ inȱ buildingȱ upȱ theȱ twoȱ dimensionsȱ ofȱ aȱ liberatedȱ society:ȱ interiorȱ transformationȱandȱsocialȱchange”ȱ(Crusz,ȱFernando,ȱandȱTilaȬ karatneȱ 2004:ȱ 656).ȱ Tulanaȱ Researchȱ Centreȱ wasȱ foundedȱ inȱ 1974ȱatȱaȱtimeȱwhenȱPierisȱwasȱalreadyȱcombiningȱsocialȱaction,ȱ theȱ interiorȱ actionȱ ofȱ meditation,ȱ andȱ academicȱ research.ȱ Heȱ continuedȱ thisȱ atȱ Tulana,ȱ acceptingȱ visitingȱ professorshipsȱ abroadȱ butȱ retainingȱ aȱ permanent,ȱ activist,ȱ homeȱ inȱ Sriȱ Lanka,ȱ travellingȱalongȱ“theȱinvisibleȱmarginȱbetweenȱEastȱandȱWest”ȱ (Crusz,ȱ Fernando,ȱ andȱ Tilakaratneȱ 2004:ȱ 650).ȱ Allȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ writtenȱ academically,ȱ heȱ insists,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ rootedȱ inȱ action,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱhisȱchaplaincyȱofȱseveralȱinterfaithȱbasicȱhumanȱcomȬ munitiesȱestablishedȱbyȱtheȱChristianȱWorkers’ȱFellowship,ȱhisȱ roleȱasȱcoȬchair,ȱtogetherȱwithȱaȱBuddhistȱmonk,ȱofȱtheȱmanageȬ mentȱ boardȱ ofȱ aȱ schoolȱ forȱ hearingȱ impairedȱ childrenȱ andȱ hisȱ continuousȱ workȱ forȱ greaterȱ interethnicȱ understandingȱ inȱ Sriȱ Lanka.ȱInȱtheȱlastȱfifteenȱyears,ȱheȱhasȱstoppedȱpublishingȱinȱtheȱ Westȱ andȱ travellingȱ toȱ theȱ West,ȱ preferringȱ toȱ publishȱ inȱ Sriȱ Lankaȱatȱpricesȱpeopleȱcanȱafford.ȱ InȱaȱpaperȱgivenȱinȱBossey,ȱSwitzerland,ȱinȱ1978ȱtoȱtheȱProȬ testantȱ Associationȱ forȱ Worldȱ Mission,ȱ Pierisȱ yearnedȱ forȱ aȱ churchȱhumbleȱenoughȱtoȱ“beȱbaptizedȱbyȱitsȱprecursorsȱinȱtheȱ JordanȱofȱAsianȱreligionȱandȱboldȱenoughȱtoȱbeȱbaptizedȱbyȱopȬ pressiveȱ systemsȱ onȱ theȱ crossȱ ofȱ Asianȱ poverty”ȱ (Pierisȱ 1988b:ȱ 41),ȱ usingȱ theȱ exampleȱ ofȱ Jesus’ȱ baptismȱ atȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ John.ȱ


Religiousnessȱandȱpoverty,ȱheȱclaimed,ȱwereȱtheȱtwoȱmostȱsigȬ nificantȱfeaturesȱofȱAsianȱsocietyȱandȱtheȱChristianȱChurchȱhadȱ toȱ beȱ baptizedȱ intoȱ each.ȱ Itȱ hadȱ toȱ respondȱ bothȱ toȱ aȱ monasticȱ imperative,ȱ theȱ callȱ toȱ renunciationȱ ofȱ wealthȱ andȱ powerȱ presȬ entȱinȱbothȱBuddhismȱandȱChristianity,ȱandȱaȱsocialistȱimperaȬ tive,ȱ aȱ callȱ toȱ identifyȱ withȱ theȱ poor.ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ theȱ messageȱ heȱ wasȱalsoȱgivingȱtheȱChurchȱinȱSriȱLanka.ȱ Inȱtheȱyearsȱthatȱfollowed,ȱthisȱtheologicalȱmessageȱwasȱdeȬ velopedȱ andȱ nuanced,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ inȱ theȱ assertionȱthatȱChrisȬ tiansȱ shouldȱ beȱ discerningȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ Asianȱ religionȱ inȱ whichȱtheyȱimmersedȱthemselves.ȱJesus,ȱbyȱchoosingȱJohnȱtoȱbeȱ hisȱ baptizer,ȱ optedȱ forȱ theȱ ancientȱ traditionȱ ofȱ propheticȱ ascetȬ icism,ȱvoluntaryȱpovertyȱandȱidentificationȱwithȱtheȱpoor,ȱoverȱ andȱ aboveȱ otherȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ Judaismȱ (Pierisȱ 1988a:ȱ 35Ȭ50).ȱ Parallelȱtoȱthis,ȱheȱofferedȱmodelsȱforȱChristianity’sȱrelationshipȱ withȱotherȱreligions.ȱOnȱmyȱownȱreadingȱofȱhisȱwork,ȱheȱmakesȱ fourȱcriticallyȱimportantȱpoints.ȱTheȱfirstȱisȱthatȱeachȱreligionȱisȱ stampedȱbyȱitsȱownȱunrepeatableȱidentity.ȱLinkedȱtoȱthis,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱisȱtheȱassertionȱthatȱcommonȱgroundȱexists,ȱparticularlyȱinȱ eachȱreligion’sȱoppositionȱtoȱMammonȱorȱgreedȱandȱtheȱaffirmȬ ationȱofȱtheȱqualitiesȱfoundȱinȱtheȱChristianȱBeatitudes.ȱTheȱsecȬ ondȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ differentȱ coreȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ theȱ greatȱ religionsȱ canȱ beȱ complementaryȱ toȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Theyȱ canȱ representȱ muȬ tuallyȱ correctiveȱ instinctsȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ spirit.ȱ Third,ȱ Pierisȱ asȬ sertsȱthatȱinterreligiousȱencounter,ȱdialogue,ȱandȱactionȱisȱnotȱaȱ luxuryȱ butȱ aȱ necessity.ȱ Symbiosisȱ comesȱ inȱ theȱ last,ȱ inȱ theȱ asȬ sertionȱthatȱsymbiosis,ȱratherȱthanȱsyncretismȱorȱsynthesis,ȱisȱanȱ appropriateȱdescriptionȱofȱwhatȱhappensȱinȱauthenticȱinterreliȬ giousȱencounter.ȱ Theȱfirstȱassertion,ȱthatȱeachȱreligionȱisȱstampedȱbyȱitsȱownȱ unrepeatableȱ identity,ȱ leadsȱ toȱ aȱ principleȱ inȱ “crossȬscripturalȱ reading”ȱthatȱsupportersȱofȱScripturalȱReasoningȱwouldȱrecogȬ nise,ȱ thatȱonlyȱaȱscrupulousȱregardȱforȱtheȱother’sȱunderstandingȱofȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ religiousȱ textsȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ aȱ strictȱ adherenceȱ toȱ theȱ distinctiveȱparadigmȱwithinȱwhichȱreligionȱdefinesȱitsȱidentityȱ andȱ createsȱ itsȱ ownȱ idiom,ȱ canȱ guaranteeȱ theȱ moralȱ rectȬ itudeȱandȱtheȱintellectualȱhonestyȱrequiredȱinȱinterȬreligiousȱ dialogue.ȱ(Pierisȱ2002:ȱ229)ȱ


This,ȱinȱturn,ȱleadsȱtoȱaȱcontestingȱofȱsyncretismȱandȱsynthesis.ȱ Pierisȱdescribesȱtheȱfirstȱasȱ“aȱcocktailȱinȱwhichȱtheȱcomponentsȱ changeȱtheirȱflavourȱunderȱtheirȱmutualȱinfluence”ȱ(Pierisȱ2002:ȱ 239)ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ asȱ “aȱ processȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ componentsȱ totallyȱloseȱtheirȱidentityȱinȱaȱtertiumȱquidȱthatȱis,ȱinȱtheȱcreationȱ ofȱ somethingȱ altogetherȱ new”ȱ (Pierisȱ 2002:ȱ 239).ȱ Neitherȱ reȬ spectsȱ theȱ identityȱ orȱ theȱ totalȱ worldviewȱ ofȱ theȱ religionsȱ conȬ cerned.ȱ Itȱ isȱ fromȱ theȱ basicȱ premiseȱ thatȱ eachȱ religionȱ hasȱ itsȱ ownȱ unrepeatableȱ identityȱ thatȱ Pierisȱ buildsȱ hisȱ argumentsȱ conȬ cerningȱbothȱcomplementarityȱbetweenȱreligionsȱandȱsymbiosis.ȱ Inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ Christianity,ȱ heȱ hasȱ becomeȱ wellȱ knownȱ forȱ juxtaposingȱ gnosisȱ andȱ agape,ȱ orȱ wisdomȱ andȱ love.ȱHeȱhasȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱcoreȱexperienceȱwithinȱBuddhism,ȱ theȱBuddha’sȱenlightenment,ȱconcernedȱwisdom,ȱorȱinsightȱintoȱ reality,ȱ throughȱ selfȬpurificationȱ andȱ renunciation.ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ coreȱ experienceȱ ofȱ Christianity,ȱ theȱ deathȱ andȱ resurrectionȱ ofȱ Jesus,ȱ embodiedȱ agapeȱ orȱ selfȬgiving,ȱ redemptiveȱ love.ȱ Thisȱ didȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ Buddhismȱ heldȱ noȱ agapeȱ withinȱ itȱ orȱ thatȱ Christianityȱneverȱspokeȱofȱwisdom.ȱItȱwasȱtheȱcoreȱexperienceȱ thatȱ wasȱ different.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ enlightenmentȱ orȱ wisdomȱ thatȱ theȱ Buddhaȱ attained.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ selfȬgivingȱ loveȱ thatȱ Jesusȱ demonȬ stratedȱonȱtheȱcross.ȱNeitherȱwasȱsuperior.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱmostȱimȬ portantȱpointȱmadeȱbyȱPierisȱisȱthatȱbothȱareȱ“necessaryȱpreciselyȱ becauseȱeachȱinȱitselfȱisȱinadequateȱasȱaȱmedium,ȱnotȱonlyȱforȱexȬ periencingȱ butȱ alsoȱ forȱ expressingȱ ourȱ intimateȱ momentsȱ withȱ theȱ Ultimateȱ Sourceȱ ofȱ Liberation”ȱ (Pierisȱ 1988b:ȱ 111).ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱwisdomȱcannotȱbeȱwholeȱwithoutȱaȱlanguageȱofȱselfȬgivȬ ingȱlove,ȱandȱselfȬgivingȱloveȱcannotȱbeȱwholeȱwithoutȱaȱseekȬ ingȱ ofȱ insightȱ throughȱ discipline,ȱ renunciationȱ andȱ selfȬknowlȬ edge.ȱ Theȱ oneȱ pathȱ ofȱ liberationȱ needsȱ bothȱ Buddhistȱ gnosticȱ detachmentȱ andȱ Christianȱ agapeicȱ involvementȱ inȱ aȱ coreȬtoȬ coreȱdialogueȱ(Pierisȱ1988b:ȱ135).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ pointȱ atȱ whichȱ symbiosisȱ enters.ȱ Christianity,ȱ Pierisȱhasȱstressed,ȱhasȱcrushedȱtoȱitsȱdetrimentȱtheȱgnosticȱsideȱ itȱonceȱpossessedȱandȱnowȱneedsȱtoȱlearnȱfromȱreligionsȱsuchȱasȱ Buddhism,ȱ soȱ thatȱ itȱ canȱ rediscoverȱ gnosticȱ detachmentȱ andȱ voluntaryȱ poverty.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ Theravadaȱ Buddhism,ȱ heȱhasȱsuggested,ȱneedsȱtoȱhaveȱanȱinfusionȱofȱselfȬgivingȱloveȱ forȱitȱtoȱrediscoverȱitsȱownȱemphasisȱonȱcompassion.ȱForȱthisȱtoȱ


happen,ȱbothȱreligionsȱneedȱtoȱbe,ȱasȱitȱwere,ȱ“evangelised”ȱbyȱ theȱother,ȱnotȱbyȱaȱmodelȱofȱevangelismȱthatȱseeksȱtoȱproselytiseȱ orȱ toȱ drawȱ peopleȱ awayȱ fromȱ theirȱ ownȱ religiousȱ heritageȱ butȱ byȱ thatȱ whichȱ encouragesȱ peopleȱ toȱ reclaimȱ whatȱ hadȱ beenȱ trulyȱ theirsȱ allȱ along.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ placesȱ whereȱ Pierisȱ hasȱ witȬ nessedȱ thisȱ inȱ actionȱ isȱ inȱ theȱ baseȱ humanȱ communitiesȱ esȬ tablishedȱ byȱ theȱ Christianȱ Workers’ȱ Fellowship,ȱ inȱ townsȱ suchȱ asȱBadullaȱandȱGalahaȱinȱSriȱLanka.ȱ Letȱ meȱ repeatȱ whatȱ Pierisȱ hasȱ writtenȱ aboutȱ symbiosisȱ inȱ suchȱcommunities:ȱ Eachȱreligion,ȱchallengedȱbyȱtheȱotherȱreligions’ȱuniqueȱapȬ proachȱtoȱtheȱliberationistȱaspirationȱofȱtheȱpoorȱ…ȱdiscovȬ ersȱandȱreȬnamesȱitselfȱinȱitsȱspecificityȱinȱresponseȱtoȱotherȱ approaches.ȱ Whatȱ Iȱ haveȱ beenȱ describingȱ asȱ Christianȱ uniquenessȱinȱtheȱBHCȱexperience,ȱreflectsȱbothȱtheȱprocessȱ andȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ aȱ symbiosis.ȱ Itȱ indicatesȱ one’sȱ converȬ sionȱ toȱ theȱ commonȱ heritageȱ toȱ allȱ religionsȱ (Beatitudes)ȱ andȱalsoȱaȱconversionȱtoȱtheȱspecificityȱofȱone’sȱownȱreligionȱ asȱ dictatedȱ byȱ otherȱ religionists.ȱ Youȱ mayȱ callȱ itȱ interȬreliȬ giousȱdialogueȱifȱyouȱlike.ȱ(Pierisȱ1996:ȱ161;ȱPierisȱ2004:ȱ263)ȱ

Inȱ symbiosis,ȱ Pierisȱ seesȱ peopleȱ ofȱ oneȱ religionȱ soȱ exposingȱ themselvesȱtoȱinȬdepthȱencounterȱwithȱpeopleȱofȱotherȱreligionsȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ taughtȱ byȱ “theȱ other”ȱ whatȱ isȱ significantȱ andȱ uniqueȱinȱtheirȱownȱtradition.ȱInȱtheȱcontextȱofȱBuddhistȬChrisȬ tianȱ basicȱ interfaithȱ communities,ȱ Buddhistsȱ teachȱ Christiansȱ “toȱclarifyȱtheirȱreligiousȱidentityȱandȱspellȱoutȱtheȱuniquenessȱ ofȱ Christ”ȱ (Pierisȱ 1996:ȱ 133)ȱ andȱ Christiansȱ teachȱ Buddhistsȱ whatȱisȱuniqueȱaboutȱBuddhism.ȱForȱthisȱtoȱbeȱliberative,ȱinȱtheȱ truestȱ sense,ȱ thereȱ has,ȱ Pierisȱ insists,ȱ toȱ beȱ commonȱ commitȬ mentȱ toȱ theȱ poorȱ andȱ sensitivityȱ toȱ whatȱ heȱ terms,ȱ “theȱ UnȬ spokenȱSpeaker,”ȱtoȱtheȱSpiritȱthatȱisȱnotȱtiedȱdownȱtoȱanyȱdogȬ ma,ȱ rite,ȱ orȱlaw,ȱthatȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ heardȱ inȱ theȱ oppressedȱ “whoȱ areȱ mostlyȱ nonȬChristian”ȱ (Pierisȱ 1996:ȱ 128).ȱ Elitistȱ interfaithȱ comȬ munitiesȱheȱdismisses.ȱ Atȱ Tulanaȱ Researchȱ Centre,ȱ thisȱ conceptȱ ofȱ symbiosisȱ isȱ embodiedȱ inȱ art.ȱ Tulanaȱ isȱ fullȱ ofȱ magisterialȱ piecesȱ ofȱ artȱ –ȱ murals,ȱ sculptures,ȱ paintingsȱ –ȱ onȱ Buddhistȱ andȱ Christianȱ themes.ȱ Significantly,ȱ allȱ theȱ worksȱ onȱ Christianȱ themesȱ areȱ craftedȱbyȱBuddhistsȱandȱallȱtheȱworksȱonȱBuddhistȱthemesȱareȱ


craftedȱbyȱChristians.ȱWhenȱspeakingȱtoȱGeorgȱEvers,ȱPierisȱexȬ plainedȱTulana’sȱfocusȱonȱartȱinȱthisȱway:ȱ IȱhaveȱbeenȱinsistingȱthatȱtraditionalȱtheologyȱisȱtooȱmatheȬ matical,ȱ formulatory,ȱ unilinear,ȱ logical,ȱ andȱ notȱ intuitive,ȱ notȱ evocative,ȱ notȱ capableȱ ofȱ providingȱ spiritualȱ nourishȬ mentȱ andȱ notȱ capableȱ ofȱ inspiringȱ actionȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ theȱ poor.ȱ Iȱ alwaysȱ believedȱ inȱ theȱ obliqueȱ languageȱ ofȱ poetryȱ andȱparableȱandȱtheȱevocativeȱidiomȱofȱartȱandȱmusic.ȱSoȱaȱ theologyȱ asȱ anȱ aestheticȱ achievementȱ isȱ emphasisedȱ atȱ TuȬ lana.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ manyȱ newȱ artisticȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ Christianȱ themesȱ executedȱ byȱ Buddhists.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ changingȱ theȱ mediumȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ expressionȱ thatȱ weȱ haveȱattemptedȱhere,ȱbutȱalsoȱaȱchangeȱofȱactorsȱi.eȱinsteadȱ ofȱ tellingȱ theȱ nonȬChristiansȱ whoȱ Christȱ isȱ (asȱ theȱ churchȱ hasȱbeenȱdoingȱforȱcenturies)ȱweȱhaveȱaskedȱtheȱnonȬChrisȬ tiansȱ toȱ tellȱ theȱ churchȱ (inȱ art,ȱ sculpture,ȱ muralȱ reliefsȱ etc.)ȱ whereȱ Christȱ is.ȱ Theyȱ teachȱ usȱ theȱ authenticȱ languageȱ inȱ whichȱ Christȱ isȱ understoodȱ inȱ Asia.ȱ (Crusz,ȱ Fernando,ȱ andȱ Tilakaratneȱ2004:ȱ660)ȱ

Forȱ instance,ȱ thereȱ areȱ twoȱ muralsȱ onȱ theȱ wallsȱ ofȱ theȱ reȬ ceptionȱ roomȱ thatȱ oneȱ entersȱ throughȱ archesȱ straightȱ fromȱ theȱ garden.ȱ Oneȱ showsȱ Jesusȱ washingȱ theȱ feetȱ ofȱ hisȱ disciplesȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ Jesusȱ inȱ theȱ Templeȱ inȱ Jerusalemȱ asȱ aȱ youngȱ manȱ askingȱquestions.ȱTheȱfirstȱisȱtheȱworkȱofȱBuddhistȱmonk,ȱVen.ȱ Hatigammanaȱ Uttarananda,ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ ofȱ aȱ layȱ Buddhist,ȱ KingsleyȱGunatilleke.ȱInȱtheȱfirst,ȱtheȱsceneȱisȱaȱtraditionalȱone.ȱ Asianȱ mendicantsȱ comeȱ inȱ processionȱ toȱ aȱ homeȱ withȱ almsȱ bowls.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ notȱ Buddhistȱ monksȱ becauseȱ theirȱ headsȱ areȱ notȱshaved,ȱbutȱtheyȱareȱsimilarȱtoȱthem.ȱWhatȱisȱunusualȱisȱthatȱ itȱisȱnotȱaȱservantȱwhoȱisȱwashingȱtheȱfeetȱofȱtheȱmendicantsȱbutȱ theȱ host,ȱ whoȱ isȱ theȱ Jesusȱ figure.ȱ Alsoȱ highlightedȱ isȱ theȱ posiȬ tionȱofȱwomen.ȱPresentȱatȱtheȱeventȱisȱoneȱwomanȱofȱhighȱcasteȱ andȱoneȱofȱlow,ȱillustratingȱthatȱ“thereȱisȱnoȱdiscriminationȱbeȬ tweenȱ maleȱ andȱ female,ȱ betweenȱ highȱ andȱ lowȱ caste,ȱ andȱ beȬ tweenȱChristianȱandȱnonȬChristian”ȱ(Pierisȱ1996:ȱ134).ȱ Beforeȱ embarkingȱ onȱ thisȱ work,ȱ Ven.ȱ Uttaranandaȱ hadȱ readȱ theȱ Christianȱ gospels.ȱ Aloysiusȱ Pierisȱ hadȱ askedȱ himȱ toȱ depictȱ somethingȱ thatȱ struckȱ himȱ asȱ uniqueȱ toȱ Christianity.ȱ Inȱ effect,ȱ heȱ wasȱ askingȱ Uttaranandaȱ toȱ answerȱ theȱ questionsȱ “Whoȱ isȱ Jesus?ȱ Whatȱ liesȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ Christianity?”ȱ Ven.ȱ


Uttaranandaȱ didȱ soȱ byȱ choosingȱ theȱ revolutionaryȱ challengeȱ ChristianityȱholdsȱoutȱtoȱanyȱfeudalisticȱcultureȱinȱitsȱrepresenȬ tationȱofȱoneȱwithȱspiritualȱauthority:ȱserving.ȱPierisȱlinkedȱitȱtoȱ whatȱheȱisȱconvincedȱChristiansȱinȱSriȱLankaȱandȱtheȱWestȱneedȱ toȱhear,ȱconcerningȱrenunciationȱandȱvoluntaryȱpoverty:ȱ ThusȱsomethingȱthatȱhasȱalsoȱappearedȱuniqueȱaboutȱChristȱ hasȱ beenȱ discoveredȱ forȱ usȱ byȱ thisȱ monk:ȱ thatȱ Jesusȱ makesȱ senseȱinȱAsiaȱonlyȱwhenȱheȱscandalisesȱtheȱfeudalȱsocietyȱbyȱ manifestingȱhimselfȱasȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱbecomesȱtheȱslaveȱofȱtheȱ slavesȱ ofȱ theȱ earth.ȱ Sinceȱ then,ȱ myȱ readingȱ ofȱ Philippiansȱ 2:6Ȭ11ȱ hasȱ notȱ beenȱ theȱ same.ȱ Theȱ wholeȱ doctrineȱ ofȱ incarȬ nationȱcanȱmissȱtheȱrealȱissueȱatȱstakeȱifȱourȱtheologicalȱexȬ erciseȱ revolvesȱ aroundȱ theȱ futileȱ attemptȱ atȱ reconcilingȱ inȬ tellectuallyȱtheȱdivineȱandȱtheȱhumanȱnaturesȱinȱJesus.ȱRaȬ ther,ȱ theȱ Incarnationȱ isȱ theȱ scandalousȱ agreementȱ (coveȬ nant)ȱ betweenȱ Godȱ andȱ slaves,ȱ embodiedȱ inȱ Jesusȱ whoȱ sidedȱwithȱtheȱnonpersonsȱasȱaȱsignȱandȱproofȱofȱhisȱdivineȱ nature.ȱ(Pierisȱ1996:ȱ134)ȱ

Theȱotherȱmuralȱinȱtheȱreceptionȱroom,ȱwhichȱisȱmadeȱoutȱ ofȱ clay,ȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ fruitȱ ofȱ dialogueȱ overȱ scripture,ȱ thisȱ timeȱ Lukeȱ 2:41Ȭ52.ȱ Itȱ showsȱ Jesusȱ askingȱ questionsȱ inȱ theȱ templeȱ inȱ Jerusalem.ȱJesus’ȱfaceȱlooksȱupȱtoȱhisȱteachersȱinȱeager,ȱinnocentȱ inquiry.ȱBehindȱhimȱareȱhisȱparents,ȱanxiousȱbecauseȱJesusȱisȱreȬ fusingȱ toȱ submitȱ toȱ theirȱ control.ȱ Rangedȱ aroundȱ himȱ areȱ notȱ onlyȱ Jewishȱ teachersȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ Buddha,ȱ Mahavira,ȱ Krishna,ȱ Laotse,ȱConfucius,ȱandȱwomenȱteachers.ȱMoses,ȱSocrates,ȱPlato,ȱ andȱAristotleȱareȱalsoȱpresent.ȱTheȱmessageȱofȱtheȱmuralȱisȱthatȱ theȱ humanȱ searchȱ forȱ truthȱ isȱ likeȱ aȱ sacredȱ temple,ȱ “inȱ whichȱ theȱ Wordȱ isȱ beingȱ formedȱ inȱ theȱ exchangesȱ ofȱ manyȱ holyȱ andȱ learnedȱ peopleȱ whoȱ haveȱ servedȱ humankindȱwithȱtheirȱsacredȱ findings”ȱ(Pierisȱ1996:ȱ137).ȱInȱthisȱsearch,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱroomȱforȱaȱ religionȱthatȱhasȱtheȱarroganceȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱitȱcanȱstandȱalone.ȱ Toȱbeȱtrulyȱitself,ȱeachȱreligionȱmustȱlearnȱfromȱothers.ȱ Theseȱ areȱ butȱ twoȱ ofȱ theȱ worksȱ ofȱ artȱ atȱ Tulana.ȱ Kingsleyȱ Gunatilleke,ȱbeforeȱattemptingȱtheȱclayȱmural,ȱcompletedȱaȱPiȬ eta,ȱwhichȱstandsȱoutsideȱtheȱmainȱbuilding.ȱTheȱbodyȱofȱJesusȱ isȱ movinglyȱ naturalisticȱ andȱ representsȱ notȱ onlyȱ Jesusȱ butȱ theȱ thousandsȱofȱyoungȱpeopleȱinȱSriȱLankaȱwhoȱwereȱkilledȱinȱtheȱ internalȱwarsȱofȱtheȱ1970sȱandȱ1980s.ȱTheȱfigureȱofȱMary,ȱfromȱ oneȱangle,ȱevokesȱtheȱshapeȱofȱtheȱislandȱofȱSriȱLanka.ȱBehindȱisȱ


aȱ cross,ȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ juxtapositionȱ ofȱ aȱ lamppostȱ andȱ anȱ armyȱ tank,ȱtheȱlamppostȱevokingȱaȱmodeȱofȱkillingȱusedȱbyȱtheȱyoungȱ militants.ȱ Butȱ theȱ lamppostȱ hasȱ aȱ cobraȬlikeȱ headȱ –ȱ andȱ theȱ cobraȱcanȱbeȱaȱforceȱforȱgoodȱifȱitsȱpotentialȱforȱharmȱisȱtamedȱ (Pierisȱ 1996:ȱ 135Ȭ36).ȱ Hisȱ latestȱ andȱ mostȱ magisterialȱ workȱ reȬ presentsȱ Jesusȱ takingȱ aȱ drinkȱ fromȱ theȱ womanȱ atȱ theȱ wellȱ inȱ Samaria.ȱTheȱnumberȱofȱworks,ȱhowever,ȱisȱnotȱasȱimportantȱasȱ theȱprincipleȱbehindȱthem.ȱ Theȱ artȱ atȱ Tulanaȱ isȱ anȱ embodimentȱ ofȱ theȱ symbiosisȱ thatȱ Pierisȱchampions.ȱBothȱVen.ȱUttaranandaȱandȱKingsleyȱGunatilȬ leke,ȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ depthsȱ ofȱ theirȱ Buddhistȱ commitmentȱ andȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Christianȱ scripture,ȱ haveȱ comȬ pletedȱpiecesȱofȱartȱthatȱaimȱtoȱevokeȱinȱChristiansȱnewȱappreciȬ ationsȱofȱtruth.ȱItȱisȱaȱformȱofȱ“crossȬscriptureȱreading,”ȱinȱconȬ nectionȱwithȱwhichȱPierisȱhasȱsaidȱthatȱaȱsymbioticȱapproachȱisȱ “mostȱconduciveȱtoȱreciprocalȱspiritualȱnourishmentȱamongȱtheȱ membersȱ ofȱ multiȬreligiousȱ communities”ȱ (Pierisȱ 2002:ȱ 239).ȱ CrossȬscriptureȱ reading,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Pieris,ȱ isȱ anȱ approachȱ throughȱ whichȱ Buddhistȱ insightsȱ andȱ textsȱ throwȱ lightȱ onȱ Christianȱtexts,ȱandȱChristianȱinsightsȱandȱtextsȱthrowȱlightȱonȱ Buddhistȱtexts.ȱItȱavoidsȱinclusivismȱandȱencouragesȱtheȱteasingȱ outȱofȱimplicitȱmeaningsȱthatȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱrevealedȱwithoutȱanȱ encounterȱwithȱtheȱtextsȱofȱ“theȱother.”ȱPierisȱusesȱaȱSriȱLankanȱ Methodistȱminister,ȱRevdȱLynnȱdeȱSilva,ȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱpotenȬ tialȱofȱtheȱprocess.ȱDeȱSilvaȱwasȱaȱscholarȱofȱPaliȱandȱBuddhism,ȱ whoȱ calledȱ forȱ intelligentȱ dialogueȱ betweenȱ Buddhistsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ(Harrisȱ2000:ȱ359).ȱOneȱofȱhisȱmostȱinfluentialȱpublicȬ cationsȱwasȱaȱstudyȱofȱtheȱBuddhistȱdoctrineȱofȱanattaȱ(nonȬself)ȱ andȱ theȱ Christianȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ soulȱ (Deȱ Silvaȱ 1975).ȱ Hisȱ reȬ search,ȱ asȱ Pierisȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ ledȱ himȱ toȱ deȬHellenizeȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ revealingȱ thatȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ Christianity,ȱ whenȱ dealingȱ withȱ theȱquestionȱofȱtheȱself,ȱareȱcloserȱthanȱmanyȱpeopleȱassume.ȱInȱ otherȱwords,ȱtheȱstudyȱofȱBuddhistȱtextsȱenabledȱDeȱSilvaȱtoȱseeȱ theȱheartȱofȱChristianȱdoctrineȱmoreȱclearlyȱ(Pierisȱ2002:ȱ240Ȭ41).ȱ TouchingȱPointsȱwithȱScripturalȱReasoningȱ TheȱScripturalȱReasoningȱSociety,ȱaȱnetworkȱofȱlocalȱScripturalȱ Reasoningȱgroupsȱinȱuniversities,ȱreligiousȱseminaries,ȱandȱsynȬ agogues,ȱ churches,ȱ temples,ȱ andȱ mosquesȱ inȱ Britainȱ describesȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱinȱthisȱwayȱonȱitsȱhomeȱpage:ȱ

SCRIPTURALȱREASONINGȱORȱSYMBIOSISȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ93ȱ ThroughȱthisȱpracticeȱofȱScripturalȱReasoning,ȱandȱreadingȱ ourȱ sacredȱ textsȱ together,ȱ weȱ seekȱ toȱ understandȱ andȱ reȬ spectȱ eachȱ other’sȱ importantȱ differencesȱ ofȱ belief.ȱ Unlikeȱ someȱotherȱkindsȱofȱinterfaithȱdialogue,ȱweȱaimȱnotȱtoȱpreȬ tendȱ aȱ consensusȱ betweenȱ ourȱ oftenȱ divergentȱ religiousȱ teachingsȱ andȱ practices,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ weȱ seekȱ toȱ understandȱ ourȱ disagreementsȱ moreȱ deeplyȱ throughȱ scriptureȱ studyȱ Ȭȱ andȱbuildȱfriendshipsȱoutȱofȱthatȱbetterȱqualityȱdisagreement. (www.ȱscripturalreasoning.org.uk)ȱ

Theȱ Society,ȱ whichȱ isȱ oneȱ independentȱ “School”ȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning,ȱ isȱ guidedȱ byȱ theirȱ foundingȱ communityȱ ethic,ȱ theȱ Oxfordȱ Ethic,ȱ whichȱ stressesȱ parityȱ betweenȱ participatingȱ faiths,ȱequalityȱbetweenȱparticipatingȱindividualsȱinȱspiteȱofȱdifȬ ferencesȱofȱacademicȱstanding,ȱsocialȬeducationalȱstatus,ȱorȱgenȬ der,ȱ subordination,ȱ andȱ subsidiarityȱ –ȱ namelyȱ thatȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱshouldȱrecogniseȱitsȱ“submissiveȱandȱsecondaryȱstaȬ tusȱtoȱtheȱcenturiesȬoldȱautonomousȱfaithȱtraditionsȱfromȱwhichȱ itsȱparticipantsȱderive.”ȱ WhenȱIȱcompareȱPieris’conceptȱofȱsymbiosisȱandȱScripturalȱ Reasoning,ȱfourȱsimilaritiesȱorȱtouchingȱpointsȱandȱfourȱdifferȬ encesȱleapȱoutȱatȱme.ȱIȱwillȱbeginȱwithȱtheȱsimilarities.ȱTheȱfirstȱ isȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ affirmingȱ theȱ religiousȱ identityȱ ofȱ particiȬ pantsȱinȱtheseȱformsȱofȱdialogueȱandȱencounter.ȱBothȱPierisȱandȱ thoseȱ involvedȱ inȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ areȱ adamantȱ thatȱ theȱ integrityȱ ofȱ eachȱ religionȱ shouldȱ beȱ respected.ȱ Davidȱ Ford,ȱ aȱ pioneerȱofȱScripturalȱReasoningȱinȱBritain,ȱgoesȱasȱfarȱasȱtoȱsayȱ that,ȱ“noȱoneȱcanȱliveȱandȱthink,ȱbearingȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱofȱtheseȱ coreȱidentitiesȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime”ȱ(Fordȱ2006:ȱ14),ȱnamelyȱthoseȱ ofȱJudaism,ȱChristianity,ȱandȱIslam.ȱPierisȱspeaksȱaboutȱeachȱreȬ ligion’sȱunrepeatableȱidentity.ȱTheȱkeyȱwordȱinȱtheȱquoteȱfromȱ Fordȱ isȱ “bearing.”ȱ Itȱ isȱ certainlyȱ possibleȱ forȱ oneȱ personȱ toȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ speakȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ religionȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱtime,ȱbutȱtoȱbearȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱidentityȱisȱmoreȱdifficult.ȱ PierisȱcanȱspeakȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱBuddhismȱbutȱdoesȱnotȱbearȱaȱ Buddhistȱidentity.ȱNicholasȱAdamsȱhasȱstressedȱthatȱScripturalȱ Reasoningȱfostersȱ“practicesȱofȱlearningȱeachȱother’sȱlanguages”ȱ (Adamsȱ 2006:ȱ 56).ȱ Neitherȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ norȱ symbiosisȱ isȱaboutȱdualȱorȱmultipleȱbelonging,ȱalthoughȱsuchȱbelongingȱisȱ anȱimportantȱdimensionȱofȱourȱmultireligiousȱworld.ȱItȱisȱaboutȱ respectingȱ theȱ totalȱ worldviewȱ andȱ theȱ uniqueȱ unrepeatableȱ


religiousȱ paradigmȱ thatȱ eachȱ religionȱ embodiesȱ andȱ expresses.ȱ Neither,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ wouldȱ denyȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ commonȱ ground.ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ groupsȱ mightȱ claimȱ thatȱ Godȱ isȱ theȱcommonȱground.ȱPierisȱcannotȱdoȱthisȱinȱhisȱdialogueȱwithȱ Buddhism,ȱaȱnonȬtheisticȱreligion,ȱbut,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱpointedȱout,ȱheȱ seesȱmuchȱcommonȱground,ȱinȱeachȱreligion’sȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱ dangerȱ ofȱ Mammonȱ orȱ greedȱ andȱ theirȱ affirmationȱ ofȱ suchȱ valuesȱasȱmercy,ȱpeace,ȱandȱcompassion.ȱ Second,ȱ bothȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ andȱ Pieris’sȱ conceptȱ ofȱ symbiosisȱ haveȱ emergedȱ inȱ contextsȱ whereȱ interreligiousȱ relaȬ tionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ damaged.ȱ Adamsȱ hasȱ spokenȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ asȱ aȱ reparativeȱ responseȱ toȱ “theȱ damagedȱ historiesȱ andȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Abrahamicȱ faiths”ȱ (Adamsȱ2006:ȱ57).ȱOneȱneedȱonlyȱlookȱatȱtheȱantiȬSemitismȱthatȱ hasȱmarredȱEuropeanȱhistory,ȱpeakingȱinȱtheȱShoahȱbutȱstillȱconȬ tinuingȱ (Theȱ Runnymedeȱ Trustȱ 1994),ȱ andȱ theȱ Islamophobia,ȱ theȱfearȱofȱIslam,ȱthatȱreportsȱpublishedȱinȱBritainȱhaveȱuncovȬ eredȱ(RunnymedeȱTrustȱ1997)ȱtoȱseeȱhowȱdamagedȱtheȱhistoriesȱ are.ȱBringingȱmembersȱofȱtheȱthreeȱfaithsȱtogetherȱtoȱdiscussȱreȬ ligiousȱ textsȱ inȱ aȱ contextȱ whereȱ respectfulȱ listeningȱ isȱ mandaȬ toryȱcanȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱmajorȱfactorȱinȱrepairingȱrelationships.ȱ Inȱ Sriȱ Lankaȱ also,ȱ interreligiousȱ relationsȱ haveȱ beenȱ damȬ aged,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ byȱ imperialism,ȱ mostȱ particularlyȱ byȱ theȱ acȬ tivitiesȱofȱtheȱevangelicalȱChristianȱmissionariesȱwhoȱworkedȱinȱ Sriȱ Lankaȱ fromȱ theȱ firstȱ decadeȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ inȱ whatȱ Pierisȱ hasȱ calledȱ “theȱ unholyȱ alliance”ȱ withȱ Westernȱ coȬ lonialismȱ(Pierisȱ2004:ȱ1).ȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱelsewhereȱthatȱtheȱconȬ temptȱ theȱ missionariesȱ displayedȱ towardsȱ Buddhistȱ beliefȱ andȱ practiceȱ actuallyȱ ledȱ toȱ aȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ someȱ Buddhistsȱ sawȱ theȱ religiousȱ “other”ȱ (Harrisȱ 1996:ȱ 191Ȭ204).ȱ Itȱ wasȱ aȱ conȬ temptȱthatȱinsistedȱonȱaȱnoȬcompromiseȱmodelȱofȱinterreligiousȱ relations,ȱshown,ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱtheȱmissionaryȱinsistenceȱthatȱ convertsȱfromȱBuddhismȱshouldȱseverȱtiesȱwithȱtheirȱformerȱreȬ ligion,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ condemnedȱ byȱ theȱ missionariesȱ asȱ nihilisticȱ andȱirrational.ȱ Inȱcontrastȱtoȱthis,ȱtheȱpredominantȱmodelȱofȱinterreligiousȱ relationsȱamongȱBuddhistsȱwhenȱtheȱmissionariesȱbeganȱtoȱarȬ riveȱ wasȱ coexistenceȱ –ȱ aȱ coexistenceȱ thatȱ couldȱ accommodateȱ differencesȱ ofȱ opinion,ȱ evenȱ vigorousȱ debateȱ aboutȱ truth,ȱ butȱ whichȱ wasȱ basedȱ onȱ respect.ȱ Byȱ theȱ 1870s,ȱ thisȱ hadȱ changed.ȱ


Whereȱ respectȱ wasȱ shownȱ towardsȱ Buddhism,ȱ courtesyȱ wasȱ stillȱreturned.ȱHowever,ȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱmissionaries,ȱrevivȬ alistȱ Buddhistsȱ hadȱ begunȱ toȱ writeȱ tractsȱ thatȱ defendedȱ BudȬ dhismȱbyȱdemonizingȱChristianity.ȱTheȱBuddhistȬChristianȱDeȬ bateȱinȱPanaduraȱinȱ1873ȱillustratesȱthisȱforciblyȱinȱthatȱtheȱprinȬ cipalȱBuddhistȱdebater,ȱVen.ȱMohottivatteȱGunananda,ȱattemptȬ edȱtoȱproveȱthroughȱaȱliteralistȱreadingȱofȱtheȱBibleȱthatȱChrisȬ tiansȱworshippedȱaȱdemonȱ(Peeblesȱ1994).ȱ Theȱ mistrustȱ andȱ antagonismȱ betweenȱ Buddhistsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ thatȱ developedȱ inȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ raisedȱ itsȱ headȱperiodicallyȱinȱtheȱtwentiethȱcenturyȱandȱcanȱstillȱbeȱreȬacȬ tivatedȱtodayȱinȱtheȱtwentyȬfirst.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱformsȱitȱtakesȱnowȱ isȱtheȱaccusationȱthatȱChristiansȱareȱinvolvedȱinȱunethicalȱconȬ versions,ȱ namelyȱinȱ proselytisationȱ thatȱ takesȱ advantageȱ ofȱ soȬ cialȱdeprivationȱandȱpoverty.ȱLegislationȱtoȱmakeȱforcedȱorȱunȬ ethicalȱ conversionsȱ illegalȱ isȱ nowȱ passingȱ throughȱ Parliament.ȱ Inȱspiteȱofȱitsȱminorityȱstatus,ȱitȱshouldȱbeȱrememberedȱthatȱtheȱ ChristianȱChurchȱinȱSriȱLanka,ȱparticularlyȱtheȱRomanȱCatholicȱ Church,ȱisȱprosperousȱandȱisȱableȱtoȱappealȱtoȱforeignȱfundersȱ inȱwaysȱnotȱalwaysȱopenȱtoȱBuddhistȱandȱHinduȱorganizations.ȱ ItȱisȱinȱthisȱcontextȱthatȱPierisȱhasȱpromotedȱaȱsymbioticȱcrossȬ readingȱofȱscripturesȱandȱaȱsymbiosisȱbetweenȱreligions.ȱHisȱreȬ versalȱofȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱpreachingȱChristȱtoȱAsiaȱbyȱencouragȬ ingȱ Buddhistsȱ toȱ tellȱ himȱ “andȱ theȱ churchȱ whatȱ theȱ Wordȱ ‘Christ’ȱshouldȱmeanȱinȱAsia”ȱ(Pierisȱ1996:ȱ133)ȱhasȱbeenȱaȱwayȱ ofȱ redressingȱ aȱ legacyȱ ofȱ mistrustȱ thatȱ stretchesȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ nineteenthȱcentury.ȱ Third,ȱbothȱthoseȱinvolvedȱinȱscripturalȱreasoningȱandȱtheȱ symbiosisȱ thatȱ Pierisȱ promotesȱ speakȱ ofȱ personalȱ transformaȬ tion.ȱ Davidȱ Fordȱ hasȱ claimedȱ thatȱ eachȱ traditionȱ involvedȱ inȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ “allowsȱ itselfȱ toȱ haveȱ itsȱ ownȱ wisdomȱ questionedȱ andȱ transformedȱ inȱ engagementȱ withȱ theȱ others,”ȱ anȱ activityȱ thatȱ meansȱ recognisingȱ itsȱ partners,ȱ “asȱ analogousȱ wisdomsȱ withȱ theȱ potentialȱ ofȱ worthwhileȱ interplay”ȱ (Fordȱ 2006:ȱ18).ȱBenȱQuashȱhasȱstressedȱthatȱScripturalȱReasoning,ȱinȱaȱ similarȱwayȱtoȱtheȱliteraryȬcriticalȱmethod,ȱopensȱupȱaȱpluralityȱ ofȱ perspectivesȱ thatȱ enablesȱ participantsȱ toȱ beȱ weighersȱ andȱ imaginers,ȱopenȱtoȱunexpectedȱmeaningsȱandȱtheȱarisingȱofȱnewȱ formsȱ ofȱ lightȱ (Quashȱ 2006:ȱ 72Ȭ74).ȱ Othersȱ haveȱ spokenȱ ofȱ aȱ communityȱ ofȱ interpretationȱ inȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ Pieris’ȱ


symbiosisȱplacesȱtransformationȱatȱtheȱcentre,ȱperhapsȱmoreȱsoȱ thanȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ does.ȱ Whenȱ Christiansȱ andȱ BudȬ dhistsȱrelateȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱinȱbaseȱhumanȱcommunities,ȱwhenȱ BuddhistsȱinterpretȱtheȱChristianȱgospelsȱinȱtheirȱart,ȱwhenȱtheȱ scripturesȱofȱBuddhismȱandȱChristianityȱareȱreadȱsymbiotically,ȱ thenȱallȱinvolvedȱareȱtransformedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱwitnessȱofȱ “theȱ other.”ȱ Thatȱ whichȱ hasȱ beenȱ lostȱ inȱ one’sȱ ownȱ tradition,ȱ thatȱwhichȱhistoryȱorȱsocialȱmovementsȱhaveȱhidden,ȱcanȱriseȱtoȱ consciousness.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱ similarityȱ isȱ theȱ engagedȱ sideȱ ofȱ eachȱ activity,ȱ whichȱ goesȱ beyondȱ repairingȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ theȱ reliȬ gionsȱ involved.ȱ Stephenȱ Kepnes,ȱ outliningȱ “twelveȱ rulesȱ forȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning,”ȱ mentionsȱ theȱ “repairȱ ofȱ theȱ world”ȱ inȱ theȱveryȱfirstȱ(Kepnesȱ2006:ȱ23),ȱdrawingȱonȱtheȱJewishȱconceptȱ ofȱ tikkunȱ orȱ cosmicȱ repair.ȱ Theȱ “reason”ȱ connectedȱ withȱ ScripȬ turalȱReasoningȱisȱembodiedȱandȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱmoralityȱ(Kepnesȱ 2006:ȱ 29).ȱ Mostȱ writersȱ inȱ theȱ bookȱ thatȱ hasȱ inspiredȱ myȱ apȬ proachȱtoȱScripturalȱReasoning,ȱTheȱPromiseȱofȱScripturalȱReasonȬ ingȱ (Fordȱ andȱ Pecknoldȱ 2006)ȱ acceptȱ thatȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ ScripȬ turalȱ Reasoningȱ canȱ spillȱ overȱ intoȱ theȱ widerȱ societyȱ inȱ actionȱ forȱpeaceȱandȱjusticeȱandȱforȱgreaterȱsocialȱcohesion.ȱSome,ȱsuchȱ asȱ Kepnes,ȱ injectȱ passionȱ intoȱ this.ȱ Pieris’ȱ symbiosis,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ isȱ inseparableȱ fromȱ socialȱ action.ȱ Heȱ wouldȱ goȱ asȱ farȱasȱtoȱsayȱthatȱtrueȱsymbiosisȱ–ȱwhen,ȱforȱinstance,ȱChristiansȱ helpȱBuddhistsȱaffirmȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱselfȬgivingȱcompassionȱ orȱBuddhistsȱhelpȱChristiansȱseeȱhowȱimportantȱrenunciationȱofȱ wealthȱandȱstatusȱareȱwithinȱChristianityȱ–ȱcanȱonlyȱoccurȱwhenȱ allȱinvolvedȱhaveȱaȱpriorȱcommitmentȱtoȱempowerȱtheȱvictimsȱ ofȱ societyȱ andȱ toȱ addressȱ poverty.ȱ Ifȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ suchȱ commitȬ ment,ȱ Pierisȱ warns,ȱ thenȱ theȱ wholeȱ processȱ couldȱ leadȱ toȱ afȬ firmationȱ ofȱ valuesȱ thatȱ areȱ comfortableȱtoȱ eachȱsideȱ butȱinimȬ icalȱtoȱtheȱcreationȱofȱaȱmoreȱjustȱsociety.ȱ Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱIȱmoveȱtoȱtheȱdifferences.ȱIȱseeȱaȱdivergenceȱ betweenȱtheȱtwoȱmodelsȱinȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱmutualȱbenefitȱ throughȱ differenceȱ isȱ stressed.ȱ Pierisȱ wouldȱ sayȱ thatȱ forȱ ChrisȬ tiansȱ andȱ Buddhistsȱ toȱ experienceȱ wholeness,ȱ theyȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ evangelizedȱbyȱ“theȱother,”ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱexposedȱtoȱreligiousȱ paradigmsȱthatȱmayȱbeȱcomplementaryȱtoȱtheirȱown,ȱthatȱmayȱ openȱupȱareasȱofȱtheirȱreligiousȱpracticeȱthatȱareȱimpoverishedȱ andȱneedȱtoȱbeȱenergised.ȱLyingȱwithinȱthisȱisȱaȱtheologyȱofȱreliȬ


gionȱ thatȱ assertsȱ thatȱ humans,ȱ toȱ beȱ trulyȱ humanȱ inȱ aȱ worldȱ shotȱthroughȱwithȱgreedȱandȱhatred,ȱneedȱwisdomȱfromȱmanyȱ sources.ȱ Knowledgeȱ ofȱ oneȱ religionȱ isȱ notȱ enough.ȱ Althoughȱ eachȱ religionȱ hasȱ itsȱ ownȱ identityȱ andȱ thisȱ identityȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱviolatedȱbyȱsyncretismȱorȱsynthesis,ȱthisȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱ eachȱ religionȱ shouldȱ beȱ entireȱ untoȱ itself.ȱ Religionsȱ needȱ oneȱ another.ȱ Christianityȱ andȱ Buddhismȱ needȱ eachȱ other,ȱ evenȱ moreȱ soȱ becauseȱ oneȱ isȱ theisticȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ nonȬtheistic.ȱ Inȱ stressingȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ symbioticȱ interfaithȱ encounterȱ inȱ ourȱ world,ȱ Iȱ believeȱ Pierisȱ goesȱ furtherȱ thanȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ TheȱcontributorsȱtoȱTheȱPromiseȱofȱScripturalȱReasoningȱcertainlyȱ stressȱ theȱ benefitsȱ forȱ selfȱ andȱ societyȱ ofȱ theȱ practiceȱ andȱ itsȱ academicȱcredentialsȱbutȱstallȱonȱtheȱquestionȱofȱnecessity.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ differenceȱ isȱ connectedȱ withȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ senses.ȱScripturalȱreasoningȱproclaimsȱitselfȱtoȱbeȱinvolvedȱwithȱ “reason,”ȱwhichȱimpliesȱtheȱcognitive.ȱTheȱkeyȱsensesȱusedȱareȱ theȱ earȱ andȱ theȱ mind,ȱ ifȱ weȱ accept,ȱ asȱ Buddhistsȱ do,ȱ thatȱ theȱ mindȱ isȱ aȱ sense.ȱ Symbiosis,ȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ beingȱ expressedȱ inȱ Asia,ȱ addsȱsightȱandȱtheȱaffectiveȱtoȱthese.ȱItȱbringsȱinȱtheȱarts.ȱIȱhaveȱ spokenȱaboutȱtheȱpaintingȱandȱsculptureȱatȱTulana,ȱbutȱanotherȱ projectȱsponsoredȱbyȱtheȱcommunityȱatȱTulanaȱconcernsȱdrama,ȱ withinȱ whichȱ theȱ sameȱ principlesȱ areȱ atȱ work.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ aȱ dramaȱ onȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱpassionȱofȱChrist,ȱwrittenȱbyȱtheȱBuddhistȱ scholar,ȱ Charlesȱ deȱ Silva,ȱ whichȱ firstȱ gaveȱ Pierisȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ BuddhistsȱcouldȱbeȱaskedȱtoȱinterpretȱChristianityȱ(Pierisȱ1996:ȱ 131Ȭ32).ȱDeȱSilvaȱalsoȱwroteȱaȱnativityȱdrama,ȱRajaȱUpathaȱ(Theȱ BirthȱofȱaȱKing),ȱwhich,ȱbeforeȱhisȱdeath,ȱheȱaskedȱPierisȱtoȱpubȬ lish.ȱ Inȱ 2003,ȱ therefore,ȱ Tulanaȱ publishedȱ bothȱ theȱ textȱ andȱ anȱ auditoryȱ version,ȱ withȱ lyricsȱ sungȱ byȱ theȱ folkȱ musicȱ specialistȱ RohanaȱBaddage.ȱ Learningȱthroughȱencounterȱwithȱ“theȱother”ȱembracesȱtheȱ wholeȱperson.ȱItȱappealsȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱmindȱbutȱtoȱtheȱheart,ȱ toȱ theȱ affective.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ anȱ areaȱ inȱ whichȱ Iȱ believeȱ theȱ Asianȱ paradigmȱcouldȱpositivelyȱinfluenceȱwhatȱisȱhappeningȱinȱEurȬ ope,ȱwhichȱtendsȱtoȱplaceȱweightȱonȱtheȱcognitiveȱinȱinterfaithȱ encounter.ȱAdmittedly,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱaimsȱofȱTheȱPromiseȱofȱScripȬ turalȱReasoningȱwasȱtoȱdemonstrateȱtheȱacademicȱcredentialsȱofȱ theȱ activity.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theȱ hopesȱ ofȱ theȱ writersȱ concerningȱ theȱoutcomesȱofȱScripturalȱReasoningȱareȱbroadȱandȱtheirȱrealiȬ zationȱcouldȱbetterȱbeȱachievedȱifȱtheȱcognitiveȱisȱsupplementedȱ


andȱcomplementedȱbyȱtheȱaffectiveȱandȱtheȱaesthetic.ȱOneȱavenȬ ueȱ forȱ thisȱ wouldȱ beȱ forȱ scripturalȱ reasoningȱ toȱ forgeȱ linksȱ inȱ theȱacademyȱwithȱvisualȱartsȱandȱdrama.ȱ TheȱthirdȱdifferenceȱIȱwouldȱwantȱtoȱpointȱtoȱisȱtheȱextentȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ Asianȱ paradigmȱ isȱ concernedȱ withȱ aȱ dialogueȱ ofȱ lifeȱ –ȱ aȱ dailyȱ experienceȱ ofȱ livingȱ withȱ peopleȱ ofȱ otherȱ faiths.ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ livedȱ inȱ theȱ baseȱ humanȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ orȬ ganisationsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱChristianȱWorkers’ȱFellowshipȱcanȱtestiȬ fyȱthatȱlifeȱinȱallȱitsȱrobust,ȱtensionȬfilledȱcomplexityȱisȱpresentȱ withinȱthem.ȱSuchȱcommunitiesȱareȱneitherȱquietistȱnorȱpietist.ȱ Theyȱareȱdealingȱdailyȱwithȱinternalȱtensions,ȱsuchȱasȱjealousiesȱ betweenȱmembers,ȱandȱexternalȱtensions,ȱsuchȱasȱhumanȱrightsȱ abuses,ȱ poverty,ȱ orȱ politicalȱ oppression.ȱ Itȱ isȱ outȱ ofȱ aȱ dialogueȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱ ofȱ lifeȱ thatȱ theȱ mutualȱ benefitsȱ ofȱ symbiosisȱ emerge.ȱScripturalȱReasoning,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱasȱtheȱOxfordȱ Ethicȱstates,ȱisȱ“aȱtemporaryȱtentȱofȱmeeting,”ȱaȱtimeȬlimitedȱexȬ ercise,ȱeachȱmeetingȱfocussingȱonȱaȱparticularȱtheme.ȱ TheȱlastȱdifferenceȱIȱwouldȱwantȱtoȱhighlightȱconcernsȱauȬ thority.ȱTheȱOxfordȱEthicȱstates:ȱ Asȱ aȱ temporaryȱ tentȱ ofȱ meeting,ȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ mustȱ atȱ allȱ timesȱ recogniseȱ itsȱ submissiveȱ andȱ secondaryȱstatusȱtoȱtheȱcenturiesȬoldȱautonomousȱfaithȱtraȬ ditionsȱ fromȱ whichȱ itsȱ participantsȱ derive,ȱ andȱ mustȱ neverȱ attemptȱ toȱ establishȱ “fourthȱ position”ȱ structuresȱ orȱ regulaȬ tionsȱ whichȱ inȱ anyȱ wayȱ mightȱ beginȱ toȱ formȱ alternativeȱ sourcesȱ ofȱ authority.ȱ Authorityȱ inȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ thereforeȱliesȱatȱallȱtimesȱprimarilyȱwithȱtheȱreligiousȱlaws,ȱ churchesȱ andȱ religiousȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ participantsȱ faithsȱalone.ȱ

ThisȱhasȱbeenȱnecessaryȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱScripturalȱReaȬ soningȱ acceptableȱ andȱ credibleȱ toȱ Jewish,ȱ Christian,ȱ andȱ MusȬ limȱinstitutionsȱinȱtheȱWest.ȱThereȱisȱpotentialȱtension,ȱhowever,ȱ betweenȱ thisȱ viewȱ ofȱ authorityȱ andȱ theȱ conviction,ȱ mentionedȱ above,ȱ thatȱ theȱ practiceȱ involvesȱ transformation.ȱ Forȱ transforȬ mationȱmightȱinvolveȱchallengingȱtradition,ȱasȱvoicedȱbyȱthoseȱ withȱ powerȱ withinȱ religiousȱ institutions.ȱ Pieris,ȱ inȱ puttingȱ forȬ wardȱtheȱideaȱofȱsymbiosis,ȱoffersȱaȱchallengeȱtoȱauthority.ȱTheȱ credibilityȱofȱtheȱChristianȱchurchesȱinȱAsia,ȱheȱhasȱinsisted,ȱisȱ atȱ riskȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ subservienceȱ toȱ “EuroȬecclesiasticalȱ powerȱbases”ȱ(Pierisȱ1996:ȱ160),ȱwhichȱmakeȱthemȱunableȱtoȱexȬ


perienceȱsolidarityȱwithȱpeopleȱofȱotherȱfaithsȱbyȱ“witnessingȱtoȱ theȱ spiritualityȱ commonȱ toȱ allȱ religions”ȱ orȱ toȱ revealȱ Christianȱ uniqueness,ȱwhichȱPierisȱseesȱasȱtheȱcovenantȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱ theȱ poorȱ againstȱ theȱ powersȱ ofȱ greedȱ (Pierisȱ 1996:ȱ 160).ȱ Theȱ fruitsȱofȱaȱprocessȱofȱsymbiosis,ȱtherefore,ȱmayȱchallengeȱformsȱ ofȱinstitutionalȱauthorityȱthatȱareȱnotȱopenȱtoȱwhatȱPierisȱwouldȱ callȱ“theȱUnspokenȱSpeaker.”ȱ AmȱIȱrightȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱPieris’ȱconceptȱofȱsymbiosisȱandȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ canȱ beȱ broughtȱ intoȱ dialogueȱ withȱ eachȱ other?ȱ Iȱ believeȱ Iȱ am.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ enoughȱ similarityȱ andȱ differȬ enceȱ forȱ thisȱ toȱhappen.ȱ Theyȱ areȱnotȱ incommensurable.ȱScripȬ turalȱReasoningȱcanȱlearnȱfromȱtheȱAsianȱparadigmȱIȱhaveȱoutȬ linedȱ andȱ viceȱ versa,ȱ althoughȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ Asianȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ exploreȱtheȱlatter.ȱIȱwouldȱgoȱfurtherȱandȱargueȱthatȱsuchȱinterȬ continentalȱ learningȱ isȱ essential.ȱ Thoseȱ involvedȱ inȱ interreȬ ligiousȱhermeneuticsȱinȱaȱpluralisticȱEuropeȱcannotȱlookȱtoȱEurȬ opeȱaloneȱforȱwisdom.ȱ Literatureȱ Adams,ȱN.ȱ(2006).ȱ“MakingȱDeepȱReasoningsȱPublic.”ȱIn:ȱD.ȱFordȱandȱ C.C.ȱPecknoldȱ(eds.).ȱTheȱPromiseȱofȱScripturalȱReasoning.ȱOxford:ȱ Blackwell.ȱPp.ȱ41Ȭ57.ȱ Crusz,ȱ R.,ȱ M.ȱ Fernando,ȱ andȱ A.ȱ Tilakaratneȱ (eds.).ȱ (2004).ȱ Encountersȱ withȱ theȱ Word:ȱ Essaysȱ toȱ Honourȱ Aloysiusȱ Pieris.ȱ Colombo:ȱ EcuȬ menicalȱInstituteȱforȱStudyȱandȱDialogue.ȱ DeȱSilva,ȱL.ȱ(1975).ȱTheȱProblemȱofȱtheȱSelfȱinȱBuddhismȱandȱChristianity.ȱ Colombo:ȱTheȱStudyȱCentreȱforȱReligionȱandȱSociety.ȱ Evers,ȱG.ȱ(2001).ȱ“AȱSelfȱPortraitȱofȱAloysiusȱPierisȱs.j.ȱFromȱanȱInterȬ viewȱ byȱ Drȱ Georgȱ Evers.”ȱ In:ȱ Yearbookȱ ofȱ Contextualȱ Theologiesȱ 2001.ȱAachen:ȱMWI;ȱreprintedȱinȱR.ȱCrusz,ȱM.ȱFernando,ȱandȱA.ȱ Tilakaratneȱ (eds.).ȱ (2004).ȱ Encountersȱ withȱ theȱ Word:ȱ Essaysȱ toȱ Honourȱ Aloysiusȱ Pieris.ȱ Colombo:ȱ Ecumenicalȱ Instituteȱ forȱ Studyȱ andȱDialogue.ȱPp.ȱ643Ȭ70.ȱ Ford,ȱD.ȱ(2006).ȱ“AnȱInterfaithȱWisdom:ȱScripturalȱReasoningȱbetweenȱ Jews,ȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Muslims.”ȱ In:ȱ D.ȱ Fordȱ andȱ C.C.ȱ Pecknoldȱ (eds.).ȱTheȱPromiseȱofȱScripturalȱReasoning.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱPp.ȱ 1Ȭ22.ȱ andȱ C.C.ȱ Pecknoldȱ (eds.).ȱ (2006).ȱ Theȱ Promiseȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ ReaȬ soning.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ

100ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Harris,ȱ E.ȱ (2006).ȱ Therav¬daȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ theȱ Britishȱ Encounter:ȱ ReliȬ gious,ȱMissionary,ȱandȱColonialȱExperienceȱinȱNineteenthȬCenturyȱSriȱ Lanka.ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱ (2000).ȱ“BuddhistȬChristianȱEncounter:ȱAchievementsȱandȱHopesȱ inȱ theȱ Sriȱ Lankanȱ Experience.”ȱ In:ȱ M.ȱ Forward,ȱ S.ȱ Plant,ȱ andȱ S.ȱ Whiteȱ (eds.).ȱ Aȱ Greatȱ Commission:ȱ Christianȱ Hopeȱ andȱ Religiousȱ Diversity.ȱ Papersȱ inȱ Honourȱ ofȱ Kennethȱ Cracknellȱ onȱ hisȱ 65thȱ BirthȬ day.ȱOxford/Bern/Vienna:ȱPeterȱLang.ȱPp.ȱ351Ȭ69.ȱ Kepnes,ȱS.ȱ(2006).ȱ“AȱHandbookȱforȱScripturalȱReasoning.”ȱIn:ȱD.ȱFordȱ andȱ C.C.ȱ Pecknoldȱ (eds.).ȱ Theȱ Promiseȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ Oxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱPp.ȱ23Ȭ39.ȱ Peebles,ȱJ.ȱ(1994).ȱBuddhismȱandȱChristianity:ȱBeingȱanȱOralȱDebateȱHeldȱ atȱPanaduraȱbetweenȱRevȱMigettuwatteȱGunananda,ȱaȱBuddhistȱPriest,ȱ andȱtheȱRev.ȱ DavidȱdeȱSilva,ȱWesleyanȱClergyman.ȱ Reprint.ȱ ColomȬ bo:ȱAllȱCeylonȱBuddhistȱCongress.ȱ Pieris,ȱ A.ȱ (2004).ȱ “Politicalȱ Theologiesȱ ofȱ Asia.”ȱ In:ȱ P.ȱ Scottȱ andȱ W.T.ȱ Cavanaughȱ (eds.).ȱ Theȱ Blackwellȱ Companionȱ toȱ Politicalȱ Theology.ȱ Oxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱPp.ȱ256Ȭ70.ȱ (2002).ȱ“CrossȬScriptureȱReadingȱinȱBuddhistȬChristianȱDialogue:ȱ AȱSearchȱforȱtheȱRightȱMethod.”ȱIn:ȱP.L.ȱWickeriȱ(ed.).ȱScripture,ȱ Communityȱ andȱ Mission:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Honourȱ ofȱ Premanȱ Niles.ȱ Hongȱ Kong:ȱ Christianȱ Conferenceȱ ofȱ Asiaȱ andȱ theȱ Councilȱ forȱ Worldȱ Mission.ȱPp.ȱ229Ȭ50.ȱ (1996).ȱ Fireȱ andȱ Water:ȱ Basicȱ Issuesȱ inȱ Asianȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ ChrisȬ tianity.ȱNewȱYork:ȱOrbis.ȱ (1994).ȱ “Inculturationȱ inȱ Asia:ȱ Aȱ Theologicalȱ Reflectionȱ onȱ ExȬ perience.”ȱIn:ȱJahrbuchȱfürȱKontextuelleȱTheologie.ȱFrankfurt:ȱVerlagȱ fürȱ Interkulturelleȱ Kommunikation.ȱ Pp.ȱ 59Ȭ71;ȱ reprintedȱ in:ȱ A.ȱ Pieris.ȱ (1996).ȱ Fireȱ andȱ Water:ȱ Basicȱ Issuesȱ inȱ Asianȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ Christianity.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱPp.ȱ127Ȭ37.ȱ (1993).ȱ “Interreligiousȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religions:ȱ Anȱ Asianȱ Paradigm.”ȱ Horizonsȱ 20:ȱ 106Ȭ14;ȱ reprintedȱ in:ȱ A.ȱ Pieris.ȱ (1996).ȱ Fireȱ andȱ Water:ȱ Basicȱ Issuesȱ inȱ Asianȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ ChrisȬ tianity.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱPp.ȱ154Ȭ61.ȱ (1988a).ȱAnȱAsianȱTheologyȱofȱLiberation.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱ (1988b).ȱ Loveȱ Meetsȱ Wisdom:ȱ Aȱ Christianȱ Experienceȱ ofȱ Buddhism.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱ (1987).ȱ “Christianityȱ inȱ aȱ CoreȬtoȬCoreȱ Dialogueȱ withȱ BudȬ dhism.”ȱCrossȱCurrentsȱ37:ȱ47Ȭ75;ȱreprintedȱin:ȱA.ȱPieris.ȱ(1988b).ȱ

SCRIPTURALȱREASONINGȱORȱSYMBIOSISȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ101ȱ LoveȱMeetsȱWisdom:ȱAȱChristianȱExperienceȱofȱBuddhism.ȱMaryknoll:ȱ Orbis.ȱPp.ȱ110Ȭ35.ȱ (1980).ȱ “Westernȱ Christianityȱ andȱ Asianȱ Buddhism:ȱ Aȱ TheoloȬ gicalȱReadingȱofȱHistoricalȱEncounters.”ȱCistercianȱStudiesȱ15:ȱ50Ȭ 66,ȱ150Ȭ71;ȱreprintedȱin:ȱA.ȱPieris.ȱ(1988b).ȱLoveȱMeetsȱWisdom:ȱAȱ ChristianȱExperienceȱofȱBuddhism.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱPp.ȱ17Ȭ42.ȱ (1982).ȱ“Asia’sȱNonȬSemiticȱReligionȱandȱtheȱMissionȱofȱtheȱLocalȱ Churches:ȱ Perspectivesȱ andȱ Clarifications.”ȱ Theȱ Monthȱ 15:ȱ 81Ȭ90;ȱ reȬprintedȱ in:ȱ A.ȱ Pieris.ȱ (1988a).ȱ Anȱ Asianȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Liberation.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱPp.ȱ35Ȭ50.ȱ RunnymedeȱTrust,ȱThe.ȱ(1994).ȱAȱVeryȱLightȱSleeper:ȱTheȱPersistenceȱandȱ DangersȱofȱAntiȬSemitism.ȱLondon:ȱTheȱRunnymedeȱTrust.ȱ (1997).ȱ Islamophobia:ȱ Aȱ Challengeȱ forȱ Usȱ All.ȱ London:ȱ Theȱ RunnyȬ medeȱTrust.ȱ Seyfortȱ Ruegg,ȱ D.ȱ (2008).ȱ Theȱ Symbiosisȱ ofȱ Buddhismȱ withȱ Brahmanism/ȱ HinduismȱinȱSouthȱAsiaȱandȱofȱBuddhismȱwithȱ“LocalȱCults”ȱinȱTibetȱ andȱ theȱ Himalayanȱ Region.ȱ Vienna:ȱ ^sterreichischenȱ Akademieȱ derȱWissenschaften.ȱ Quash,ȱ B.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Heavenlyȱ Semantics:ȱ Someȱ LiteraryȬCriticalȱ ApȬ proachesȱtoȱScripturalȱReasoning.”ȱIn:ȱD.ȱFordȱandȱC.C.ȱPecknoldȱ (eds.).ȱTheȱPromiseȱofȱScripturalȱReasoning.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱPp.ȱ 59Ȭ76.ȱ

TowardsȱanȱInterreligiousȱHermeneuticȱ ofȱScriptureȱ ȱ ProblemsȱandȱPossibilities1ȱ ȱ ȱ MagdalenȱLambkinȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ How,ȱ ifȱ atȱ all,ȱ canȱ religiousȱ practitioners,ȱ groundedȱ withinȱ aȱ particularȱ tradition,ȱ makeȱ positiveȱ religiousȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ scripȬ turesȱofȱanotherȱreligiousȱtradition?ȱThisȱquestionȱemergesȱfromȱ theȱ newȱ environmentȱ ofȱ interfaithȱ engagementȱ whereȱ increasȬ ingȱnumbersȱareȱreadingȱscripturesȱotherȱthanȱtheirȱown,ȱnotȱinȱ orderȱtoȱdenigrateȱbutȱtoȱlearn.ȱThisȱkindȱofȱengagementȱconstiȬ tutesȱ aȱ breakȱ fromȱ traditionalȱ approachesȱ toȱ theȱ scripturesȱ ofȱ otherȱreligions,ȱandȱtheȱtheologicalȱimplicationsȱ–ȱforȱChristiansȱ andȱnonȬChristiansȱalikeȱ–ȱremainȱtoȱbeȱfullyȱexplored.ȱInȱmoreȱ preciseȱterms,ȱtheȱquestionȱunderȱconsiderationȱis:ȱȱ Canȱreligiousȱ practitionersȱmakeȱuseȱofȱtheȱscriptureȱofȱanotherȱtraditionȱinȱaȱmanȬ nerȱthatȱbothȱaffirmsȱtheȱreligiousȱvalueȱofȱthatȱscriptureȱforȱthemȱandȱ appreciatesȱtheȱtraditionȱfromȱwhichȱitȱhasȱcome?ȱ Historically,ȱtheȱanswerȱhasȱbeenȱaȱlargelyȱstraightforwardȱ andȱ oftenȱ emphaticȱ “no.”ȱ Forȱ theȱ mostȱ part,ȱ toȱ theȱ extentȱ thatȱ theȱ scripturesȱ ofȱ otherȱ traditionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ consideredȱ atȱ all,ȱ theyȱhaveȱbeenȱroundlyȱrejected.ȱInȱtheȱfewȱcasesȱwhereȱvalueȱ hasȱ beenȱ ascribedȱ toȱ aȱ scriptureȱ ofȱ anotherȱ religion,ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ theȱChristianȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱJewishȱscriptures,ȱthoseȱscripturesȱ haveȱ beenȱ claimedȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ Christianȱ tradition,ȱ whichȱonlyȱtheyȱareȱableȱtoȱinterpretȱcorrectly.ȱTheseȱscripturesȱ areȱ thenȱ valuedȱ notȱ asȱ “other”ȱ butȱ asȱ anȱ extensionȱ ofȱ self.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱtheȱgreatȱvarietyȱofȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheȱnatureȱandȱfuncȬ tionȱofȱscripturesȱareȱunderstood,ȱbothȱbetweenȱandȱwithinȱtraȬ ditions,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ varietyȱ ofȱ beliefsȱ regardingȱ whatȱ conȬ ȱ Theȱ authorȱ isȱ veryȱ gratefulȱ toȱ Roseȱ Drew,ȱ Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeuȬ kel,ȱAnthonyȱAllison,ȱKayȱMuhr,ȱandȱBrianȱLambkinȱforȱtheirȱhelpfulȱ commentsȱonȱearlierȱdraftsȱofȱthisȱpaper.ȱ 1

104ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ

stitutesȱreligiousȱvalue,2ȱpreventsȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱaȱstraightforȬ wardȱ orȱ generalisedȱ “yes”ȱ inȱ answerȱ toȱ thisȱ question.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ needed,ȱ Iȱ suggest,ȱ isȱ aȱ hermeneuticȱ orȱ interpretiveȱ methodȱ ofȱ engagingȱ withȱ scripturesȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundariesȱ thatȱ isȱ suitablyȱ attentiveȱ toȱ bothȱ theȱ particularitiesȱ ofȱ traditionsȱ andȱ theȱcomplexȱtheologicalȱissuesȱthatȱsuchȱaȱventureȱraises.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ paperȱ Iȱ willȱ highlightȱ theȱ needȱ forȱ theȱ criticalȱ analysisȱofȱtraditionalȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱotherȱreliȬ gionsȱ beforeȱ aȱ newȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ engagementȱ suitableȱ forȱ theȱ modernȱeraȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱcanȱbeȱdeveloped.3ȱIȱwillȱ beginȱ byȱ discussingȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ needȱ forȱ suchȱ aȱ newȱ frameworkȱhasȱbeenȱmadeȱevidentȱbyȱadvancementsȱwithinȱtheȱ theologyȱofȱreligionsȱandȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱ–ȱlookingȱ particularlyȱatȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱandȱScripturalȱReasoning.ȱ Havingȱidentifiedȱareasȱthatȱrequireȱfurtherȱinvestigation,ȱIȱwillȱ moveȱ toȱ considerȱ aȱ majorȱ barrierȱ thatȱ standsȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ makingȱ positiveȱ religiousȱ useȱ ofȱ scripturesȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundaries.ȱThisȱbarrierȱconsistsȱinȱtheȱfactȱthatȱinȱsomeȱimporȬ tantȱ cases,ȱ aȱ largelyȱ negativeȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ scripturesȱ ofȱ anȬ otherȱ traditionȱ is,ȱ toȱ variousȱ degrees,ȱ presentȱ withinȱ theȱ scripȬ turesȱofȱtheȱinterpretingȱtradition.ȱIȱwillȱsketchȱtheȱpreliminaryȱ findingsȱ ofȱ threeȱ suchȱ caseȱ studiesȱ thatȱ lookȱ atȱ (1)ȱ Newȱ TestaȬ mentȱandȱlaterȱChristianȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱHebrewȱScriptures,ȱ (2)ȱ Muslimȱ approachesȱ toȱ theȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ Scripturesȱ centredȱonȱtheȱQur’an,ȱandȱ(3)ȱBuddhistȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱVeȬ dasȱasȱseenȱinȱtheȱPaliȱCanon.ȱHermeneuticalȱproblemsȱwithinȱ theseȱ approachesȱ willȱ beȱ highlightedȱ andȱ someȱ tentativeȱ sugȬ gestionsȱasȱtoȱtheȱwayȱforwardȱwillȱbeȱbrieflyȱposited,ȱtheȱelabȬ orationȱofȱwhichȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱwaitȱuntilȱaȱlaterȱdate.ȱ ȱ ȱ 2ȱReligiousȱvalue,ȱasȱdistinctȱfromȱanyȱotherȱkindȱofȱvalue,ȱcanȱbeȱ describedȱ asȱ thatȱ whichȱ pertainsȱ toȱ Ultimateȱ Realityȱ andȱ theȱ correctȱ meansȱofȱrelatingȱtoȱit.ȱ 3ȱ Thisȱ reflectsȱ theȱ basicȱ structureȱ ofȱ myȱ PhDȱ thesis,ȱ currentlyȱ inȱ process.ȱ

TOWARDSȱANȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICȱOFȱSCRIPTUREȱȱȱȱȱȱ105ȱ

TheologyȱofȱReligionsȱ Fromȱ aȱ Westernȱ Christianȱ perspective,ȱ theȱ groundȱ wasȱ preȬ paredȱ forȱ aȱ new,ȱ moreȱ positiveȱ perspectiveȱ onȱ religiousȱ diverȬ sityȱ byȱ theȱ greatȱ upsurgeȱ inȱ knowledgeȱ aboutȱ otherȱ religionsȱ fromȱaroundȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱnineteenthȱcentury.ȱEuropeanȱ colonialismȱenabledȱChristianȱmissionariesȱtoȱreachȱallȱoverȱtheȱ globe.ȱ Inȱ seekingȱ toȱ makeȱ theirȱ evangelisingȱ moreȱ effective,ȱ manyȱmissionariesȱsoughtȱtoȱlearnȱaboutȱtheȱindigenousȱtradiȬ tionsȱ withȱ whichȱ theyȱ cameȱ inȱ contact.ȱ Meanwhile,ȱ Orientalistȱ scholarsȱbeganȱtoȱacquaintȱChristiansȱinȱtheȱWest,ȱlikeȱneverȱbeȬ fore,ȱwithȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱthroughȱstudyȱandȱtranslaȬ tionsȱofȱtheirȱsacredȱtexts.ȱFromȱthisȱnewȱknowledge,ȱtheȱneedȱ forȱ aȱ theologicalȱ accountȱ andȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ religiousȱ diversityȱ eventuallyȱemerged.ȱThisȱisȱtheȱtaskȱofȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligions.ȱ Theȱcallȱforȱaȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱwasȱmadeȱ(initiallyȱtoȱChrisȬ tianȱtheologians)ȱbyȱtheȱgreatȱhistorianȱofȱreligionȱWilfredȱCantȬ wellȱSmith,ȱamongȱothers.ȱInȱ1972ȱSmithȱ(1972:ȱ133)ȱhighlightedȱ theȱneedȱtoȱaccountȱforȱreligiousȱdiversityȱwithȱaȱ–ȱnowȱfamousȱ –ȱquestion:ȱ“WeȱexplainȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱMilkyȱWayȱisȱthereȱbyȱ theȱdoctrineȱofȱcreation,ȱbutȱhowȱdoȱweȱexplainȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱ BhagavadȱGitaȱisȱthere?”ȱ Asȱ Alanȱ Raceȱ explained,ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ claimsȱ ofȱ otherȱ religiousȱ waysȱ toȱ salvificȱ andȱ transformativeȱ power,ȱ comparableȱ toȱ Christianȱclaims,ȱwhichȱcompelȱChristiansȱtoȱtakeȱinterestȱinȱreȬ ligiousȱ othersȱ (Raceȱ 2008:ȱ 5).ȱ Withinȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ aȱ rangeȱofȱresponsesȱtoȱthoseȱclaimsȱcanȱbeȱfound,ȱfromȱcompleteȱ denialȱ(exclusivism),ȱtoȱlimitedȱrecognitionȱ(inclusivism),ȱtoȱtheȱ potentialȱ affirmationȱ ofȱ equalȱ validityȱ (pluralism). 4ȱ Althoughȱ initiallyȱaȱChristianȱventure,ȱasȱPerryȱSchmidtȬLeukelȱsays,ȱtheȱ termȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱcanȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱanyȱ“analogousȱreȬ flectiveȱ activity”ȱ inȱ eachȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ (SchmidtȬ Leukelȱ 2009:ȱ 92).ȱ Theȱ inclusivistȱ andȱ pluralistȱ positionsȱ acȬ ȱThisȱisȱaȱhighlyȱsimplifiedȱaccountȱofȱtheȱthreeȬfoldȱtypologyȱorȬ iginallyȱ proposedȱ byȱ Raceȱ (1983).ȱ Itȱ hasȱ beenȱ heavilyȱ criticisedȱ byȱ someȱ butȱ remainsȱ aȱ usefulȱ andȱ widelyȱ usedȱ toolȱ inȱ categorizingȱ reȬ sponsesȱ toȱ religiousȱ diversity.ȱ Forȱ aȱ summaryȱ ofȱ criticisms,ȱ clarificaȬ tionȱ andȱ reaffirmationȱ ofȱ theȱ typologyȱ seeȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 2005.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱHedgesȱ2008. 4


knowledgeȱ salvificȱ powerȱ toȱ beȱ activeȱ inȱ otherȱ religiousȱ tradiȬ tionsȱ andȱ thereforeȱ offerȱ frameworksȱ that,ȱ toȱ varyingȱ extents,ȱ allowȱforȱtheȱrecognitionȱofȱreligiousȱvalueȱinȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱ anotherȱtradition.ȱ Suchȱrecognitionȱhowever,ȱwillȱinevitablyȱhaveȱseriousȱimȬ plicationsȱforȱhowȱoneȱunderstandsȱone’sȱownȱscriptureȱandȱtheȱ scripturesȱofȱothersȱ–ȱbothȱtheirȱnatureȱand,ȱfollowingȱfromȱthis,ȱ howȱtheyȱshouldȱbeȱinterpreted.ȱTheseȱimplicationsȱhaveȱmostȱ fullyȱbeenȱattendedȱtoȱbyȱSmithȱandȱKeithȱWardȱ–ȱbothȱChrisȬ tianȱ scholars.5ȱ Inȱ aȱ publicationȱ inȱ 1992ȱ (Smithȱ 1992)ȱ Smithȱ soughtȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱaȱquestionȱputȱtoȱhimȱbyȱHenkȱVroomȱandȱ Antonȱ Wesselsȱ whoȱ hadȱ beenȱ inspiredȱ byȱ Smith’sȱ proposalȱ (Smithȱ 1967:ȱ 48)ȱ thatȱ Christiansȱ shouldȱ giveȱ seriousȱ consideraȬ tionȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱ“IsȱtheȱQur’anȱtheȱWordȱofȱGod?”ȱSmithȱreȬ latesȱthatȱVroomȱandȱWesselsȱhadȱaskedȱhimȱ whetherȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ apartȱ fromȱ beingȱ seenȱ perhapsȱ asȱ theȱ Wordȱ ofȱ Godȱ byȱ Muslims,ȱ mightȱ alsoȱ beȱ thatȱ “toȱ orȱ forȱ Christiansȱand,ȱifȱso,ȱwhatȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱthisȱmightȱbeȱ forȱ theȱ Christian’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ asȱ theȱ Wordȱ ofȱGod.”ȱ(Smithȱ1992:ȱ59)ȱ

Smith’sȱresponseȱwasȱpositiveȱyetȱpreliminary.ȱHeȱadvocatedȱaȱ moveȱ“TowardsȱaȱTheologyȱofȱScripture,ȱandȱtheȱSharingȱofȱUnȬ derstanding”ȱ(Smith 1992: 59),ȱbasedȱonȱaȱviewȱofȱscriptureȱasȱ humanlyȱauthoredȱandȱhistoricallyȱconditionedȱyetȱatȱtheȱsameȱ timeȱ continuingȱ toȱ “serve”ȱ God’sȱ “purposes”ȱ inȱ “laterȱ timesȱ andȱ otherȱ situations”ȱ (Smithȱ 1992:ȱ 62).ȱ Thisȱ understandingȱ ofȱ scriptureȱasȱaȱgeneralȱcategoryȱofȱreligionȱasȱaȱ“humanȱactivity”ȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ theȱ divineȱ wasȱ developedȱ byȱ Smithȱ inȱ aȱ majorȱworkȱWhatȱisȱScripture?ȱpublishedȱinȱ1993.ȱHoweverȱitȱreȬ mainsȱtheȱcase,ȱasȱSmithȱremarkedȱinȱ1992,ȱthatȱalthoughȱthereȱ hasȱbeenȱaȱ“scattered”ȱemergenceȱofȱtheȱ“mutualȱappreciation”ȱ ofȱ scriptures,ȱ “systematicȱ theoreticalȱ formulationsȱ –ȱ toȱ underȬ girdȱorȱevenȱaccompanyȱappreciation”ȱareȱrareȱ(Smithȱ1992:ȱ60).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ especiallyȱ theȱ caseȱ amongȱ theȱ nonȬChristianȱ traditions.ȱ ȱTheȱreasonsȱwhyȱitȱisȱpredominantlyȱChristianȱtheologiansȱwhoȱ areȱleadingȱtheȱfieldȱareȱcomplexȱandȱnumerous.ȱOneȱreasonȱisȱtheȱdeȬ sireȱtoȱaddressȱtheȱdamageȱwroughtȱbyȱtheȱworldȬwideȱexportationȱofȱ imperialisticȱChristianȱexclusivismȱbyȱWesternȱcolonialism.ȱ 5


TheologyȱofȱreligionsȱhasȱsoȱfarȱnotȱproducedȱaȱsystematicȱreapȬ praisalȱofȱtraditionalȱapproachesȱtoȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱotherȱreliȬ gionsȱ fromȱ whichȱ suchȱ “systematicȱ theoreticalȱ formulations”ȱ couldȱbeȱdeveloped.ȱ InterreligiousȱHermeneuticsȱ Scriptures,ȱ onceȱ theȱ preserveȱ ofȱ theȱ educatedȱ eliteȱ withinȱ theirȱ respectiveȱ traditions,ȱ areȱ nowȱ readilyȱ availableȱ inȱ aȱ wideȱ variȬ etyȱofȱformatsȱandȱtranslations.ȱWithȱtheȱincreasingȱinteractionȱ betweenȱ peopleȱ fromȱ diverseȱ culturalȱ andȱ religiousȱ backȬ groundsȱ andȱ theȱ availabilityȱ ofȱ information,ȱ engagementȱ withȱ theȱ scripturesȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ isȱ becomingȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ common.ȱ Unlikeȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ however,ȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱisȱnotȱyetȱaȱwellȬestablishedȱfieldȱwithinȱtheology.ȱ Itȱisȱcommonlyȱemployedȱasȱaȱbroadȱtermȱthatȱcoversȱbothȱ“theȱ theoryȱandȱmethodȱofȱinterpretationȱandȱunderstandingȱacrossȱ religiousȱboundaries”ȱ(Frederiksȱ2005:ȱ103Ȭ04).ȱForȱtheȱpurposesȱ ofȱthisȱpaper,ȱIȱwillȱbeȱusingȱ“interreligiousȱhermeneutics”ȱmoreȱ specificallyȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ theologicallyȱ reflectiveȱ engagementȱ withȱ theȱ scripture(s)ȱ ofȱ anotherȱ tradition,ȱ whichȱ takesȱ placeȱ consciouslyȱ fromȱwithinȱone’sȱownȱreligiousȱperspective.ȱInterreligiousȱhermenȬ euticsȱ operatesȱ withinȱ theȱ broaderȱ fieldȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ diaȬ logueȱandȱencounter,ȱwhichȱaimsȱatȱtakingȱtheȱselfȬunderstandȬ ingsȱ ofȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ seriously.ȱ Crucially,ȱ thisȱ inȬ volvesȱtheȱattemptȱ–ȱevenȱifȱitȱisȱseenȱasȱanȱultimatelyȱunreachȬ ableȱgoalȱ–ȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱotherȱasȱhe/sheȱunderstandsȱhimȬ /herselfȱ(see,ȱe.g.,ȱSwidlerȱ1987:ȱ14Ȭ15).ȱPolemicalȱpracticesȱthatȱ areȱaimedȱatȱprovingȱtheȱfalsityȱofȱtheȱother’sȱreligionȱthroughȱaȱ highlyȱselectiveȱandȱdistortedȱexegesisȱofȱtheirȱscriptures,ȱsuchȱ asȱthoseȱdescribedȱinȱJohnȱChesworth’sȱcontributionȱinȱthisȱvolȬ ume,ȱareȱthereforeȱtoȱbeȱdiscounted.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ aȱ complexȱ pluralityȱ ofȱ motivationsȱ andȱ intendedȱ outcomesȱamongstȱthoseȱwhoȱengageȱinȱinterreligiousȱhermenȬ eutics,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱproduceȱdiverseȱreadingsȱandȱinterpretiveȱ practices.ȱTheȱbenefitsȱandȱshortcomingsȱofȱcontemporaryȱpracȬ ticesȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ canȱ beȱ observedȱ throughȱ aȱ closerȱ lookȱ atȱ whatȱ mightȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ twoȱ ofȱ itsȱ primaryȱ appliȬ cations:ȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱandȱScripturalȱReasoning.ȱ ȱ ȱ


ComparativeȱTheologyȱandȱScripturalȱReasoningȱ ComparativeȱtheologyȱisȱaȱtermȱusedȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱworkȱofȱdiȬ verseȱscholarsȱwhoȱneverthelessȱshareȱsomeȱcommonȱcharacterȬ isticsȱ inȱ theirȱ approach.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ –ȱ distinctȱ fromȱ comparativeȱreligionsȱ–ȱisȱaȱconstructiveȱtheologicalȱpractice.ȱItȱ hasȱ beenȱ primarilyȱ locatedȱ withinȱ Christianityȱ butȱ isȱ beingȱ takenȱupȱbyȱanȱincreasingȱnumberȱofȱnonȬChristianȱtheologiansȱ orȱscholarȬpractitionersȱasȱtheyȱmayȱpreferȱtoȱbeȱtermed.6ȱFranȬ cisȱClooney,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmainȱprotagonistsȱofȱcomparativeȱtheoȬ logy,ȱ definesȱ theȱ disciplineȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ traditionalȱ AnselȬ mianȱformulationȱofȱtheologyȱasȱ“faithȱseekingȱunderstanding,”ȱ beingȱconcernedȱwithȱquestionsȱofȱtruth,ȱandȱwithȱtheȱultimateȱ goalȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ transcendentȱ (Clooneyȱ 1995:ȱ 521).ȱ Rootedȱ withinȱ aȱ particularȱ tradition,ȱ theȱ comparativeȱ theoloȬ gianȱ engagesȱ withȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ anotherȱ tradition,ȱ preciselyȱ beȬ causeȱ theyȱ areȱ seenȱ asȱ relevantȱ inȱ thisȱ searchȱ forȱ religiousȱ knowledge.ȱ Itȱ isȱ “theȱ doingȱ ofȱ constructiveȱ theologyȱ fromȱ andȱ afterȱcomparison,”ȱproceedingȱfromȱanȱinȬdepthȱandȱconcertedȱ effortȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱotherȱtraditionȱ(Clooneyȱ1995:ȱ522).ȱForȱ Clooney,ȱ thisȱ involvesȱ theologicalȱ transformation.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Clooney’sȱ statedȱ intentionȱ isȱ toȱ “inscribeȱ withinȱ theȱ Christianȱ theologicalȱ traditionȱ theologicalȱ textsȱ fromȱ outsideȱ it,ȱ andȱ toȱ (beginȱto)ȱwriteȱChristianȱtheologyȱonlyȱoutȱofȱthatȱnewlyȱcomȬ posedȱcontext”ȱ(Clooneyȱ1993:ȱ7).ȱ Evenȱwhereȱtransformationȱisȱnotȱanȱintendedȱoutcomeȱofȱ interreligiousȱscripturalȱstudy,ȱtransformationȱneverthelessȱcanȱ takeȱ place,ȱ asȱ weȱ findȱ inȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ isȱ aȱ practiceȱ ofȱ sharedȱ scripturalȱ studyȱ amongstȱ smallȱ groupsȱ ofȱ Jews,ȱ Christians,ȱ andȱ Muslimsȱ thatȱ wasȱdevelopedȱinȱtheȱacademy.ȱTheȱfoundersȱofȱTheȱSocietyȱofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning,ȱ Peterȱ Ochs,ȱ Davidȱ Ford,ȱ andȱ Danielȱ Hardy,ȱ recognisedȱ thatȱ Jews,ȱ Christians,ȱandȱ Muslimsȱalikeȱ allȱ haveȱ methodsȱ forȱ interpretingȱ scripturesȱ andȱ faceȱ theȱ difficulȬ tiesȱ ofȱ makingȱ thoseȱ scripturesȱ relevantȱ toȱ theȱ modernȱ age.ȱ

ȱScholarsȱfromȱaȱnumberȱofȱtraditionsȱworkȱwithinȱtheȱcomparȬ ativeȱ theologyȱ departmentȱ atȱ Bostonȱ College.ȱ Onȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ “theologian”ȱtoȱdescribeȱBuddhistsȱseeȱMakranskyȱandȱJacksonȱ2000.ȱȱ 6


Theyȱ thereforeȱ feltȱ theyȱ couldȱ learnȱ aȱ greatȱ dealȱ fromȱ oneȱ anȬ otherȱ ifȱ theyȱ studiedȱ theirȱ scripturesȱ togetherȱ (seeȱ Fordȱ 2006).ȱ TheȱoriginalȱmotivationȱappearsȱthenȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱprimarilyȱinȬ tellectualȱandȱpragmatic.ȱTheȱformulatorsȱofȱScripturalȱReasonȬ ingȱ areȱ keenȱ toȱ stressȱ thatȱ involvementȱ requiresȱ noȱ particularȱ theologicalȱstanceȱtowardsȱotherȱreligionsȱorȱchangeȱinȱtheȱparȬ ticipants’ȱbeliefsȱ(Fordȱ2006:ȱ5),ȱandȱtheȱaimsȱremainȱprimarilyȱ pragmaticȱforȱmany.ȱYetȱScripturalȱReasonersȱoftenȱreferȱtoȱtheȱ “liturgical”ȱ qualityȱ ofȱ meetings,ȱ whichȱ Stephenȱ Kepnesȱ says,ȱ consistsȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ adoptingȱ aȱ “reverentialȱ attitude”ȱ (Kepnesȱ 2006:ȱ 37)ȱ butȱ also,ȱ atȱ leastȱ forȱ some,ȱ inȱ theȱ experienceȱ thatȱ byȱ engagingȱ withȱ scripturesȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundaries,ȱ divineȱ truthsȱcanȱbeȱrevealed.ȱ InȱtheȱspontaneousȱmomentȱofȱinsightȱintoȱandȱacrossȱscripȬ tures,ȱ participantsȱ areȱ overtakenȱ byȱ theȱ movementȱ ofȱ theȱ spiritȱthatȱmanyȱrecognizeȱasȱaȱdisclosureȱofȱtruth.ȱ(Kepnesȱ 2006:ȱ30)ȱ

Itȱ remainsȱ toȱ beȱ exploredȱ whatȱ notionȱ ofȱ truthȱ isȱ atȱ playȱ hereȱ andȱhowȱsuchȱaȱrecognitionȱcanȱbeȱaccountedȱforȱtheologically.7ȱ ȱDespiteȱhisȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱtruthȱseekingȱnatureȱofȱcomȬ parativeȱtheology,ȱClooneyȱarguesȱthatȱtreatmentȱofȱthisȱissueȱofȱ truthȱ shouldȱ beȱ deferred.ȱ Heȱ insistsȱ thatȱ weȱ shouldȱ beginȱ byȱ readingȱ“withoutȱworryingȱissuesȱofȱreligiousȱorȱdoctrinalȱcomȬ mitment”ȱ(Clooneyȱ2006:ȱ204),ȱsoȱthatȱ“eachȱtextȱofȱeachȱtradiȬ tionȱbecomesȱaȱlocusȱinȱwhichȱtheȱquestionȱofȱrevelationȱcanȱbeȱ meaningfullyȱaskedȱandȱanswered”ȱ(Clooney1992:ȱ214).ȱCloonȬ eyȱhasȱmaintainedȱthatȱthereȱisȱ“aȱpathȱfromȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱ toȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligions”ȱ–ȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱbeingȱprimarȬ ilyȱ concernedȱ withȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ religiousȱ truthȱ (Clooneyȱ 1990:ȱ72).ȱHowever,ȱheȱstressedȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱsequence:ȱ “theȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱcomesȱonlyȱlater,ȱoutȱofȱtheȱexperienceȱ ofȱreadingȱother’sȱtextsȱfirst”ȱ(Clooneyȱ1990:ȱ66).ȱYetȱafterȱmanyȱ yearsȱofȱdetailedȱcomparativeȱstudy,ȱClooneyȱwillȱnotȱbeȱdrawnȱ intoȱ evaluatingȱ theȱ apparentlyȱ competingȱ truthȱ claimsȱ thatȱ hisȱ comparisonsȱinevitablyȱbringȱintoȱfocus.8ȱȱ ȱ ȱForȱmoreȱonȱthisȱseeȱLambkinȱ2010ȱ

7

ȱSeeȱClooney’sȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume.ȱCf.ȱClooneyȱ1993:ȱ 189ff.ȱ 8


AsȱSchmidtȬLeukelȱhasȱargued,ȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱcanȬ notȱ succeedȱ inȱ beingȱ bothȱ comparativeȱ andȱ genuinelyȱ theologȬ icalȱ whilstȱ avoidingȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ relationshipȱ between,ȱ andȱtheȱtruthȱof,ȱtheȱbeliefsȱunderȱcomparisonȱ(SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 2009:ȱ 99).ȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ directsȱ hisȱ criticismȱ particularlyȱ atȱ JamesȱFredericks,ȱanotherȱleadingȱcomparativeȱtheologian,ȱwhoȱ hasȱarguedȱthatȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱpostponedȱinȬ definitely,ȱ andȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ offersȱ aȱ wayȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ “impasse”ȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ hasȱ reachedȱ (Fredericksȱ 1999:ȱ8).ȱFredericksȱisȱofȱtheȱopinionȱthatȱtheȱpresuppositionsȱofȱ theȱinclusivistȱorȱpluralistȱpreventȱthemȱfromȱtakingȱotherȱreliȬ giousȱ traditionsȱ seriouslyȱ andȱ onȱ theirȱ ownȱ termsȱ (Fredericksȱ 1999:ȱ 168).ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Fredericks,ȱ theȱ pluralistȱ searchesȱ forȱ theȱ “lowestȱ commonȱ denominatorȱ orȱ essenceȱ thatȱ allȱ religionsȱ …ȱ share”ȱ (Fredericksȱ 1999:ȱ 167Ȭ68)ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ failsȱ toȱ fullyȱ appreciateȱ andȱ toȱ learnȱ fromȱ theȱ genuineȱ differencesȱ thatȱ existȱ betweenȱ traditions.ȱ Itȱ mustȱ beȱ recognizedȱ thatȱ thisȱ indeedȱ isȱ aȱ danger.ȱButȱitȱisȱneitherȱaȱlogicalȱnecessityȱnorȱaȱdominantȱrealȬ ityȱofȱtheȱpluralistȱposition.ȱIndeed,ȱRoseȱDrewȱhasȱfoundȱthatȱ amongȱBuddhistȱChristianȱdualȱbelongersȱ–ȱoneȱmodeȱofȱpluralȬ ismȱ inȱ actionȱ –ȱ realȱ differencesȱ areȱ maintainedȱ inȱ tensionȱ andȱ becomeȱaȱvaluableȱsourceȱofȱcreativityȱandȱspiritualȱgrowth:ȱ authenticȱ integrationȱ ofȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ Christianityȱ isȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ allowingȱ theȱ distinctiveȱ insightsȱ andȱ practicesȱ ofȱ eachȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱone’sȱoverallȱoutlookȱandȱpractice,ȱandȱ notȱaȱmatterȱofȱconflatingȱBuddhismȱandȱChristianityȱorȱofȱ mixingȱ themȱ togetherȱ inȱ aȱ mannerȱ whichȱ obliteratesȱ theȱ distinctionsȱ betweenȱ them.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theirȱ differencesȱ andȱ tensionsȱ areȱ cherishedȱ byȱ authenticȱ dualȱ belongersȱ asȱ muȬ tuallyȱcomplementaryȱandȱcorrective.ȱ(Drewȱ2008:ȱ291)ȱ

SchmidtȬLeukelȱ andȱ Paulȱ Hedgesȱ haveȱ convincinglyȱ arguedȱ thatȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱdoesȱnotȱsupersedeȱorȱinvalidateȱtheȬ ologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ (SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 2009:ȱ 90Ȭ104;ȱ Hedgesȱ 2008:ȱ 25Ȭ26).ȱTheȱveryȱsuggestionȱthatȱitȱmightȱbeȱdesirableȱandȱpossiȬ bleȱtoȱwriteȱChristianȱtheologyȱfromȱtheȱcontextȱofȱcomparisonȱ withȱ otherȱ scripturesȱ restsȱ onȱ aȱ theologicalȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ needsȱtoȱbeȱworkedȱoutȱsystematically.ȱHedgesȱexplains:ȱ Itȱisȱ…ȱimportantȱtoȱseeȱtheȱtwoȱ[comparativeȱtheologyȱandȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions]ȱ workingȱ inȱ tandem:ȱ itȱ isȱ simplyȱ

TOWARDSȱANȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICȱOFȱSCRIPTUREȱȱȱȱȱȱ111ȱ notȱ possibleȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ encounterȱ precedesȱ conceptualizaȬ tionȱ andȱ thatȱ whenȱ thisȱ isȱ finishedȱ thenȱ conceptualizationȱ begins.ȱ Forȱ isȱ thereȱ aȱ prescribedȱ endpointȱ whenȱ dialogueȱ stops?ȱ(Hedgesȱ2008:ȱ26)ȱ

TheȱworkȱofȱKeithȱWardȱoffersȱanȱinstanceȱofȱtheȱissuesȱofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ andȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ “workingȱ inȱ tandem.”ȱ Wardȱ espousesȱ whatȱ heȱ hasȱ calledȱ aȱ “soft”ȱ (Wardȱ 1990:ȱ 18)ȱ orȱ “convergent”ȱ (Wardȱ 1991:ȱ 175)ȱ pluralism,ȱ andȱ heȱ employedȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ asȱ theȱ methodologyȱ forȱ hisȱ workȱ Religionȱ andȱ Revelation:ȱ Aȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Revelationȱ inȱ theȱ World’sȱReligions.ȱHere,ȱheȱproposesȱwhatȱheȱtakesȱtoȱbeȱaȱ conceptȱofȱrevelationȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱtrueȱtoȱtheȱmainȱorthoȬ doxȱChristianȱtradition,ȱyetȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱopenȱtoȱaȱfruitfulȱ interactionȱ withȱ otherȱ traditions,ȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ developingȱ corpusȱofȱscientificȱknowledge.ȱ(Wardȱ1994:ȱ1)ȱ

ThereȱisȱmuchȱtoȱbeȱlearnedȱfromȱWard’sȱexample.ȱ Givenȱthatȱtheologyȱisȱconcernedȱwithȱtruth,ȱinterpretationȱ withinȱtheȱtheologicalȱenterpriseȱshould,ȱasȱSchmidtȬLeukelȱhasȱ suggested,ȱinvolveȱbothȱunderstandingȱandȱassessment:ȱ“interȬ pretationȱasksȱnotȱonlyȱforȱtheȱcorrectȱmeaningȱbutȱalsoȱforȱtheȱ potentialȱ truthȱ ofȱ theȱ respectiveȱ claimsȱ orȱ beliefs”ȱ (SchmidtȬ Leukelȱ2009:ȱ92).ȱIfȱoneȱdiscovers,ȱasȱFredericksȱdoes,ȱwhatȱapȬ pearsȱtoȱbeȱ“theȱpowerȱofȱnonȬChristianȱreligionsȱtoȱinspireȱnewȱ insightsȱ withinȱ us”ȱ (Fredericksȱ 1999:ȱ 170),ȱ thenȱ theȱ reflectiveȱ interpreterȱ mustȱ ask:ȱ “Whatȱ isȱ theȱ explanationȱ forȱ this?”ȱ andȱ “Canȱ Iȱ affirmȱ anyȱ truthȱ inȱ theseȱ otherȱ traditions?”ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ mustȱ beȱ broughtȱ intoȱ diaȬ logueȱwithȱtheologyȱofȱreligions.ȱ ȱ ȱ Inevitably,ȱsomeȱmotivationsȱandȱattitudesȱtoȱreligiousȱdiȬ versityȱwillȱbeȱmoreȱeffectiveȱthanȱothersȱinȱgeneratingȱthisȱkindȱ ofȱ reflection.ȱ Someȱ willȱ beȱ inclinedȱ toȱ compartmentaliseȱ theirȱ learningȱ fromȱ theȱ scriptureȱ andȱ traditionȱ withȱ whichȱ theyȱ enȬ gageȱ–ȱperhapsȱhavingȱjudgedȱitȱaȱprioriȱtoȱbeȱofȱnoȱspiritualȱrelȬ evanceȱ orȱ value.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ seekȱ opennessȱ andȱinnerȱcoherenceȱfaceȱsomeȱdifficultȱquestions.ȱForȱexample,ȱ postcolonialȱ discourseȱ encouragesȱ usȱ toȱ ask:ȱ Whatȱ rightȱ doȱ Iȱ haveȱ toȱ interpretȱ theȱ sacredȱ textȱ ofȱ anotherȱ traditionȱ (Cornilleȱ 2006:ȱ4)?ȱDoesȱinsistingȱonȱone’sȱrightȱtoȱinterpretȱinvolveȱsomeȱ claimȱtoȱownership,ȱand,ȱifȱso,ȱhowȱisȱthatȱownershipȱtoȱbeȱunȬ


derstood?ȱ Inȱ theȱ Westernȱ Christianȱ context,ȱ evenȱ whenȱ thereȱ hasȱbeenȱaȱgenuineȱdesireȱtoȱrecogniseȱvalueȱinȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱ anotherȱ religion,ȱ thisȱ was,ȱ inȱ theȱ past,ȱ largelyȱ doneȱ inȱ theȱ imȬ perialistȱ spiritȱ ofȱ “weȱ knowȱ best,”ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ suchȱ engageȬ mentȱcannotȱbeȱviewedȱasȱanȱinstanceȱofȱinterreligiousȱhermenȬ euticsȱ asȱ describedȱ here.ȱ Theȱ nineteenthȬcenturyȱ Orientalists,ȱ forȱexample,ȱassumedȱthatȱtheyȱcouldȱeasilyȱseparateȱtruthȱfromȱ falsityȱinȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱothers,ȱsimplyȱbyȱcomparingȱthemȱtoȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ whichȱ forȱ themȱ wasȱ theȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ trueȱ scripture.ȱ Theȱ1885ȱpublicationȱTheȱBiblesȱofȱOtherȱNationsȱprovidesȱanȱilȬ lustrativeȱexample.ȱItsȱintroductionȱreads:ȱ Theȱ publishersȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ compilationȱ doȱ notȱ offerȱ theȱ “selections”ȱ asȱ samplesȱ ofȱ theȱ entireȱ bodyȱ ofȱ Ethnicȱ scripȬ tures,ȱbutȱasȱaȱ…ȱ[sample]ȱofȱchoiceȱextracts,ȱextractsȱwhichȱ representȱ theȱ truestȱ andȱ bestȱ ofȱ theirȱ contents,ȱ andȱ whichȱ mayȱ serveȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ thoseȱ earlyȱ nationsȱ wereȱ notȱ leftȱ without,ȱ atȱ least,ȱ someȱ “foregleams”ȱ ofȱ thatȱ clearerȱ andȱ fullerȱlightȱofȱRevealedȱTruthȱenjoyedȱinȱlaterȱtimesȱbyȱmoreȱ highlyȱfavouredȱpeoples.ȱ(Hodgsonȱ1885:ȱvii)ȱ

Theȱinterreligiousȱhermeneutȱshouldȱbeȱwaryȱthenȱthatȱwhatȱforȱ himȱorȱherȱisȱanȱaffirmationȱofȱvalueȱmightȱwellȱbeȱconstruedȱasȱ usurpationȱorȱsupersessionȱbyȱanother.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneutȱ shouldȱ ask:ȱ Whatȱ religiousȱ significanceȱ orȱ statusȱ doȱ Iȱ grantȱ aȱ textȱ whenȱ Iȱ placeȱitȱalongsideȱmyȱownȱsacredȱscriptureȱforȱtheȱpurposesȱofȱ comparisonȱ orȱ worship,ȱ orȱ whenȱ Iȱ offerȱ aȱ “Christianȱ commenȬ tary”9ȱ onȱ thatȱ text?10ȱ Comparativeȱ theologiansȱ andȱ Scripturalȱ ReasonersȱcanȱfeelȱthatȱtheyȱhaveȱdiscoveredȱvalueȱinȱtheȱscripȬ tureȱ ofȱ theȱ other,ȱ butȱ theyȱ stopȱ shortȱ ofȱ evaluatingȱ theȱ theoȬ logicalȱ significanceȱ ofȱ this.ȱ Whileȱ thisȱ mayȱ beȱ aȱ reasonableȱ temporaryȱ position,ȱ eventuallyȱ theȱ callȱ forȱ internalȱ coherenceȱ mustȱ beȱ met.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ claimsȱ toȱ haveȱ discoveredȱ somethingȱ ofȱ religiousȱ valueȱ inȱ theȱ scripturesȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ willȱ onlyȱ beȱ metȱ withȱ theȱ accusationȱ ofȱ superficialityȱ andȱ ofȱ aȱ failureȱ toȱ 9ȱSeeȱforȱexampleȱtheȱseriesȱpublishedȱbyȱPeeters:ȱChristianȱ CommentariesȱonȱNonȬChristianȱSacredȱTexts.ȱ 10ȱTheseȱquestionsȱareȱraisedȱbyȱCornilleȱ2006:ȱ4Ȭ5.ȱ


reckonȱ withȱ theȱ apparentlyȱ conflictingȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ truthȱ claimsȱespousedȱbyȱtheȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱconcerned.ȱInȱshort,ȱ interreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱshouldȱinvolveȱseriousȱengagementȱ withȱtheȱselfȬunderstandingȱofȱtheȱother,ȱandȱtoȱbeȱtheologicallyȱ reflectiveȱ inȱ doingȱ so.ȱ Thisȱ reflectionȱ shouldȱ involveȱ interroȬ gatingȱ one’sȱ ownȱ selfȬunderstanding,ȱ allowingȱ itȱ toȱ comeȱ intoȱ dialogueȱwithȱwhatȱoneȱhasȱlearnedȱfromȱtheȱother,ȱandȱconsidȬ eringȱhowȱtheyȱimpactȱonȱoneȱanother.ȱIfȱnecessary,ȱpreviouslyȱ heldȱ beliefsȱ mustȱ beȱ adapted,ȱ perhapsȱ evenȱ abandoned,ȱ inȱ orderȱtoȱaccommodateȱnewȱinsights.ȱ TowardsȱaȱNewȱModeȱofȱEngagementȱ DrawingȱonȱtheȱprogressȱmadeȱwithinȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuȬ ticsȱandȱtheologyȱofȱreligions,ȱmightȱitȱbeȱpossibleȱtoȱdevelopȱanȱ interreligiousȱhermeneuticȱthatȱwouldȱfunctionȱasȱaȱmutuallyȱenȬ richingȱmodeȱofȱinterpretingȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱdiverseȱtraditionsȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundaries?ȱ Eachȱ tradition,ȱ indeedȱ eachȱ indiȬ vidualȱinterpreterȱwillȱhaveȱtheirȱownȱjustificationȱforȱtheȱpracȬ ticeȱ ofȱ readingȱ scripturesȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundaries,ȱ andȱ theȱ greatȱdiversityȱofȱtheȱtraditionsȱscreamsȱoutȱagainstȱaȱprescripȬ tiveȱoneȬsizeȬfitsȬallȱapproach.ȱAndȱyet,ȱthereȱareȱcommonȱquesȬ tionsȱ emergingȱ fromȱ interreligiousȱ scripturalȱ engagementȱ thatȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ addressedȱ inȱ eachȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ regardingȱ theȱ nature,ȱ authorityȱ andȱ truthȱ ofȱ scripturesȱ –ȱ questionsȱ thatȱ mustȱ beȱaskedȱofȱbothȱofȱtheȱinterpretedȱtraditionȱandȱofȱtheȱtraditionȱ ofȱ theȱ interpreter.ȱ Itȱ makesȱ senseȱ thenȱ thatȱ theseȱ questionsȱ shouldȱbeȱconsideredȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱmembersȱofȱotherȱtradiȬ tions.ȱAȱcommonȱhermeneuticȱcouldȱthereforeȱtakeȱtheȱformȱofȱ workingȱhermeneuticalȱquestionsȱthatȱseekȱtoȱaddressȱtheseȱisȬ sues.ȱThisȱsharedȱhermeneuticȱcouldȱperhapsȱofferȱtheȱbasisȱforȱ anȱ approachȱ toȱ interpretingȱ scripturesȱ thatȱ isȱ bothȱ dialogicalȱ andȱ internallyȱ theologicallyȱ reflective,ȱ andȱ thatȱ allowsȱ forȱ theȱ richȱdiversityȱofȱtheȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱconcerned.ȱThereȱisȱnotȱ spaceȱ hereȱ toȱ elaborateȱ onȱ thisȱ proposal.ȱ Inȱ theȱ remainderȱ ofȱ thisȱ paper,ȱ rather,ȱ Iȱ wishȱ toȱ focusȱ onȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ barriersȱ toȱ suchȱ anȱ enterprise,ȱ andȱ toȱ considerȱ howȱ theyȱ mightȱ beȱ adȬ dressed.ȱ ȱ ȱ


ReviewingȱTraditionalȱApproaches:ȱCaseȱStudiesȱ Thereȱareȱnumerousȱbarriersȱtoȱsuchȱaȱdialogicalȱinterreligiousȱ hermeneutic.ȱ Asȱ hasȱ beenȱ suggested,ȱ inȱ theȱ past,ȱ toȱ theȱ extentȱ thatȱtheyȱhaveȱbeenȱutilisedȱatȱall,ȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱothersȱhaveȱ traditionallyȱ beenȱ utilisedȱ inȱ aȱ supersessionaryȱ manner.ȱ Inȱ theȱ casesȱofȱChristianity,ȱIslam,ȱandȱBuddhism,ȱthisȱhermeneuticȱisȱ presentȱwithinȱtheirȱownȱscriptures,ȱatȱleastȱinȱembryonicȱform.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ supersessionismȱ withinȱ scripturesȱ themselvesȱ isȱ linkedȱ toȱ aȱ secondȱ majorȱ barrierȱ –ȱ thatȱ theseȱ scripturesȱ areȱ traditionallyȱ viewedȱ asȱ uniqueȱ repositoriesȱ ofȱ authorityȱ andȱ truthȱandȱinȱmanyȱcasesȱofȱrevelation.ȱBeingȱembeddedȱinȱscripȬ ture,ȱtheseȱsupersessionaryȱmodelsȱcannotȱsimplyȱbeȱdismissedȱ asȱbelongingȱtoȱaȱbygoneȱera.ȱItȱmightȱbeȱsuggestedȱthatȱifȱtheȱ authoritativeȱ statusȱ ofȱ scripturesȱ wereȱ relativised,ȱ weȱ needȱ noȱ longerȱ concernȱ ourselvesȱ withȱ theȱ supersessionismȱ thatȱ hasȱ emergedȱ fromȱ them.ȱ Howeverȱ theȱ aspirationȱ forȱ anȱ interreliȬ giousȱhermeneuticȱofȱscriptureȱsuggestsȱthatȱscripturesȱatȱleastȱ potentiallyȱ haveȱ valueȱ beyondȱ thatȱ ofȱ otherȱ “merely”ȱ humanȱ texts.ȱ Thisȱ aspirationȱ presumesȱ thatȱ scripturesȱ retainȱ aȱ specialȱ placeȱ withinȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ theseȱ scripturesȱ mustȱ beȱ accountedȱ forȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ statusȱ andȱ authorityȱ ascribedȱ toȱ them.ȱ Moreover,ȱ inȱ theȱ searchȱ forȱ aȱ newȱframeworkȱforȱengagementȱwithȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱotherȱreȬ ligions,ȱ thereȱ isȱ muchȱ toȱ beȱ learnedȱ fromȱ historicalȱ instancesȱ whereȱ engagementȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ takenȱ place.ȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ comȬ parativeȱtheologiansȱandȱScripturalȱReasonersȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱmuȬ tuallyȱ enrichingȱ potentialȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ scripturalȱ engageȬ ment.ȱ However,ȱ fewȱ willȱ acceptȱ thisȱ asȱ anȱ acceptableȱ frameȬ workȱ forȱ spiritualȱ andȱ theologicalȱ developmentȱ unlessȱ theȱ traȬ ditionalȱmodelsȱofȱengagementȱwithȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱothersȱcanȱ beȱshownȱtoȱbeȱnoȱlongerȱtenable.ȱResourcesȱwillȱalsoȱneedȱtoȱbeȱ foundȱwithinȱtheȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱthatȱallowȱforȱ–ȱorȱevenȱenȬ courageȱ–ȱtheȱsearchȱforȱreligiousȱtruthȱbeyondȱtheȱboundariesȱ ofȱ theirȱ particularȱ tradition.ȱ Detailedȱ analysisȱ ofȱ traditionalȱ modelsȱ isȱ requiredȱ beforeȱ proposalsȱ canȱ beȱ madeȱ aboutȱ whatȱ mightȱusefullyȱreplaceȱthem.ȱ TheȱfollowingȱcaseȱstudiesȱlookȱatȱtheȱapproachesȱofȱChrisȬ tianity,ȱ Islam,ȱ andȱ Buddhismȱ toȱ theȱ scripturesȱ presentȱ atȱ theȱ timeȱofȱtheirȱemergence.ȱTheȱinitialȱfocusȱofȱtheseȱcaseȱstudiesȱisȱ onȱ theȱ formativeȱ periodȱ ofȱ eachȱ religiousȱ tradition,ȱ tracingȱ theȱ


broadȱ patternsȱ ofȱ howȱ theseȱ communitiesȱ respondedȱ toȱ theȱ scripturesȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ inȱ manyȱ waysȱ theirȱ rivals.ȱ Theȱ hermeneuticalȱprocessesȱatȱplayȱareȱinterrogated,ȱdrawingȱfromȱ theȱ findingsȱ ofȱ recentȱ scholarshipȱ thatȱ has,ȱ inȱ variousȱ ways,ȱ questionedȱ theseȱ traditionalȱ approaches.ȱ Theȱ objectiveȱ ofȱ eachȱ caseȱstudyȱisȱtoȱestablishȱwhereȱtheȱweaknessesȱofȱtheȱtraditionȬ alȱ modelsȱ lieȱ andȱ toȱ identifyȱ theȱ currentȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ debate,ȱ mappingȱ changesȱ thatȱ haveȱ takenȱ place,ȱ particularlyȱ inȱ theȱ modernȱageȱofȱheightenedȱinterfaithȱencounter.ȱTheyȱmayȱalsoȱ indicateȱ theȱ potentialȱ forȱ changeȱ withinȱ eachȱ tradition.ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱactualȱchange,ȱifȱitȱisȱtoȱoccur,ȱwillȱcomeȱfromȱinsideȱreliȬ giousȱ traditionsȱ themselvesȱ andȱ anyȱ proposalsȱ thatȱ emergeȱ fromȱsuchȱanȱanalysisȱwouldȱofȱcourseȱneedȱtoȱbeȱtestedȱandȱdeȬ velopedȱbyȱscholarsȱofȱtheȱparticularȱtraditionsȱinȱquestion.ȱItȱisȱ recognisedȱ thatȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theseȱ traditionsȱ aȱ greatȱ dealȱ moreȱcomplexityȱhasȱbeenȱpresentȱthanȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱrepresentȱ here.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theȱ traditionalȱ modelsȱ ofȱ engagementȱ sketchedȱbelowȱrepresentȱdominantȱtrendsȱthatȱcan,ȱIȱthink,ȱbeȱ fruitfullyȱdiscussedȱinȱgeneralisedȱterms.ȱ Christianityȱ Forȱ theȱ earliestȱ (proto)Christiansȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Scripturesȱ wereȱ theȱonlyȱscriptures.ȱHowever,ȱwithȱtheȱformationȱofȱtheȱChrisȬ tianȱcanon,ȱtheseȱcameȱtoȱbeȱregardedȱasȱtheȱ“OldȱTestament”ȱ–ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ asȱ partial,ȱ incompleteȱ andȱ unclearȱ revelationȱ thatȱ reȬ quiredȱ theȱ fulfilmentȱ andȱ elucidationȱ providedȱ byȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ affirmationsȱ aboutȱ Christ.ȱ Inȱ aȱ somewhatȱ parallelȱ move,ȱ theseȱ Hebrewȱ texts,ȱ deemedȱ incompleteȱ byȱ Christians,ȱ wereȱ codifiedȱ toȱ formȱ theȱ completeȱ Jewishȱ canon.ȱ Eachȱ comȬ munityȱ claimedȱ authorityȱ ofȱ interpretation,ȱ yetȱ theȱ emergingȱ dominanceȱ ofȱ Christianityȱ gaveȱ aȱ forceȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ claimȱ thatȱprovedȱdisastrous.ȱWhileȱrecentȱscholarshipȱhasȱshownȱtheȱ greatȱdiversityȱofȱtheȱearlyȱChurch,ȱparticularlyȱinȱitsȱattitudesȱ toȱtheȱcontinuingȱvalidityȱofȱJewishȱpractice,ȱitȱisȱPaul’sȱwritingsȱ onȱJudaismȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱScripturesȱthatȱhaveȱbeenȱparticuȬ larlyȱ foundationalȱ forȱ theȱ subsequentȱ developmentȱ ofȱ ChrisȬ tianity.ȱ Inȱ narrowingȱ theȱ focusȱ toȱ Paul,ȱ however,ȱ weȱ areȱ stillȱ metȱwithȱaȱdiversityȱofȱpotentialȱapproachesȱtoȱJewsȱandȱJudaȬ ism.ȱPaulȱgroundedȱhisȱGospelȱmessageȱinȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱtheȱ Hebrewȱ Scripturesȱ (1ȱ Corinthiansȱ 15:3Ȭ5).ȱ However,ȱ whatȱ wasȱ


theȱ centralȱ partȱ ofȱ thoseȱ scripturesȱ forȱ Jewsȱ andȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ Jewishȱlifeȱ–ȱtheȱTorahȱcontainingȱtheȱMosaicȱlawȱ–ȱhad,ȱaccordȬ ingȱtoȱPaul,ȱ beenȱrenderedȱredundantȱbyȱtheȱcomingȱofȱChrist.ȱ Paulȱfurtherȱcastȱdoubtȱonȱtheȱpositiveȱspiritualȱvalueȱofȱtheȱlawȱ evenȱ beforeȱ Christ,ȱ atȱ variousȱ pointsȱ declaringȱ theȱ lawȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ “ministryȱofȱdeath”(2ȱCorinthiansȱ3)ȱthatȱhadȱbeenȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱ Jewsȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ “transgressions”ȱ (Galatiansȱ 3:19).ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱ Paul’sȱ approachȱ wasȱ notȱ systematic,ȱ and,ȱ respondingȱ toȱ differingȱcircumstancesȱinȱhisȱLetterȱtoȱtheȱRomansȱhisȱattitudeȱ toȱtheȱcontinuingȱvalidityȱofȱJudaismȱisȱmuchȱmoreȱambiguous.ȱ AlongsideȱstatementsȱonȱtheȱfailureȱofȱtheȱJewishȱpeopleȱ(11:7),ȱ Paul’sȱcommunityȱinȱRomeȱisȱtoldȱthatȱ“theȱlawȱisȱholy,ȱandȱtheȱ commandmentȱisȱholyȱandȱjustȱandȱgood”ȱ(7:12)ȱand,ȱcrucially,ȱ inȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ electionȱ ofȱ theȱ Israelites,ȱ thatȱ “theȱ giftsȱ andȱ theȱ callingȱ ofȱ Godȱ areȱ irrevocable”ȱ (11:29).ȱ Unfortunatelyȱ thisȱ ambiguityȱ wasȱ obscuredȱ byȱ thoseȱ Churchȱ Fathers,ȱ includingȱ JustinȱMartyrȱandȱJohnȱChrysostom,ȱwhoȱconcernedȱthemselvesȱ withȱ theȱ vehementȱ denunciationȱ ofȱ Judaisingȱ Christians.ȱ ProȬ ceedingȱ fromȱ aȱ veryȱ negativeȱ readingȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ Judaism,ȱtheyȱclaimedȱtheȱHebrewȱscripturesȱasȱsolelyȱChristianȱ textsȱ thatȱ theȱ Jews,ȱ dueȱ toȱ theirȱ treacheryȱ andȱ stubbornnessȱ wereȱincapableȱofȱunderstanding. 11ȱAsȱRosemaryȱRadfordȱRueȬ therȱ demonstratedȱ inȱ herȱ 1974ȱ bookȱ Faithȱ andȱ Fratricide,ȱ theȱ Churchȱ fathersȱ appliedȱ aȱ hermeneuticȱ ofȱ antithesisȱ toȱ theȱ HeȬ brewȱ Scripturesȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ “letter”ȱ versusȱ theȱ Christianȱ “spirit,”ȱ ofȱ “law”ȱ versusȱ “Gospel,”ȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ “judgement”ȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ versusȱ theȱ “promise”ȱ ofȱ newȱ lifeȱ inȱ Christȱ (Ruetherȱ 1974:ȱ 228Ȭ45).ȱ Inȱ doingȱ so,ȱ theyȱ bothȱ dislocatedȱ theȱ scripturesȱ fromȱtheirȱJewishȱcontextȱandȱreadȱthemȱasȱproofȱtextsȱasȱtoȱtheȱ intrinsicallyȱmalignȱnatureȱofȱtheȱJewsȱ(Ruetherȱ1974:ȱ164).ȱ Historically,ȱ Christianity’sȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ ScripȬ turesȱ oftenȱ translatedȱ intoȱ anȱ antiȬJewishȱ theologyȱ (Ruetherȱ 1974:ȱ164).ȱItȱwasȱonlyȱfollowingȱtheȱHolocaustȱ–ȱthatȱmanyȱsawȱ asȱ theȱ culminationȱ ofȱ centuriesȱ ofȱ antiȬSemitismȱ fuelledȱ byȱ ChristianȱantiȬJudaismȱ–ȱthatȱlargeȱnumbersȱofȱChristiansȱbeganȱ toȱ critiqueȱ thisȱ theology.ȱ Throughȱ reflectionsȱ onȱ Christianity’sȱ originsȱinȱJudaism;ȱtheȱrealityȱthatȱJesusȱhimselfȱlivedȱandȱdiedȱ ȱJustinȱMartyr,ȱDialogueȱwithȱTrypho,ȱ29:2;ȱ38ȱȱ

11


aȱJew;ȱandȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱtheirȱfaithȱinȱaȱscriptureȱthatȱdeȬ claresȱ God’sȱ eternalȱ covenantȱ withȱ theȱ Israelites,ȱ (implicationsȱ thatȱPaulȱseemsȱtoȱrecogniseȱinȱRomansȱ9Ȭ11),ȱmanyȱChristiansȱ cameȱtoȱacknowledgeȱtheȱcontinuingȱvalidityȱofȱJudaism.ȱAndȱifȱ Judaismȱ remainsȱ aȱ validȱ pathȱ beforeȱ God,ȱ thenȱ itȱ followsȱ thatȱ ChristiansȱcanȱandȱshouldȱlearnȱfromȱJewishȱinterpretationsȱofȱ theseȱ sharedȱ texts.ȱ Theȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ hasȱ inȱ factȱ calledȱ onȱ itsȱ membersȱ toȱ doȱ justȱ that,ȱ althoughȱ itȱ isȱ carefulȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ Jewishȱ interpretationsȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ affirmedȱ asȱ trueȱ toȱ theȱ extentȱ thatȱ theyȱ coincideȱ withȱ Christianȱ understandingsȱ (PBCȱ2001:ȱ#ȱ22).ȱTheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱitȱisȱ“Jewish”ȱtruthsȱthatȱ areȱbeingȱaffirmedȱisȱthereforeȱquestionableȱwithinȱthisȱscenarȬ io.12ȱ However,ȱ someȱ theologiansȱ haveȱ goneȱ further,ȱ arguingȱ thatȱifȱJudaismȱremainsȱaȱvalidȱpathȱtoȱGod,ȱChristiansȱneedȱtoȱ reviseȱ theirȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ asȱ requiringȱ theȱdefinitiveȱfulfilmentȱofȱtheȱNewȱ(Pawlikowskiȱ2004:ȱ291Ȭ92).ȱ Thisȱ moveȱ createsȱ greaterȱ theologicalȱ roomȱ forȱ Jewishȱ selfȬunȬ derstandings,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ beliefȱ thatȱ theȱ Messiahȱ isȱ stillȱ toȱ come.13ȱ Islamȱ Thereȱ isȱ aȱ tensionȱ inȱ theȱ claimsȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ toȱ confirmȱ andȱ protectȱ(Qȱ5:48)ȱandȱyetȱalsoȱtoȱcorrectȱ(Qȱ5:15)ȱtheȱJewishȱandȱ Christianȱ scriptures.ȱ Theȱ Qurȇanȱ revealsȱ thatȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ proȬ videdȱtoȱconfirmȱ“Torah”ȱ(Tawrat)ȱandȱ“Gospel”ȱ(Injil),ȱwhichȱitȱ presentsȱ asȱ “Booksȱ sentȱ downȱ byȱ God”ȱ toȱ theȱ prophetsȱ Mosesȱ andȱJesusȱrespectivelyȱ(Qȱ3:84).ȱMuslimsȱareȱrequiredȱtoȱbelieveȱ inȱthemȱ(Qȱ4:136),ȱand,ȱinȱtheȱearlyȱsuras,ȱitȱisȱassumedȱthatȱJewsȱ andȱChristiansȱwillȱnaturallyȱrecogniseȱtheȱQur’anȱasȱdivineȱreȬ velationȱ (Qȱ 20:133)ȱ (Marshallȱ 2001:ȱ 7).ȱ Thereȱ is,ȱ however,ȱ conȬ siderableȱdebateȱregardingȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱtheseȱreferencesȱ canȱbeȱheldȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱHebrewȱBibleȱandȱNewȱTestamentȱasȱ theyȱ existȱ inȱ theirȱ currentȱ forms.ȱ Theȱ Qur’an,ȱ presumablyȱ byȱ wayȱofȱexplanationȱasȱtoȱwhyȱtheȱJewsȱandȱChristiansȱrejectedȱ theȱ prophethoodȱ ofȱ Muhammad,ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ Christianȱ ȱSeeȱLevensonȱ2005Ȭ2006;ȱesp.ȱ176,ȱforȱaȱcriticalȱJewishȱresponse.ȱ ȱForȱaȱconciseȱoverviewȱofȱsomeȱsuchȱproposalsȱseeȱPawlikowȬ skiȱ2007.ȱȱ 12 13


andȱ Jewishȱ scripturesȱ haveȱ beenȱ corruptedȱ (Qȱ 3:24;ȱ 2:79)ȱ (Marshallȱ2001:ȱ19).ȱTheseȱscripturesȱareȱthereforeȱseenȱtoȱbeȱinȱ needȱ ofȱ theȱ correctionȱ providedȱ inȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ whichȱ isȱ interȬ pretedȱ toȱ beȱ God’sȱ completeȱ (Qȱ 85:21Ȭ22),ȱ incorruptibleȱ (Qȱ 41:42)ȱ andȱ finalȱ (Qȱ 33:40)ȱ revelationȱ toȱ humankind.ȱ Theȱ rejecȬ tionȱofȱtheȱprophethoodȱofȱMuhammadȱwasȱseenȱasȱfittingȱintoȱ theȱpropheticȱmodeȱ–ȱtheȱ“ChildrenȱofȱIsrael”ȱwereȱalwaysȱdisȬ obedientȱ toȱ theirȱ prophets,ȱ callingȱ someȱ impostersȱ andȱ killingȱ othersȱ(Qȱ5:70)ȱ(Fernhoutȱ1989:70).ȱThroughoutȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱIsȬ lam,ȱMuslimsȱhaveȱoftenȱregardedȱChristiansȱandȱJewsȱasȱguiltyȱ ofȱ theȱ wilfulȱ distortionȱ ofȱ God’sȱ wordȱ andȱ theirȱ scripturesȱ asȱ abrogatedȱ(see,ȱe.g.,ȱAasiȱ1999:ȱxv).ȱAsȱsuchȱMuslimsȱhaveȱhadȱ littleȱorȱnoȱinclinationȱtoȱreadȱtheirȱscriptures,ȱexceptȱinȱorderȱtoȱ demonstrateȱ theȱ reprobationȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ orȱ toȱ searchȱforȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱprophetȱMuhammadȱ–ȱwhoseȱcomȬ ingȱtheȱQurȇanȱsaysȱtheseȱscripturesȱproclaimȱ(Qȱ7:157).ȱ However,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ significantȱ minorityȱ opinionȱ withinȱ classicalȱ Islamicȱ scholarshipȱ thatȱ holdsȱ thatȱ theȱ corruptionȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ referredȱ wasȱ notȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ themselvesȱ butȱ ratherȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱwereȱinterpretedȱbyȱJewsȱandȱ Christians.14ȱThereȱisȱaȱgoodȱdealȱofȱambiguityȱamongstȱtheȱrelȬ evantȱQur’anicȱpassages,ȱsomeȱofȱwhichȱcallȱonȱJewsȱandȱChrisȬ tiansȱtoȱ“observe”ȱtheȱTorahȱandȱtheȱGospelȱ(Qȱ5:66;ȱ68),ȱimplyȬ ingȱ theȱ validityȱ ofȱ thoseȱ scripturesȱ inȱ theirȱ existingȱ formȱ (Marshallȱ2001:ȱ20).ȱTheȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱprincipleȱofȱabrogaȬ tionȱ toȱ theseȱ scripturesȱ hasȱ likewiseȱ beenȱ disputedȱ (Sachedinaȱ 2001:ȱ 31Ȭ32).ȱ Currentȱ scholarȱ Rezaȱ Shahȱ Kazemiȱ hasȱ drawnȱ onȱ theseȱviewsȱtoȱargueȱthatȱMuslimsȱareȱinȱfactȱcompelledȱbyȱtheȱ Qur’anȱ toȱ readȱ theȱ Jewishȱ andȱ Christianȱ scripturesȱ becauseȱ ofȱ itsȱcentralȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱaȱconfirmerȱandȱprotectorȱofȱtheȱpreviousȱ revelations.ȱ Kazemiȱ hasȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theȱ relationshipȱ beȬ tweenȱ theȱ scripturesȱ shouldȱ beȱ consideredȱ oneȱ ofȱ “reciprocalȱ confirmationȱandȱmutualȱillumination”ȱ(Kazemiȱ2010:ȱ116).ȱ Moreover,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱtheȱQur’an,ȱaȱboundedȱtextȱinȱhuȬ manȱ language,ȱ cannotȱ containȱ theȱ fullnessȱ ofȱ God’sȱ revelationȱ toȱhumankindȱ(seeȱQȱ31:27).ȱThatȱtheȱQur’anȱwasȱnotȱintendedȱ toȱbeȱcompleteȱinȱthisȱwayȱisȱevidentȱfromȱtheȱfrequentȱpassingȱ ȱForȱanȱoverviewȱseeȱTarakciȱandȱSayarȱ2005ȱ

14


referencesȱ toȱ prophetsȱ ofȱ theȱ previousȱ scripturesȱ –ȱ prophetsȱ whoseȱ storiesȱ areȱ affirmedȱ butȱ oftenȱ notȱ rehearsedȱ inȱ theȱ Qur’an.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱQur’anȱdemandsȱthatȱbelieversȱ“comȬ memorate”ȱtheȱprophetȱJacobȱ(Qȱ38:45Ȭ47),ȱyetȱlittleȱisȱrevealedȱ aboutȱ him.ȱ Howȱ thenȱ couldȱ Muslimsȱ commemorateȱ prophetsȱ suchȱasȱJacobȱexceptȱbyȱlookingȱtoȱtheȱJewishȱandȱChristianȱtraȬ ditions?ȱHoldingȱtoȱtheȱbeliefȱthatȱtheȱQur’anȱisȱGod’sȱfullȱandȱ finalȱ revelationȱ –ȱ aȱ physicalȱ embodimentȱ ofȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ “Motherȱ ofȱ theȱ Book”ȱ (Qȱ 13:38Ȭ39),ȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ Muslimsȱ haveȱnotȱfeltȱchallengedȱbyȱthisȱpoint.ȱHowever,ȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱ theologicalȱ andȱ historicalȱ criticalȱ issuesȱ associatedȱ withȱ thisȱ view,ȱaȱ fewȱ Muslimȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ begunȱ toȱ reconsiderȱ theȱ naȬ tureȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱ(e.g.,ȱAbuȬZaydȱ2003).ȱForȱexample,ȱinȱseekȬ ingȱ toȱ identifyȱ aȱ Muslimȱ pathȱ toȱ pluralismȱ alongȱ theȱ linesȱ ofȱ Paulȱ Knitter,ȱ Mahmutȱ Aydinȱ hasȱ offeredȱ aȱ reinterpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ suggestingȱ itȱ beȱ understoodȱ notȱ asȱ “full,ȱ definitiveȱ andȱ unsurpassable”ȱ butȱ ratherȱ asȱ “universal,ȱ decisiveȱ andȱ indispensable”ȱ (Aydinȱ 2001:ȱ 350).ȱ Thus,ȱ Aydinȱ providesȱanȱ“attemptȱtoȱrelativiseȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱandȱ theȱProphetȱMuhammadȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱreligiousȱfiguresȱofȱ theȱworldȱreligions”ȱand,ȱweȱmightȱadd,ȱtheirȱscriptures,ȱ“whileȱ maintainingȱ theȱ centralityȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ andȱ theȱ Prophetȱ MuȬ hammadȱforȱMuslims”ȱ(Aydinȱ2001:ȱ350).ȱ Buddhismȱ TheȱPaliȱcanonȱmakesȱfrequentȱandȱvariedȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱVeȬ das,ȱreferencesȱthatȱcanȱbeȱdemonstratedȱasȱservingȱtheȱpurposeȱ ofȱ establishingȱ Buddhism’sȱ superiorityȱ overȱ institutionalisedȱ Brahmanism.ȱ Theseȱ textsȱ attestȱ toȱ aȱ complexȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Brahmanicalȱ religionȱ thatȱ includesȱ bothȱ rejectionȱ andȱ continuȬ ity. 15ȱThereȱisȱaȱgoodȱdealȱofȱpolemicȱagainstȱtheȱBrahminsȱ(e.g.ȱ Dȱ 13:28Ȭ32;ȱ Snȱ 284Ȭ306;ȱ Aȱ 3:221).ȱ Yetȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ BudȬ dhaȱ isȱ establishedȱ inȱ partȱ throughȱ featuringȱ manyȱ greatȱ BrahȬ mins,ȱ whoseȱ qualitiesȱ theȱ Buddhaȱ matchesȱ andȱ exceeds,ȱ andȱ whoȱacknowledgeȱhisȱsuperiorityȱ(Mȱ91:22;ȱcf.ȱSȱ2:164Ȭ77).ȱBrahȬ ȱ Continuityȱ isȱ emphasisedȱ byȱ Seyfortȱ Rueggȱ 2008:ȱ 5;ȱ cf.ȱ GomȬ brichȱ 2006:ȱ 17,ȱ whereȱ pointsȱ ofȱ seemingȱ continuityȱ areȱ identifiedȱ asȱ rhetoricalȱtactics.ȱ 15


manicalȱterminologyȱandȱsacrificialȱdiscourseȱisȱfrequentlyȱemȬ ployed;ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱeitherȱreinterpretedȱorȱgivenȱaȱnewȱappliȬ cationȱaltogetherȱ(seeȱKiblingerȱ2005:ȱ40Ȭ41).ȱSimilarly,ȱtheȱcosȬ mologyȱofȱVedicȱgodsȱisȱappropriatedȱwithȱsomeȱmodifications,ȱ butȱ theseȱ godsȱ areȱ firmlyȱ subordinatedȱ withinȱ theȱ Buddhistȱ schemaȱ asȱ beingȱ ofȱ noȱ soteriologicalȱ significanceȱ (Dȱ 20)ȱ (KibȬ lingerȱ2005:ȱ40Ȭ41).16ȱTheȱhermeneuticalȱkey,ȱrevealingȱtheȱsuȬ persessionismȱ latentȱ inȱ thisȱ useȱ ofȱ certainȱ Brahmanicalȱ termsȱ andȱ beliefs,ȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ claimȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ Buddhistȱ arahantȱwhoȱisȱtheȱ“trueȱBrahmin”ȱ(e.g.ȱDȱ4:11;ȱMasefieldȱ1986:ȱ 146ff.)ȱ–ȱaȱclaimȱnotȱunlikeȱtheȱChurchȱfathers’ȱexplicationȱofȱtheȱ Churchȱasȱtheȱ“trueȱIsrael.”ȱ Theȱ Buddhistȱ reinterpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ “Brahmin”ȱ didȱ notȱresultȱinȱtheȱrejectionȱofȱallȱaspectsȱofȱBrahmanicalȱreligion,ȱ andȱ thereȱ isȱ someȱ respectȱ forȱ Brahmanicalȱ religionȱ evidentȱ inȱ theȱ Buddhists’ȱ desireȱ toȱ beȱ associatedȱ withȱ themȱ inȱ thisȱ way.ȱ Evenȱso,ȱtheȱ“threeȱVedas”ȱofȱwhichȱtheȱPaliȱcanonȱspeaksȱareȱ rejectedȱ asȱ “theȱ threefoldȱ desert,ȱ theȱ threefoldȱ wilderness,ȱ theȱ threefoldȱ destruction”ȱ (Dȱ 13:36).ȱ Itȱ isȱ furtherȱ reportedȱ thatȱ theȱ Vedicȱ “seers,”ȱ theȱ originalȱ receiversȱ ofȱ theȱ Vedas,ȱ wereȱ inȱ factȱ blindȱ(Mȱ95:12)ȱandȱwroteȱtheȱVedasȱhavingȱhadȱnoȱsuccessȱinȱ meditationȱ(Dȱ27:23).ȱ Theȱ earlyȱ Buddhists,ȱ however,ȱ wouldȱ haveȱ hadȱ limitedȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ Brahmanicalȱ scripturesȱ andȱ theȱ Buddha’sȱ soȬ calledȱ“dialogues”ȱwithȱtheȱBrahminsȱrevealȱthatȱlittleȱifȱanyȱatȬ temptȱ wasȱ madeȱ toȱ understandȱ Brahmanismȱ inȱ itsȱ ownȱ terms.ȱ Rather,ȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ engagementȱ alwaysȱ servesȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ bolsteringȱtheȱauthorityȱandȱsuperiorityȱofȱtheȱBuddhaȱandȱhisȱ teachings.ȱThisȱcanȱbeȱseenȱasȱarisingȱoutȱofȱnecessity,ȱsinceȱtheȱ Buddha,ȱ asȱ aȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ ksatriyaȱ orȱ warriorȱ caste,ȱ wasȱ notȱ consideredȱunderȱtheȱBrahmanicalȱschemaȱtoȱhaveȱtheȱauthorityȱ toȱteachȱtheȱdharma.ȱThereforeȱtheȱVedasȱwereȱneverȱsoughtȱtoȱ beȱunderstoodȱinȱtheirȱownȱterms.ȱNorȱwereȱthey,ȱfollowingȱtheȱ Buddha’sȱadviceȱtoȱtheȱKalamasȱonȱhowȱtoȱdistinguishȱbetweenȱ

ȱCf.ȱSeyfortȱRueggȱ2008ȱwhoȱspeaksȱnotȱofȱ“appropriation”ȱbutȱ ofȱaȱcommonȱpanȬIndianȱ“substratum”ȱfromȱwhichȱbothȱBuddhistȱandȱ Vedicȱcosmologiesȱwereȱdrawn.ȱ 16


spiritualȱteachings,ȱjudgedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱqualitiesȱtheyȱelicitȱ inȱtheȱpractitionerȱ(Aȱ3:65).ȱ InȱcontrastȱwithȱtheȱChristianȱandȱMuslimȱcases,ȱthereȱare,ȱ asȱfarȱasȱIȱamȱaware,ȱnoȱBuddhistȱvoicesȱcallingȱforȱaȱreȬexaminȬ ationȱ ofȱ theȱ Buddhistȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ Hinduȱ scriptures.ȱ Theȱ majorityȱofȱBuddhistsȱregardȱtheȱPaliȱcanon,ȱorȱatȱleastȱtheȱSutȬ taȬpitaka,ȱasȱ“wordȱofȱtheȱBuddha”ȱ(buddhavacana),ȱanȱaccurateȱ recordȱ ofȱ theȱ teachingsȱ ofȱ theȱ omniscientȱ Buddhaȱ (Fernhoutȱ 1994:ȱ 36Ȭ37,ȱ 73Ȭ75),ȱ despiteȱ discrepanciesȱ betweenȱ andȱ withinȱ theȱ Paliȱ canonicalȱ textsȱ (see,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Gombrichȱ 2006:ȱ 77Ȭ80).ȱ Someȱ Buddhistȱtheologians/scholarȬpractitionersȱinȱtheȱWest,ȱsuchȱasȱ RitaȱGrossȱandȱJohnȱMakransky,ȱhaveȱhoweverȱhighlightedȱtheȱ needȱforȱaȱmoreȱcriticalȱapproachȱtoȱtheseȱtextsȱandȱareȱapplyȬ ingȱ historicalȱ criticalȱ consciousnessȱ toȱ Buddhistȱ traditionsȱ andȱ scriptures.17ȱThisȱmoveȱcouldȱpotentiallyȱopenȱtheȱdoorȱtoȱaȱreȬ considerationȱ ofȱ theȱ Buddhistȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ Vedas.ȱ Whileȱ majorȱ differencesȱ wouldȱ surelyȱ persistȱ betweenȱ Buddhistȱ andȱ Hinduȱ viewsȱ ofȱ scripture,ȱ atȱ leastȱ theȱ polemicalȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ PaliȱcanonicalȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱBrahminsȱandȱtheȱVedasȱcouldȱbeȱ seenȱtoȱbeȱhistoricallyȱrooted.ȱ ReconsideringȱtheȱNatureȱandȱAuthorityȱofȱScriptureȱ Whileȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ Christianity,ȱ Islam,ȱ andȱ Buddhismȱ validateȱotherȱscripturesȱvaries,ȱeachȱhasȱmadeȱuseȱofȱtheȱscripȬ turesȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ serveȱ aȱ supersessionaryȱ agenda.ȱ Continuityȱisȱexpressedȱinȱsoȱfarȱasȱtheȱscripturesȱand/orȱtradiȬ tionȱ ofȱ theȱ priorȱ religionȱ areȱ appealedȱ toȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ establishȱ legitimacyȱ andȱ originality,ȱ butȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ categoriesȱ areȱ appropriatedȱ andȱ reinterpretedȱ andȱ anȱ identityȱ isȱ formedȱ forȱ theȱnewȱreligionȱthroughȱtheȱnegationȱofȱtheȱother.ȱ ReinȱFernhoutȱhasȱconductedȱaȱstudyȱonȱaȱsimilarȱrangeȱofȱ caseȱ studies18ȱ whereȱ heȱ showedȱ thatȱ theȱ selfȬunderstandingȱ ofȱ 17ȱSeeȱessaysȱbyȱGross,ȱMakranskyȱandȱothersȱinȱMakranskyȱ2000:ȱ esp.ȱ127ȱ

ȱ Fernhout’sȱ selectionȱ ofȱ caseȱ studiesȱ differsȱ fromȱ thoseȱ examȬ inedȱhereȱinȱthatȱheȱlooksȱatȱMahayanaȱBuddhism’sȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱ Paliȱ canonicalȱ textsȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ theȱ Paliȱ canon’sȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ theȱ Vedas.ȱȱ 18


theseȱ traditionsȱ hasȱ notȱ includedȱ theȱ “combiningȱ ofȱ elementsȱ fromȱdiverseȱreligions,”ȱorȱtheȱ“reinterpretationȱofȱtheȱstatusȱorȱ contentsȱ ofȱ thoseȱ scriptures”ȱ (Fernhoutȱ 1989:ȱ 73).ȱ Rather,ȱ acȬ cordingȱ toȱ theseȱ soȬcalledȱ “receivingȱ religions,”ȱ theȱ “earlierȱ scripturesȱ alwaysȱ hadȱ theȱ meaningȱ whichȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ newȱ situation”ȱ (Fernhoutȱ 1989:ȱ 73).ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ “donorȱ reliȬ gions”ȱhaveȱalwaysȱrejectedȱtheȱactivitiesȱofȱtheȱ“receivingȱreliȬ gion”ȱ asȱ inappropriateȱ annexation.ȱ Fernhoutȱ concludesȱ thatȱ “[i]nȱsuchȱaȱsituationȱthereȱisȱnoȱroomȱforȱtheȱdiaȬȱofȱdialogue”ȱ (Fernhoutȱ 1989:ȱ 73).ȱ Inȱ aȱ laterȱ article,ȱ heȱ insistsȱ thatȱ aȱ “sharedȱ faith”ȱacrossȱreligiousȱboundariesȱinȱtheȱ“inspiration”ȱofȱscripȬ tureȱ isȱ impossible.19ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ recogniseȱ anotherȱ scriptureȱ asȱ “inspired,”ȱheȱexplains,ȱoneȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱgiveȱupȱtheȱ“absoȬ luteȱ authorityȱ ofȱ ‘ourȱ own’ȱ canon,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ inspirationȱ specificȱ toȱ it”ȱ (Fernhoutȱ 1992:ȱ 73).ȱ Inȱ thatȱ caseȱ “allȱ questionsȱ concerningȱfaithȱinȱinspirationȱareȱrenderedȱsuperfluous.ȱThereȱ isȱnothingȱleftȱtoȱshare”ȱ(Fernhoutȱ1992:ȱ73).ȱButȱFernhout’sȱasȬ sessmentȱisȱbasedȱonȱaȱBarthianȱviewȱthatȱseesȱabsoluteȱauthorȬ ityȱ asȱ aȱ qualityȱ inherentȱ inȱ theȱ canonicalȱ textȱ andȱ faithȱ asȱ theȱ obedientȱresponseȱtoȱthatȱauthorityȱ(Fernhoutȱ1992:ȱ64,ȱ72)ȱ–ȱaȱ viewȱ thatȱ isȱ openȱ toȱ challenge.ȱ Givingȱ upȱ theȱ “absolute”ȱ auȬ thorityȱ ofȱ one’sȱ scriptureȱ needȱ notȱ entailȱ givingȱ upȱ allȱ faithȱ inȱ itsȱ”inspiration.”ȱ Theȱ caseȱ studiesȱ outlinedȱ aboveȱ demonstrateȱ theȱ limitedȱ andȱ historicallyȱ conditionedȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ scripturesȱ involved.ȱ Inȱtheirȱattemptȱtoȱdemonstrateȱsuperiority,ȱbothȱtheȱscripturesȱ andȱ theȱ practitionersȱ ofȱ theȱ “other”ȱ faithȱ areȱ inevitablyȱ misreȬ presented.ȱEachȱofȱtheȱtraditionalȱmodelsȱthereforeȱviolatesȱtheȱ coreȱethicȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱ–ȱthatȱweȱmustȱbeȱattentiveȱ toȱ theȱ selfȬunderstandingsȱ ofȱ theȱ other.ȱ Itȱ isȱ clearȱ fromȱ theseȱ preliminaryȱ sketchesȱ thatȱ theȱ traditionalȱ modelsȱareȱ notȱdialoȬ gical.ȱInȱaȱworldȱthatȱvaluesȱdialogueȱasȱtheȱmainȱmeansȱofȱproȬ motingȱpolitical,ȱsocialȱandȱreligiousȱharmony,ȱtheseȱtraditionalȱ modelsȱofȱscripturalȱhermeneuticsȱcomeȱunderȱincreasingȱpresȬ ȱFernhoutȱlaterȱconsidersȱthisȱconceptȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱpossibilityȱ ofȱ “theȱ formationȱ ofȱ oneȱ canon”ȱ (Fernhoutȱ 1994:ȱ 279)ȱ betweenȱ theȱ religionsȱ –ȱ anȱ extremeȱ andȱ unlikelyȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ interscripturalȱ engagement.ȱ 19


sureȱtoȱchange.ȱHowever,ȱasȱFernhout’sȱargumentȱmakesȱclear,ȱ givenȱthatȱtheseȱmodelsȱareȱthemselvesȱgroundedȱinȱscripture,ȱ anyȱsignificantȱchangeȱwould,ȱforȱmany,ȱrequireȱaȱreconsideraȬ tionȱofȱtheȱnatureȱandȱauthorityȱofȱscriptureȱandȱitsȱrelationȱtoȱ revelation.ȱ ModernȱhermeneuticsȱhasȱhighlightedȱtheȱconditioningȱefȬ fectsȱ ofȱ historicalȱ contextȱ andȱ conceptualȱ frameworkȱ onȱ allȱ writingȱandȱinterpretations,ȱchallengingȱtheȱnotionȱofȱabsoluteȱ truthȱ beingȱ containedȱ inȱ anyȱ text.ȱ Moreover,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ earlyȱ Churchȱ fathers.ȱ Christianȱ thinkersȱ haveȱ pointedȱ toȱ theȱ necesȬ sarilyȱ limitedȱ abilityȱ ofȱ humanȱlanguageȱ toȱexpressȱtranscendȬ ence.ȱDrawingȱonȱtheseȱinsights,ȱSmithȱinsistedȱthatȱrevelationȱ isȱ“notȱanȱobjectiveȱconceptȱ…ȱbutȱ…ȱaȱhumaneȱone.ȱRevelationȱ isȱalwaysȱaȱrevelationȱtoȱsomebodyȱ....ȱAndȱpersons,ȱofȱcourse,ȱ areȱalwaysȱparticular,ȱandȱhistorical”ȱ(Smithȱ1981:ȱ173).ȱOnȱthisȱ basis,ȱheȱarrivedȱatȱaȱconceptȱofȱscriptureȱasȱaȱgeneralȱcategoryȱ that,ȱ heȱ said,ȱ “takesȱ careȱ ofȱ theȱ varietyȱ ofȱ texts,ȱ theȱ varietyȱ ofȱ readings,ȱtheȱconstantȱhistoricalȱchange,ȱtheȱhumanȱengagement,ȱ theȱpossibilitiesȱofȱharm”ȱ(Smithȱ1993:ȱ239Ȭ40).ȱScriptureȱisȱnot,ȱ forȱSmith,ȱaȱqualityȱinherentȱinȱaȱtextȱandȱsoȱshouldȱbeȱunderȬ stoodȱnotȱasȱaȱnounȱbutȱasȱsomeȱsortȱofȱadverb,ȱ“aȱmodeȱofȱreȬ latingȱ toȱ theȱ world”ȱ (Smithȱ 1993:ȱ 237).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ scriptureȱisȱmerelyȱhumanȱconvention;ȱratherȱitȱdenotesȱaȱtrilatȬ eralȱrelationshipȱ–ȱ“anȱengagementȱ–ȱamongȱhumans,ȱtheȱtransȬ cendent,ȱ andȱ aȱ text”ȱ (Smithȱ 1993:ȱ 239).ȱ Smith’sȱ approachȱ bothȱ deȬabsolutisesȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ scripturalȱ truthȱ andȱ recognisesȱ itsȱ deepȱ transformativeȱ powerȱ (seeȱ Smithȱ 1993:ȱ 16),ȱ suggestingȱ bothȱ theȱ possibilityȱ andȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ learningȱ fromȱ scripturesȱ acrossȱreligiousȱboundaries.ȱMoreover,ȱonceȱscriptureȱisȱrecogȬ nisedȱasȱaȱglobalȱ“humanȱactivity,”ȱitȱbecomesȱclearȱthatȱitsȱvarȬ iousȱtextualȱformsȱcannotȱbeȱeffectivelyȱunderstoodȱinȱisolationȱ fromȱoneȱanother.ȱ Conclusionȱ Ifȱscholarlyȱworkȱonȱtheȱnatureȱofȱrevelationȱhasȱopenedȱupȱtheȱ possibilityȱthatȱtruthȱmayȱbeȱavailableȱoutsideȱtheȱboundedȱlimȬ itsȱ ofȱ theȱ scripturesȱ ofȱ aȱ particularȱ religion,ȱ thenȱ weȱ canȱ turnȱ againȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ howȱ weȱ mightȱ goȱ aboutȱ readingȱ theȱ scriptureȱofȱtheȱother.ȱItȱseemsȱclearȱthatȱanȱalternativeȱhermenȬ euticalȱ approachȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ developedȱ thatȱ drawsȱ onȱ theȱ lesȬ


sonsȱlearnedȱthroughȱtheȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱtraditionalȱwaysȱinȱ whichȱ religionsȱ haveȱ engagedȱ withȱ theȱ scripturesȱ ofȱ theȱ other.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ fundamentalȱ lessonȱ toȱ beȱ learnedȱ isȱ thatȱ anyȱ engageȬ mentȱwithȱtheȱscriptureȱofȱtheȱotherȱmustȱbeȱdoneȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱtheȱ other.ȱThisȱmayȱsoundȱsimple,ȱbutȱinȱfactȱtheȱcorollariesȱareȱnuȬ merousȱ andȱ daunting.ȱ Engagementȱ throughȱ dialogueȱ withȱ theȱ otherȱ entailsȱ aȱ willingnessȱ toȱ setȱ asideȱ presuppositionsȱ andȱ toȱ listen.ȱ Itȱ requiresȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ deepȱ crossȬculturalȱ underȬ standingȱ andȱ itȱ demandsȱ opennessȱ toȱ personalȱ transformationȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ whatȱ isȱ learned.20ȱ Whatȱ formȱ thisȱ dialogueȱ takesȱ andȱwhoȱtheȱotherȱisȱwithȱwhomȱdialogueȱisȱmadeȱareȱalsoȱmatȬ tersȱ requiringȱ carefulȱ consideration,ȱ notȱ leastȱ becauseȱ whatȱ isȱ learnedȱ aboutȱ aȱ particularȱ scriptureȱ willȱ varyȱ dependingȱ onȱ whomȱ andȱ whichȱ sourcesȱ oneȱ engagesȱ with.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ neededȱ thenȱisȱanȱapproachȱtoȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱthatȱisȱfullyȱ attentiveȱtoȱtheseȱissues.ȱ Iȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱincreasedȱinterestȱinȱtheȱscripturesȱofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ byȱ religiousȱ practitionersȱ raisesȱ questionsȱ reȬ gardingȱtheȱnature,ȱtruth,ȱandȱvalueȱofȱthoseȱscripturesȱthatȱcanȬ notȱbeȱavoidedȱbyȱreflectiveȱtheologians.ȱInstead,ȱtheologiansȱofȱ diverseȱ traditionsȱ mightȱ aspireȱ toȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ aȱ comȬ monȱ setȱ ofȱ hermeneuticalȱ questionsȱ aimedȱ atȱ tacklingȱ theseȱ isȬ sues.ȱTheseȱ questionsȱmustȱbeȱ meaningfulȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ traȬ ditionsȱif,ȱasȱSmithȱadvised,ȱweȱareȱtoȱmoveȱtowardsȱaȱ“sharingȱ ofȱunderstanding”ȱregardingȱscriptureȱ(Smithȱ1992:ȱ59).ȱItȱisȱesȬ sentialȱ thatȱ suchȱ anȱ approachȱ isȱ explorativeȱ ratherȱ thanȱ preȬ scriptiveȱinȱnature,ȱallowingȱroomȱforȱtheȱdistinctiveȱfeaturesȱofȱ theȱ traditionsȱ concerned.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ especiallyȱ theȱ caseȱ whenȱ weȱ considerȱthat,ȱasȱDrewȱhasȱshown,ȱitȱisȱoftenȱtheȱencounterȱwithȱ theȱdistinctiveȱfeaturesȱofȱtraditionsȱthatȱproducesȱtheȱpointsȱofȱ greatestȱ learningȱ andȱ spiritualȱ growthȱ amongstȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuts.ȱAȱnewȱframeworkȱofȱengagementȱbasedȱonȱsharedȱ hermeneuticalȱ questionsȱ couldȱ allowȱ scriptureȱ toȱ beȱ experiȬ encedȱacrossȱreligiousȱboundariesȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱprovidesȱspaceȱ forȱtheȱparticularitiesȱofȱtraditions,ȱasȱwellȱasȱforȱtheȱpossibilityȱ ofȱscripturesȱtoȱfunctionȱasȱmutuallyȱenrichingȱresourcesȱforȱhuȬ ȱ Seeȱ Cornilleȱ 2008ȱ forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ problematicȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱvaluesȱrequiredȱforȱgenuineȱinterreligiousȱdialogue.ȱ 20


mankind’sȱspiritualȱdevelopment.ȱThisȱmoveȱtoȱaȱdialogicalȱfuȬ tureȱ cannotȱ beȱ madeȱ effectively,ȱ however,ȱ withoutȱ facingȱ theȱ monologicalȱmodelsȱofȱtheȱpast,ȱthat,ȱforȱsomeȱatȱleast,ȱremainȱ enshrinedȱinȱscripture.ȱ AbbreviationsȱofȱPaliȱTextsȱ Aȱ Dȱ Mȱ Sȱ Snȱ

AnguttaraȱNikayaȱ DighaȱNikayaȱ MajhimaȱNikayaȱ SamyuttaȱNikayaȱ Suttanipataȱ

Literatureȱ Aydin,ȱM.ȱ(2001).ȱ“ReligiousȱPluralism:ȱAȱChallengeȱforȱMuslimsȱ–ȱAȱ Theologicalȱ Evaluation.”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Ecumenicalȱ Studiesȱ 38:2Ȭ3.ȱ Pp.ȱ 330Ȭ52.ȱ GhulamȱHaiderȱAasi.ȱ(1999).ȱMuslimȱUnderstandingȱofȱOtherȱReligions,ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Ibnȱ zazmȇsȱ Kit¬bȱ alȬFaólȱ fiȱ alȬMilalȱ waȱ alȬAhw¬ȇȱ waȱ alȬ Niāal.ȱIslamabad:ȱTheȱInternationalȱInstituteȱofȱIslamicȱThought.ȱ AbuȬZayd,ȱ N.ȱ (2003).ȱ “Theȱ Dilemmaȱ ofȱ theȱ Literaryȱ Approachȱ toȱ theȱ Qur’an.”ȱ Alif:ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Comparativeȱ Politicsȱ 23.ȱ Cairo:ȱ Americanȱ UniversityȱCairo.ȱPp.ȱ8Ȭ32.ȱ Clooney,ȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ SJ.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Surrenderȱ toȱ Godȱ Alone.”ȱ In:ȱ C.ȱ Cornilleȱ(ed.).ȱSongȱDivine,ȱChristianȱCommentariesȱonȱtheȱBhagavadȱ Gita.ȱLouvain/ȱParis/Dudley:ȱPeeters.ȱPp.ȱ191Ȭ208.ȱ (1995).ȱ“TheȱEmergingȱFieldȱofȱComparativeȱTheology:ȱAȱBiblioȬ graphicalȱReviewȱ(1989Ȭ1995).”ȱTheologicalȱStudiesȱ56:ȱ521Ȭ50.ȱ ȱ (1993).ȱTheologyȱafterȱVed¬nta.ȱNewȱYork:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱ YorkȱPress.ȱ (1992).ȱ“ExtendingȱtheȱCanon:ȱSomeȱImplicationsȱofȱaȱHinduȱArȬ gumentȱaboutȱScripture.”ȱHarvardȱTheologicalȱReviewȱ85:ȱ197Ȭ215.ȱ Cornille,ȱ C.ȱ (2008).ȱ Theȱ ImȬPossibilityȱ ofȱ Interreligiousȱ Dialogue.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱCrossroadȱPublishingȱCompany.ȱ (2006).ȱ“Introduction.”ȱIn:ȱC.ȱCornilleȱ(ed.).ȱSongȱDivine:ȱChristianȱ Commentariesȱ onȱ theȱ Bhagavadȱ Gita.ȱ Louvain/Paris/Dudley:ȱ PeetȬ ers.ȱPp.ȱ1Ȭ8.ȱ ȱDrew,ȱ R.ȱ (2008).ȱ Anȱ Explorationȱ ofȱ Buddhistȱ Christianȱ Dualȱ Belonging.ȱ PhDȱthesis,ȱUniversityȱofȱGlasgow.ȱAȱrevisedȱversionȱofȱthisȱtextȱ

126ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ isȱforthcoming:ȱRoseȱDrewȱ(2011).ȱBuddhistȱandȱChristian?ȱAnȱExȬ plorationȱofȱDualȱBelonging.ȱOxon/NewYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Fernhout,ȱ R.ȱ (1994).ȱ Canonicalȱ Texts:ȱ Bearersȱ ofȱ Absoluteȱ Authority.ȱ Amsterdam/Atlanta:ȱRodopi.ȱ (1992).ȱ “Canȱ Faithȱ inȱ theȱ ‘Inspiration’ȱ ofȱ Holyȱ Scriptureȱ Beȱ Shared?”ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Gortȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.).ȱ Onȱ Sharingȱ Religiousȱ Experience:ȱ Possibilitiesȱ ofȱ Interfaithȱ Mutuality.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids/Amsterdam:ȱ Wm.ȱB.ȱEerdmans/Rodopi.ȱPp.ȱ64Ȭ75.ȱ (1989).ȱ “Syncretismȱ andȱ IntraȬReligiousȱ Normativityȱ Illustratedȱ byȱtheȱPhenomenonȱofȱSacredȱScriptures.”ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱGortȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.).ȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Syncretism:ȱ Anȱ Interdisciplinaryȱ Approach.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids/Amsterdam:ȱWm.ȱB.ȱEerdmans/Rodopi.ȱPp.ȱ66Ȭ75.ȱ Ford,ȱD.ȱ(2006).ȱ“AnȱInterfaithȱWisdom:ȱScripturalȱReasoningȱbetweenȱ Jews,ȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Muslims.”ȱ In:ȱ D.ȱ Fordȱ andȱ C.ȱ Pecknoldȱ (eds.).ȱ Theȱ Promiseȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ Oxford:ȱ Blackwellȱ Publishing,ȱPp.ȱ1Ȭ22.ȱ Fredericks,ȱ J.ȱ (1999).ȱ Faithȱ Amongȱ Faiths:ȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ andȱ NonȬ ChristianȱReligions.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ Frederiks,ȱM.ȱ(2005).ȱ“HermeneuticsȱfromȱanȱInterȬReligiousȱPerspecȬ tive?”ȱExchangeȱ34:ȱ101Ȭ10.ȱ Gombrich,ȱ R.ȱ (2006).ȱ Howȱ Buddhismȱ Began:ȱ Theȱ Conditionedȱ Genesisȱ ofȱ theȱEarlyȱTeachings.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Hedges,ȱ P.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Aȱ Reflectionȱ onȱ Typologies:ȱ Negotiatingȱ aȱ FastȬ MovingȱDiscussion.”ȱIn:ȱ A.ȱRaceȱandȱP.ȱHedgesȱ(eds.).ȱ Christianȱ ApproachesȱtoȱOtherȱFaiths.ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ17Ȭ35.ȱ Hodgson,ȱJ.M.ȱ(1885).ȱTheȱBiblesȱofȱOtherȱNations.ȱManchester/London:ȱ BrookȱandȱCrystal/Simpkin,ȱMarshalȱ&ȱCo.ȱ Kazemi,ȱ R.S.ȱ (2010).ȱ “Lightȱ Uponȱ Light?ȱ Theȱ Qur’anȱ andȱ Stȱ Johnsȱ Gospel.”ȱIn:ȱC.ȱCornilleȱandȱC.ȱConwayȱ(eds.).ȱInterreligiousȱHerȬ meneutics.ȱ Eugene:ȱ Cascadeȱ Books,ȱ Wipfȱ andȱ Stockȱ Publishers.ȱ Pp.ȱ116Ȭ48.ȱ Kepnes,ȱStephen.ȱ(2006).ȱ“AȱHandbookȱforȱScripturalȱReasoning”,ȱin:ȱ D.ȱFordȱandȱ C.ȱPecknoldȱ (eds.).ȱ TheȱPromiseȱofȱScripturalȱReasonȬ ing.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwellȱPublishingȱ Lambkin,ȱ Magdalenȱ (2010).ȱ “Canȱ Scripturesȱ Unite?ȱ Aȱ Theologicalȱ ExplorationȱofȱtheȱInterreligiousȱPracticeȱofȱSpiritualȱReasoning.”ȱ eSharpȱ 15:ȱ Unitingȱ Nations:ȱ Risksȱ andȱ Opportunities.ȱ Pp.ȱ 42Ȭ64,ȱ http://www.gla.ac.uk/esharpȱ

TOWARDSȱANȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICȱOFȱSCRIPTUREȱȱȱȱȱȱ127ȱ Levenson,ȱJ.D.ȱ(2005Ȭ2006).ȱ“CanȱRomanȱCatholicismȱValidateȱJewishȱ Biblicalȱ Interpretation?”ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ ChristianȬJewishȱ Relationsȱ 1:ȱ 170Ȭ85.ȱ Makransky,ȱJ.,ȱandȱR.R.ȱJacksonȱ(eds.).ȱ(2000).ȱBuddhistȱTheology:ȱCritȬ icalȱReflectionsȱbyȱContemporaryȱBuddhistȱScholars.ȱSurrey:ȱCurzonȱ Press.ȱ Marshall,ȱD.ȱ(2001).ȱ“ChristianityȱinȱtheȱQurȇan.”ȱIn:ȱL.ȱRidgeonȱ(ed.).ȱ Islamicȱ Interpretationsȱ ofȱ Christianity.ȱ Richmond/Surrey:ȱ Curzonȱ Press.ȱPp.ȱ3Ȭ29.ȱ Masefield,ȱ P.ȱ (1986).ȱ Divineȱ Revelationȱ inȱ Paliȱ Buddhism.ȱ London/ȱ Sydney/Boston:ȱGeorgeȱAllenȱ&ȱUnwin.ȱ Pawlikowski,ȱ J.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Christologyȱ andȱ theȱ JewishȬChristianȱ DiaȬ logue.”ȱIrishȱTheologicalȱQuarterlyȱ72:ȱ147Ȭ67.ȱ (2004).ȱ“ReflectionsȱonȱCovenantȱandȱMission.”ȱIn:ȱE.ȱKesslerȱandȱ M.ȱWrightȱ(eds.).ȱThemesȱinȱJewishȬChristianȱRelations.ȱCambridge:ȱ OrchardȱAcademic.ȱPp.ȱ103Ȭ21.ȱ Pontificalȱ Biblicalȱ Commissionȱ (PBC)ȱ (2001).ȱ“Theȱ Jewishȱ Peopleȱ andȱ theirȱ Sacredȱ Scripturesȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ Bible.”ȱ Vaticanȱ City:ȱ VaticanȱPress,ȱhttp://www.vatican.vaȱ Race,ȱ A.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Theologyȱ ofȱ Religionsȱ inȱ Change:ȱ Factorsȱ inȱ theȱ Shapeȱ ofȱ aȱ Debate.”ȱ In:ȱ A.ȱ Raceȱ andȱ P.ȱ Hedgesȱ (eds.).ȱ Christianȱ ApproachesȱtoȱOtherȱFaiths.ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ4Ȭ16.ȱ (1983).ȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism:ȱ Patternsȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ TheologyȱofȱReligions.ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ Ruether,ȱ R.R.ȱ (1974).ȱ Faithȱ andȱ Fratricide:ȱ Theȱ Theologicalȱ Rootsȱ ofȱ AntiȬ Semitism.ȱNewȱYork:ȱTheȱSeaburyȱPress.ȱ Sachedina,ȱ A.ȱ (2001).ȱ Theȱ Islamicȱ Rootsȱ ofȱ Democraticȱ Pluralism.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Secondȱ Vaticanȱ Councilȱ (1965),ȱ “Declarationȱ onȱ theȱ Relationȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ toȱ NonȬChristianȱ Religions”ȱ (Nostraȱ Aetate).ȱ www.vatiȬ can.vaȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱP.ȱ(2009).ȱTransformationȱbyȱIntegration:ȱHowȱInterfaithȱ EncounterȱChangesȱChristianity.ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Exclusivism,ȱ Inclusivism,ȱ Pluralism:ȱ Theȱ Tripolarȱ TypȬ ologyȱȬȱClarifiedȱandȱReaffirmed.”ȱIn:ȱP.ȱKnitterȱ(ed.).ȱTheȱMythȱofȱ Religiousȱ Superiority:ȱ Multifaithȱ Explorationsȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱPp.ȱ13Ȭ27.ȱ Seyfortȱ Ruegg,ȱ D.ȱ (2008).ȱ Theȱ Symbiosisȱ ofȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ Brahmanism/ȱ HinduismȱinȱSouthȱAsiaȱandȱofȱBuddhismȱwithȱ“LocalȱCults”ȱinȱTibetȱ

128ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ andȱtheȱHimalayanȱRegion.ȱVienna:ȱOsterreichischeȱAkademieȱderȱ Wisshenschaften.ȱ Smith,ȱ W.C.ȱ (1993).ȱ Whatȱ isȱ Scripture?ȱ Aȱ Comparativeȱ Approach.ȱ LonȬ don:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ ȱ (1992).ȱ“CanȱBelieversȱShareȱtheȱQur’anȱandȱtheȱBibleȱasȱWordȱofȱ God?”ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Gortȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.).ȱ Onȱ Sharingȱ Religiousȱ Experience,ȱ Possibilitiesȱ ofȱ Interfaithȱ Mutuality.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids/Amsterdam:ȱ Wm.ȱB.ȱEerdmans/Rodopi.ȱPp.ȱ55Ȭ63.ȱ ȱ (1981).ȱTowardsȱaȱWorldȱTheology:ȱFaithȱandȱtheȱComparativeȱHistoryȱ ofȱReligion.ȱLondon:ȱMacmillan.ȱ ȱ (1972).ȱ Theȱ Faithȱ ofȱ Otherȱ Men.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Harperȱ Touchbooks.ȱ (1967).ȱQuestionsȱofȱReligiousȱTruth.ȱNewȱYork:ȱCharlesȱScribner’sȱ Sons.ȱ Swidler,ȱ L.ȱ (1987).ȱ “Interreligiousȱ andȱ Interideologicalȱ Dialogue:ȱ Theȱ MatrixȱforȱAllȱSystematicȱReflectionȱToday.”ȱIn:ȱL.ȱSwidlerȱ(ed.).ȱ Towardȱ aȱ Universalȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religion.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱ Orbis.ȱ Pp.ȱ 5Ȭ 55.ȱ Tarakci,ȱ M.ȱ andȱ Sayar,ȱ S.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Theȱ Qur’anicȱ Viewȱ ofȱ theȱ CorrupȬ tionȱofȱtheȱTorahȱandȱtheȱGospels.”ȱTheȱIslamicȱQuarterlyȱ49:ȱ227Ȭ 45.ȱ Ward,ȱK.ȱ(1994).ȱReligionȱandȱRevelation:ȱAȱTheologyȱofȱRevelationȱinȱtheȱ World’sȱReligions.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress.ȱ ȱ (1991).ȱ Aȱ Visionȱ toȱ Pursue:ȱ Beyondȱ theȱ Crisisȱ inȱ Christianity.ȱ LonȬ don:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ ȱ (1990).ȱ “Truthȱ andȱ theȱ Diversityȱ ofȱ Religions.”ȱ Religiousȱ Studiesȱ 26:ȱ1Ȭ18.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ PartȱIIIȱ

ComparativeȱTheologyȱ

ComparativeȱTheologyȱ–ȱAsȱTheologyȱ ȱ ȱ FrancisȱX.ȱClooney,ȱSJȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ IȱshouldȱadmitȱfromȱtheȱstartȱthatȱalthoughȱIȱwillȱbeȱexplainingȱ comparativeȱtheology,ȱmyȱconcernȱisȱlessȱwithȱtheoriesȱaboutȱitȱ thanȱwithȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱitsȱpractice.ȱMyȱunderstandingȱofȱ comparativeȱtheologyȱhasȱderivedȱfromȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱwayȱIȱ doȱcomparisonsȱtheologically.ȱIȱhaveȱtriedȱtoȱpayȱcloseȱattentionȱ toȱtheȱchoicesȱunderlyingȱmyȱpractice,ȱandȱtheȱmeaningsȱarisingȱ inȱrelationȱtoȱthatȱpractice.ȱIȱneverȱstartedȱthinking,ȱ“IȱwillȱdeȬ viseȱexplanationsȱforȱthisȱfieldȱorȱcomeȱupȱwithȱaȱtheoryȱaboutȱ howȱ toȱ doȱ comparativeȱ theologicalȱ work.”ȱ Rather,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ simȬ plyȱbeenȱdoingȱmyȱworkȱacrossȱtheȱChristianȬHinduȱborder,ȱocȬ casionallyȱ stoppingȱ toȱ ask,ȱ “Now,ȱ whatȱ amȱ Iȱ doing?”ȱ SomeȬ timesȱIȱhaveȱhadȱtoȱexplainȱtheȱrootsȱandȱgroundingȱofȱmyȱapȬ proach,ȱ soȱ thatȱ itsȱ advantagesȱ mightȱ beȱ moreȱ evidentȱ toȱ thoseȱ interestedȱ inȱ comparativeȱ study.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ ifȱ myȱ understandȬ ingȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱrootedȱwhatȱIȱdo,ȱandȱifȱthereȱareȱ obviouslyȱsomeȱthingsȱthatȱIȱdoȱnotȱdo,ȱothersȱmayȱtheorizeȱtheȱ fieldȱquiteȱdifferently,ȱeitherȱbasedȱonȱtheirȱpracticeȱorȱonȱopinȬ ionsȱ aboutȱ whatȱ shouldȱ beȱ theȱ case.ȱ Suchȱ differencesȱ shouldȱ makeȱ ourȱ discussionȱ allȱ theȱ moreȱ worthwhile.ȱ Butȱ allowȱ meȱ thenȱtoȱpresentȱtheȱcaseȱforȱwhatȱIȱdo.ȱ TheȱFactȱofȱReligiousȱPluralismȱ Weȱallȱknowȱthatȱourȱglobalȱandȱlocalȱreligiousȱsituationsȱhaveȱ changedȱdramaticallyȱinȱrecentȱdecades.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱthereȱhasȱalȬ waysȱbeenȱreligiousȱpluralism,ȱandȱpluralismȱhasȱalwaysȱbeenȱaȱ factorȱinȱeveryȱtradition.ȱAsȱwasȱalreadyȱmadeȱclearȱthisȱmornȬ ing,ȱnoȱtraditionȱhasȱexistedȱinȱitsȱownȱprivateȱworld.ȱButȱinȱtheȱ lateȱ20thȱcenturyȱandȱourȱstillȱyoungȱ21stȱcentury,ȱtheȱimmediȬ acyȱ andȱ theȱ closenessȱ ofȱ religionsȱ toȱ oneȱ anotherȱ areȱ changingȱ theȱ wayȱ thatȱ peopleȱ think,ȱ evenȱ withinȱ theirȱ ownȱ traditions.ȱ Thisȱ densityȱ andȱ urgencyȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ reflectionȱ isȱ becomȬ ingȱanȱincreasinglyȱimportantȱaspect,ȱnotȱasȱanȱoptionalȱfeatureȱ thatȱoneȱmightȱtakeȱupȱifȱoneȱwantedȱtoȱthinkȱaboutȱaȱreligionȱ

132ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ

otherȱthanȱone’sȱown;ȱbutȱforȱanyoneȱdoingȱanyȱkindȱofȱtheoloȬ gy,ȱpluralismȱbecomesȱanȱissue.ȱThereȱareȱofȱcourseȱotherȱsuchȱ issuesȱtoo,ȱbutȱpluralismȱimpingesȱonȱeveryone’sȱreality.ȱItȱbothȱ affectsȱhowȱreligionsȱareȱthoughtȱtoȱbeȱinȱrelationshipȱtoȱoneȱanȬ otherȱandȱalsoȱhowȱreligiousȱindividualsȱthinkȱofȱthemselves.ȱItȱ isȱbothȱanȱexternalȱunderstandingȱaboutȱtheȱreligionsȱandȱhowȱ theyȱ mayȱ beȱ thoughtȱ ofȱ togetherȱ andȱ anȱ innerȱ consciousnessȱ withinȱpeopleȱwhoȱchooseȱtoȱbeȱHinduȱorȱBuddhistȱorȱChristianȱ inȱsomeȱspecificȱwayȱbutȱwhoȱalsoȱadmit,ȱ“Iȱamȱaware,ȱinȱmakȬ ingȱthisȱchoice,ȱthatȱIȱcouldȱhaveȱchosenȱtoȱbeȱsomethingȱelse.ȱIȱ couldȱevenȱnowȱleaveȱthisȱtraditionȱandȱjoinȱanother.”ȱThatȱtheȱ veryȱ ideasȱ ofȱ learningȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ borders,ȱ andȱ movingȱ fromȱoneȱtraditionȱtoȱanother,ȱandȱinȱaȱsenseȱbelongingȱtoȱtwoȱ atȱonce,ȱareȱsoȱpopularȱtodayȱisȱitselfȱaȱphenomenonȱthatȱmakesȱ religiousȱ diversityȱ meanȱ moreȱ toȱ us,ȱ hittingȱ usȱ allȱ theȱ moreȱ strongly.ȱ SocialȱIssuesȱ Weȱ areȱ allȱ facedȱ withȱ thisȱ situationȱ ofȱ pluralism,ȱ butȱ theȱ realȱ questionȱ isȱ whatȱ weȱ doȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ it:ȱ howȱ doesȱ theology,ȱ comparativeȱorȱotherwise,ȱrespondȱtoȱurgentȱsocialȱissues?ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ hasȱ muchȱ inȱ commonȱ withȱ otherȱ modesȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ reflection.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ reasonȱ toȱ thinkȱ ofȱ comparativeȱworkȱasȱnecessarilyȱnonȬtheological,ȱorȱlessȱtheoloȬ gicalȱ thanȱ workȱ thatȱ avoidsȱ learningȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundarȬ ies.ȱ Anyȱ theologyȱ isȱ aȱ complexȱ field,ȱ andȱ soȱ tooȱ comparativeȱ theology;ȱitȱhasȱmultipleȱdimensions,ȱlikeȱotherȱfieldsȱofȱtheoloȬ gy.ȱ Ifȱ theologiansȱ areȱ regularlyȱ ambitioningȱ theologyȱ andȱ sciȬ ence,ȱtheology,ȱandȱliterature,ȱtheologyȱandȱsocialȱcritique,ȱtheȬ ologyȱ heavilyȱ indebtedȱ toȱ Greekȱ orȱ Germanȱ philosophy,ȱ Iȱ seeȱ noȱreasonȱwhyȱtheȱstudyȱofȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱotherȱthanȱone’sȱ ownȱcannotȱbeȱgenuinelyȱtheological.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱneatȱdivisionȱ betweenȱ theȱ comparativistsȱ andȱ theȱ historiansȱ ofȱ religionȱ onȱ oneȱsideȱ–ȱandȱtheȱChristianȱtheologicalȱfacultyȱonȱtheȱother;ȱraȬ ther,ȱtheseȱfieldsȱinȱfactȱcanȱbeȱrichlyȱconnectedȱwithȱeachȱother.ȱ Inȱmyȱview,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱbeȱseriousȱaboutȱtheȱwordȱ“theoloȬ gy”ȱinȱ“comparativeȱtheology,”ȱinȱaccordȱwithȱfeaturesȱdistincȬ tiveȱ toȱ aȱ theologicalȱ perspective.ȱ Myȱ startingȱ pointȱ isȱ notȱ inȱ comparativeȱreligionȱbutȱinȱtheȱinsistenceȱthatȱthisȱisȱanȱintellecȬ tualȱ disciplineȱ groundedȱ inȱfaith,ȱaȱ trueȱ versionȱ ofȱ“faithȱ seekȬ

COMPARATIVEȱTHEOLOGYȱ–ȱASȱTHEOLOGYȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ133ȱ

ingȱ understanding.”ȱ Myȱ understandingȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logy,ȱratherȱsimpleȱatȱitsȱbase,ȱaroseȱduringȱmyȱyearsȱofȱteachȬ ingȱ inȱ theȱ theologyȱ facultyȱ atȱ Bostonȱ College,ȱ aȱ Catholicȱ andȱ Jesuitȱuniversity,ȱwhereȱitȱwasȱimportantȱandȱnecessaryȱtoȱinsistȱ thatȱcomparativeȱworkȱcanȱveryȱwellȱbeȱtheological,ȱandȱthatȱaȱ sharpȱdivideȱbetweenȱcomparativeȱreligionȱandȱChristianȱtheolȬ ogyȱinȱparticularȱisȱneitherȱinevitableȱnorȱdesirable.ȱ Faithȱ andȱ understandingȱ remainȱ inȱ aȱ dynamicȱ tensionȱ inȱ muchȱ ofȱ theology,ȱ asȱ weȱ seekȱ toȱ understandȱ whatȱ weȱ alreadyȱ believeȱinȱeverȱnewȱcircumstances,ȱandȱthisȱcanȱbeȱcarriedȱoverȱ intoȱ comparativeȱ workȱ asȱ well.ȱ Iȱ seeȱ myȱ particularȱ role,ȱ asȱ aȱ comparativeȱtheologian,ȱasȱworkingȱthroughȱaȱfruitfulȱandȱconȬ structiveȱ Christianȱ theologicalȱ responseȱ toȱ religiousȱ diversity,ȱ notȱbyȱwayȱofȱaȱtheoryȱaboutȱit,ȱbutȱfromȱconstructiveȱengageȬ mentȱwithȱitsȱpossibilities.ȱIȱwishȱtoȱrecommendȱthisȱparticularȱ wayȱ ofȱ consciouslyȱ takingȱ diversityȱ intoȱ account,ȱ learningȱ acrossȱreligiousȱboundariesȱinȱaȱtheologyȱthatȱisȱgenuinelyȱcomȬ parativeȱandȱthatȱgenuinelyȱdealsȱwithȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱtradition.ȱ Soȱevenȱifȱmuchȱofȱmyȱworkȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱclassicalȱtextsȱandȱ evenȱ ifȱ Iȱ returnȱ repeatedlyȱ toȱ theȱ classicsȱ ofȱ premodernȱ times,ȱ myȱhopeȱisȱthatȱthisȱworkȱisȱaȱcontributionȱtoȱourȱunderstandȬ ingȱofȱ21stȱcenturyȱreligiousȱdiversity.ȱ Iȱ believeȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ shouldȱ normallyȱ beȱ rootedȱ inȱ aȱ particularȱ religiousȱ tradition,ȱ committedȱ andȱ obliȬ gedȱtoȱit.ȱThereȱisȱrealȱvalueȱtoȱsayingȱthatȱtheȱpersonȱwhoȱdoesȱ theȱ comparativeȱ theologicalȱ workȱ isȱ usually,ȱ likeȱ otherȱ theoloȬ gians,ȱrootedȱinȱaȱparticularȱcommunity.ȱSheȱisȱfirstȱofȱallȱspeakȬ ingȱ to,ȱ writingȱ for,ȱ thatȱ community.ȱ Belongingȱ toȱ aȱ traditionȱ fromȱ whichȱ oneȱ doesȱ one’sȱ theologyȱ isȱ aȱ primaryȱ distinctiveȱ featureȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ realȱ meaningȱ andȱ aȱ realȱ pointȱ toȱ saying,ȱ “Iȱ amȱ aȱ Catholicȱ theologian,”ȱ orȱ “Iȱ amȱ aȱ Lutheranȱ theologian,”ȱ or,ȱ indeed,ȱ “Iȱ amȱ aȱ Srivaisnavaȱ Hinduȱ theologian,”ȱandȱsoȱon.ȱ ComparativeȱtheologyȱisȱtheologyȱforȱlivingȱreligiousȱcomȬ munities:ȱ theȱ church,ȱ theȱ temple,ȱ andȱ theȱ manyȱ otherȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ religiousȱ communitiesȱ mayȱ beȱ configuredȱ inȱ oneȱ orȱ anȬ otherȱtradition.ȱIȱamȱ veryȱ sensitiveȱtoȱ thisȱ issueȱ becauseȱofȱ theȱ historyȱofȱmodernȱCatholicȱtheologyȱandȱresponsesȱofȱtheȱVatiȬ canȱtoȱparticularȱCatholicȱtheologians,ȱandȱsoȱon.ȱYet,ȱifȱoneȱisȱ goingȱ toȱ callȱ oneselfȱ aȱ Catholicȱ theologian,ȱ thenȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ


accountableȱ toȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Church,ȱ bothȱ theȱ communityȱ ofȱ whichȱ oneȱ isȱ aȱ part,ȱ otherȱ theologiansȱ withȱ whomȱ oneȱ speaks,ȱ andȱevenȱtheȱVatican,ȱandȱtheȱCongregationȱforȱtheȱDoctrineȱofȱ theȱ Faith,ȱandȱsoȱ on.ȱItȱ wouldȱ beȱ tooȱeasyȱ toȱ letȱmyselfȱ offȱ theȱ hookȱandȱsay,ȱ“Well,ȱthoseȱpeopleȱdon’tȱunderstandȱwhatȱIȱamȱ doing,ȱandȱIȱamȱnotȱresponsibleȱtoȱthem.”ȱTheȱconcernsȱofȱtheȱ wholeȱ Churchȱ areȱ myȱ concerns,ȱ too,ȱ notȱ constraintsȱ againstȱ whichȱIȱamȱsupposedȱtoȱchafe.ȱ YetȱIȱtryȱnotȱtoȱhaveȱaȱsimplisticȱviewȱofȱtraditionȱandȱbeȬ longingȱtoȱaȱtradition.ȱCommunitiesȱareȱcomplex,ȱandȱcommunȬ ityȱ isȱnotȱ toȱ beȱ takenȱ forȱ granted.ȱEvenȱbeingȱ Romanȱ Catholic,ȱ asȱ Iȱ am,ȱ hasȱ manyȱ componentsȱ andȱ complications;ȱ thereȱ areȱ manyȱdifferentȱwaysȱofȱbeingȱRomanȱCatholicȱandȱsomeȱofȱtheȱ boundariesȱ areȱ ratherȱ fluid.ȱ Inȱ teachingȱ atȱ Harvardȱ Divinityȱ School,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ Iȱ canȱ seeȱ quiteȱ clearlyȱ thatȱ manyȱ youngerȱ peopleȱgrowingȱupȱtodayȱdoȱnotȱfindȱthemselvesȱtoȱhaveȱaȱsimȬ pleȱ senseȱ ofȱ “Iȱ belongȱ toȱ thisȱ communityȱ orȱ thatȱ community,ȱ thisȱchurchȱorȱthatȱchurch.”ȱYet,ȱwhileȱtheologyȱbecomesȱmoreȱ difficultȱ ifȱthereȱareȱnoȱ communalȱ boundariesȱandȱ responsibilȬ ities,ȱIȱdoȱbelieveȱthatȱbyȱwayȱofȱanalogyȱpeopleȱcanȱmakeȱsenseȱ ofȱ theirȱ workȱ throughȱ attendingȱ moreȱ carefullyȱ toȱ theȱ looserȱ spiritualȱcommunitiesȱtoȱwhichȱtheyȱdoȱbelong.ȱ Truthȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ demandsȱ thatȱ weȱ beȱ concernedȱ withȱ truth,ȱincludingȱtheȱharderȱtruthsȱspecificȱtoȱtraditions,ȱmyȱownȱ andȱothers.ȱTruthȱcounts,ȱresultsȱmatter.ȱForȱthisȱreasonȱIȱtryȱtoȱ giveȱ myselfȱ troubleȱ inȱ myȱ work,ȱ andȱmyȱ studentsȱ trouble,ȱ lestȱ weȱ letȱ ourselvesȱ offȱ theȱ hookȱ tooȱ quicklyȱ byȱ merelyȱ collectingȱ informationȱorȱbyȱclingingȱtoȱmethodologicalȱgoals,ȱwhileȱmakȬ ingȱ muchȱ ofȱ theȱ insightȱ thatȱ myȱ theologicalȱ workȱ resemblesȱ otherȱkindsȱofȱtheology.ȱMethodologyȱandȱhermeneuticsȱareȱimȬ portant,ȱ butȱ refiningȱ themȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ primaryȱ taskȱ beforeȱ theȱ theologian.ȱ Perhapsȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ stricturesȱ andȱ expectationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ toȱ whichȱ Iȱ belong,ȱ Iȱ keepȱ aȱ strongȱ senseȱ thatȱ atȱ someȱ pointȱ peopleȱ willȱ sayȱ toȱ you,ȱ “Well,ȱ what’sȱtheȱbottomȱline?ȱIsȱwhatȱIȱlearnȱfromȱanotherȱtraditionȱorȱ stillȱ holdȱ inȱ myȱ ownȱ traditionȱ trueȱ orȱ not?ȱ Whatȱ doȱ youȱ thinkȱ aboutȱ theȱ otherȱ religiousȱ tradition?ȱ Isȱ Krishnaȱ God?ȱ Whereȱ doȱ peopleȱgoȱafterȱdeath?ȱIsȱrebirthȱpossible?ȱWhatȱisȱtheȱpayoffȱinȱ


termsȱ ofȱ theȱ thingsȱ weȱ believeȱ fromȱ theȱ workȱ you’reȱ doing?”ȱ Theseȱmayȱbeȱveryȱhardȱquestionsȱtoȱanswer,ȱparticularlyȱwhenȱ oneȱknowsȱwhatȱoneȱisȱtalkingȱaboutȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱbothȱsidesȱ ofȱaȱdebatedȱissue.ȱ Yetȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ letȱ myselfȱ offȱ theȱ hook,ȱ asȱ ifȱ toȱ say,ȱ “Thoseȱ questionsȱ areȱ unanswerable,ȱ orȱ notȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ quesȬ tionsȱ Iȱ preferȱ toȱ workȱ on.”ȱ Rather,ȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ likeȱ otherȱ formsȱ ofȱ theology,ȱ shouldȱ beȱ botheredȱ byȱ questionsȱ ofȱ truth,ȱ theȱ truthȱ ofȱ myȱ traditionȱ –ȱ andȱ evenȱ theȱ truth.ȱ Howeverȱ broadlyȱandȱimaginativelyȱthisȱworkȱproceeds,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱ keepȱinȱplayȱtheȱother,ȱnarrowerȱobligationȱtoȱtheȱtruth.ȱ Whenȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ raisesȱ issuesȱ ofȱ truth,ȱ revelaȬ tionȱexperience,ȱandȱrelatedȱtopicsȱwithinȱChristologyȱorȱwithinȱ Trinitarianȱtheologyȱorȱwithinȱecclesiology,ȱthenȱthereȱareȱspeciȬ ficȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱweȱcanȱdoȱresponsibleȱcomparativeȱworkȱthatȱ canȱnourishȱnotȱmerelyȱexoticȱChristianityȱbutȱevenȱmainstreamȱ disciplinesȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ talkȱ aboutȱ revelation,ȱ canon,ȱ inspiraȬ tion,ȱTrinity,ȱandȱsoȱon.ȱButȱthisȱsubstantiveȱreflectionȱonȱreveȬ lation,ȱ inspiration,ȱ andȱ suchȱ topicsȱ isȱ aȱ returnȱ toȱ suchȱ topics,ȱ sinceȱ fromȱ aȱ comparativeȱ theologicalȱ perspectiveȱ itȱ canȱ occurȱ onlyȱafterȱtheȱworkȱofȱcomparativeȱreadingȱhasȱbeenȱdone.ȱThisȱ dimensionȱofȱtruthȱemergesȱafterȱcomparison,ȱnotȱonlyȱpriorȱtoȱ it.ȱSo,ȱwhenȱ the comparativeȱtheologianȱthinksȱaboutȱaȱChristoȬ logicalȱorȱTrinitarianȱdoctrineȱafterȱdoingȱtheȱcomparativeȱworkȱ andȱreconfiguresȱhowȱtheȱdoctrineȱisȱtreated,ȱsuchȱinsightsȱmayȱ appearȱ problematicȱ orȱ strangeȱ toȱ aȱ theologianȱ whoȱ hasȱ neverȱ doneȱcomparativeȱwork,ȱneverȱengagedȱinȱtheȱdifficultȱprocessȱ ofȱlearningȱacrossȱboundaries.ȱ TheȱDisciplineȱofȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ ComparativeȱtheologyȱisȱdistinctȱfromȱotherȱChristianȱtheologiȬ calȱdisciplinesȱbecauseȱitȱdrawsȱdeeplyȱonȱtheȱresourcesȱofȱanȬ otherȱtradition,ȱandȱremainsȱsignificantlyȱindebtedȱtoȱthatȱotherȱ tradition.ȱ Andȱ thisȱ mayȱ openȱ upȱ aȱ canȱ ofȱ wormsȱ orȱ Pandora’sȱ boxȱorȱsomethingȱlikeȱthat,ȱbutȱhoweverȱtheologiansȱfindȱthemȬ selvesȱ indebtedȱtoȱ theirȱ tradition,ȱtoȱ scripture,ȱ toȱ revelation,ȱtoȱ theȱ community,ȱ toȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ tradition,ȱ toȱ itsȱ sacraȬ mentsȱandȱsoȱon,ȱinȱsomeȱwayȱIȱthinkȱbyȱlongȱstudyȱofȱanotherȱ traditionȱ oneȱ alsoȱ becomesȱ indebtedȱ toȱ thatȱ tradition,ȱ andȱ thatȱ thereȱ mayȱ beȱ aȱ miscommunicationȱ sometimes.ȱ Iȱ callȱ myselfȱ aȱ


Catholicȱ theologian,ȱ butȱ otherȱ Catholicȱ theologiansȱ mayȱ findȱ thereȱareȱthingsȱoperativeȱinȱmyȱworkȱthatȱmayȱnotȱaddȱupȱtoȱ whatȱ theyȱ knowȱ becauseȱ soȱ muchȱ ofȱ myȱ workȱ isȱ dealingȱ withȱ Hinduȱtexts.ȱAtȱleastȱimplicitlyȱIȱfeelȱmyselfȱresponsibleȱtoȱthoseȱ Hindusȱ whomȱ Iȱ amȱ reading,ȱ toȱ theirȱ lineagesȱ ofȱ commentaryȱ andȱ theirȱ ritualȱ practices.ȱ Andȱ soȱ inȱ someȱ way,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ Iȱ wouldȱclaimȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱdayȱtoȱbeȱjustȱaȱCatholicȱtheoloȬ gian,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ other,ȱ myȱ other,ȱ theȱ certainȱ formsȱofȱHinduism,ȱhaveȱbecomeȱintegralȱtoȱtheȱCatholicȱtheolȬ ogizingȱinȱwhichȱIȱengage,ȱmyȱthinkingȱthroughȱmyȱfaith.ȱThatȱIȱ amȱheavilyȱindebtedȱtoȱtheȱHinduȱtraditionsȱis,ȱIȱbelieve,ȱaȱwonȬ derfulȱthing,ȱevenȱifȱitȱmayȱbeȱproblematicȱwhenȱnonȬcomparaȬ tiveȱtheologiansȱlookȱuneasilyȱinȱmyȱdirection.ȱ Asȱ comparative,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ includesȱ aȱ willingȬ nessȱtoȱrespectȱotherȱtraditionsȱandȱtoȱlearnȱfromȱthem,ȱinȱsynȬ ergyȱwithȱfidelityȱtoȱone’sȱownȱtradition.ȱDespiteȱaȱlongȱhistoryȱ ofȱ competitiveȱ andȱ antagonisticȱ relationsȱ amongȱ variousȱ reliȬ gions’ȱtheologies,ȱthereȱisȱintelligentȱpowerȱinȱsaying,ȱ“IȱwillȱbeȬ ginȱ withȱ theȱ presuppositionȱ thatȱ theȱ traditionȱ Iȱ studyȱ isȱ likeȱ that,ȱtoo.”ȱWeȱneedȱtoȱtakeȱseriouslyȱtheȱfactȱthatȱthereȱareȱarticȬ ulate,ȱintelligentȱbelieversȱinȱotherȱtraditionsȱwhoseȱthinkingȱonȱ religiousȱ topics,ȱ whoseȱ readingȱ ofȱ scripture,ȱ whoseȱ interpretaȬ tionȱ ofȱ practice,ȱ whoseȱ ethicalȱ applications,ȱ etc.,ȱ areȱ rootedȱ inȱ someȱkindȱofȱaȱtheologicalȱdynamic,ȱinȱsomeȱkindȱofȱaȱtheologiȬ calȱ community.ȱ There’sȱ noȱ compellingȱ reasonȱ forȱ aȱ theologianȱ toȱ denyȱ theȱ wordȱ “theology”ȱ toȱ anotherȱ tradition.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ soȱ evenȱ ifȱ appellationsȱ suchȱ asȱ “Daoistȱ theology”ȱ andȱ “Buddhistȱ theology”ȱ requireȱ thatȱ weȱadmitȱthatȱ weȱ areȱextendingȱtheȱ usȬ ageȱinȱaȱnewȱevenȱifȱplausiblyȱrelatedȱway.ȱ Byȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ oneȱ entersȱ inȱ veryȱ particularȱ waysȱ intoȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ aȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ otherȱ thanȱ one’sȱ own.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ large,ȱ butȱ theȱ practiceȱisȱratherȱsmallȬscale,ȱpainstakinglyȱparticular.ȱItȱhasȱtoȱ doȱ withȱ workȱ oneȱ doesȱ onȱ aȱ smallȱ scale:ȱ sittingȱ downȱ atȱ one’sȱ desk,ȱ takingȱ outȱ theȱ texts,ȱ gettingȱ outȱ aȱ dictionary,ȱ readingȱ something.ȱ Thatȱ kindȱ ofȱ thing.ȱ Yetȱ Iȱ alwaysȱ tellȱ myȱ studentsȱ thatȱtheȱsiteȱofȱourȱlearningȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱaȱtextȱevenȱifȱaȱ textȱisȱsurelyȱtheȱeasiestȱandȱsurestȱofȱsuchȱsites.ȱOneȱcouldȱdoȱaȱ studyȱofȱaȱritual,ȱoneȱcouldȱdoȱaȱstudyȱofȱartȱorȱmusic,ȱofȱcourse,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ forȱ me,ȱ itȱ isȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ primarilyȱ textual,ȱ andȱ theȱ


commitmentȱthatȱisȱinvolved,ȱforȱmeȱisȱaȱheavyȱcommitmentȱtoȱ spendȱmyȱtimeȱstudyingȱanotherȱtraditionȱinȱsomeȱdepth.ȱ OneȱofȱtheȱreasonsȱwhyȱIȱdoȱnotȱtakeȱupȱmanyȱofȱtheȱtheoȬ reticalȱissuesȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱveryȱideaȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱ thatȱIȱspendȱ90%ȱofȱmyȱresearchȱtimeȱtryingȱtoȱfigureȱoutȱwhatȱ oneȱorȱanotherȱHinduȱtextȱisȱsayingȱandȱthenȱhowȱtoȱbringȱthatȱ backȱ intoȱ dialogueȱ withȱ myȱ Christianȱ faith.ȱ Butȱ theȱ particularȬ ity,ȱIȱthink,ȱisȱanȱimportantȱbasicȱelement,ȱthatȱoneȱactuallyȱdoesȱ somethingȱinȱlearningȱfromȱanotherȱtraditionȱorȱtraditions.ȱItȱisȱ hardȱ toȱ learnȱ fromȱ threeȱ orȱ fourȱ orȱ fiveȱ traditionsȱ inȱ anyȱ deepȱ way,ȱsoȱIȱpreferȱjustȱstickingȱtoȱoneȱandȱthenȱpartsȱofȱone,ȱcerȬ tainȱ formsȱ ofȱ theȱ Sanskritȱ andȱ Tamilȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ Hinduism.ȱ ButȱoneȱcouldȱtryȱpracticingȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱmoreȱbroadȬ ly,ȱifȱoneȱhasȱthatȱkindȱofȱmindȱandȱtheȱrequisiteȱtime.ȱ ThisȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱthereforeȱdistinctȱinȱaȱparticuȬ larȱ wayȱ fromȱ theȱ standardȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ andȱ perhapsȱ tooȱ fromȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions’ȱ missiologicalȱ predecessorsȱ (althoughȱinȱsomeȱwaysȱtheseȱwereȱmoreȱconcreteȱandȱengagedȱ inȱ particularitiesȱ thanȱ theologiesȱ ofȱ religionȱ haveȱ been).ȱ Iȱ haveȱ atȱ timesȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ peopleȱ shouldȱ doȱ lessȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gionsȱandȱmoreȱcomparativeȱwork,ȱandȱIȱreallyȱdoȱbelieveȱthat.ȱ ButȱtheȱpointȱisȱnotȱthatȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱisȱtooȱtheologiȬ cal,ȱbutȱonlyȱthatȱitȱisȱtheologicalȱisȱaȱdifferentȱwayȱthatȱis,ȱinȱmyȱ judgment,ȱ lessȱ urgentȱ thanȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Weȱ shouldȱ haveȱ fewerȱ peopleȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ otherȱpeople’sȱreligionsȱandȱmoreȱpeopleȱactuallyȱstudyingȱtheȱ traditions.ȱ Butȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ haveȱanyȱ settledȱ biasȱagainstȱ theȱ disciȬ plineȱofȱ theologizingȱaboutȱ Christȱ andȱtheȱ worldȱ religions,ȱ theȱ uniquenessȱofȱChrist,ȱsalvationȱoutsideȱtheȱchurch,ȱandȱrelatedȱ issues,ȱbutȱIȱdoȱnotȱreallyȱthinkȱthatȱthisȱkindȱofȱreflectionȱcouldȱ orȱ shouldȱ stop.ȱ Rather,ȱ Iȱ amȱ simplyȱ sayingȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ notȱ aboutȱ answeringȱ suchȱ questions,ȱ andȱ doesȱ notȱ waitȱ uponȱ answersȱ toȱ them.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ aboutȱ theȱ uniquenessȱ ofȱ Christȱ norȱ aboutȱ whetherȱ Hindusȱ areȱ savedȱ orȱ not.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ differentȱkindȱofȱtheologizingȱpracticeȱbecauseȱofȱaȱparticularityȱ thatȱhasȱitsȱownȱdynamicȱthatȱisȱdifferentȱfromȱtheologyȱofȱreliȬ gionsȱandȱrelatedȱfields.ȱTruthȱisȱatȱstake,ȱasȱIȱstatedȱabove,ȱbutȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ disclosureȱ ofȱ truth,ȱ seeingȱ theȱ otherȱ andȱ reseeingȱ one’sȱ own,ȱ thatȱ mayȱ beȱ powerfullyȱ transformativeȱ butȱ doesȱ notȱ endȱ


inȱ declarativeȱ judgmentsȱ aboutȱ whichȱ positionȱ isȱ trueȱ andȱ whichȱisȱfalse.ȱ Itȱisȱdistinctȱalsoȱfromȱdialogue.ȱIȱdoȱnotȱmeanȱtoȱsayȱthatȱ dialogueȱcannotȱbeȱscholarly,ȱbutȱIȱamȱsimplyȱrecognizingȱthatȱ thereȱareȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱdialogueȱoccursȱmoreȱsimply,ȱinȱlife,ȱinȱ peopleȱ meetingȱ oneȱ another,ȱ allȱ kindsȱ ofȱ workȱ andȱ prayerȱ toȬ gether.ȱ Rarely,ȱ andȱ maybeȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ exception,ȱ dialogueȱ mayȱ openȱintoȱaȱkindȱofȱaȱtheologicalȱstudy.ȱButȱbyȱcomparativeȱtheȬ ologyȱ Iȱ reallyȱ meanȱ asȱ theȱ disciplineȱ ofȱ theology,ȱ anȱ academicȱ discipline,ȱ aȱ professionalȱ discipline.ȱ Thisȱ disciplineȱ thereforeȱ standsȱnearȱtoȱoneȱendȱofȱtheȱspectrumȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱlearning,ȱ theȱ erudition,ȱ theȱ featuresȱ ofȱ thatȱ kindȱ ofȱ patient,ȱ scholarlyȱ study.ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ thereforeȱ beȱ differentȱ fromȱ interreligiousȱ diaȬ logue,ȱwhichȱcanȱhappenȱandȱshouldȱhappenȱinȱsoȱmanyȱdifferȬ entȱways.ȱ Despiteȱitsȱfundamentalȱattentionȱtoȱsomeȱparticularȱotherȱ tradition,ȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱprimarilyȱaȱreflectiveȱprocessȱ internalȱ toȱ theȱ theologianȱ whoȱ engagesȱ inȱ theȱ study.ȱ Dialogueȱ willȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ beȱ internal.ȱ Muchȱ ofȱ theȱ time,ȱ theȱ personȱ Iȱ diaȬ logueȱwithȱisȱme,ȱnotȱaȱSrivaisnavaȱorȱVedantaȱtheologian.ȱIȱamȱ sittingȱ inȱ myȱ office,ȱ thinkingȱ toȱ myself,ȱ andȱ writingȱ outȱ ofȱ myȱ ownȱ learningȱ andȱ strugglingȱ withȱ whatȱ Iȱ amȱ tryingȱ toȱ underȬ stand.ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ theologiansȱ doȱ thisȱ aȱ lot,ȱ anyway,ȱ andȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ theȱonlyȱone,ȱthatȱis,ȱaȱlotȱofȱtimeȱtalkingȱtoȱourselvesȱandȱhopeȬ fullyȱ eventuallyȱ someoneȱ willȱ readȱ whatȱ weȱ write.ȱ Butȱ Iȱ thinkȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ valuableȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ interiorȱ dialogue,ȱ whichȱcouldȱbeȱgivenȱdeeperȱspiritualȱmeaningȱifȱoneȱchooses.ȱ Butȱ itȱ meansȱ atȱ leastȱ thatȱ theȱ actualȱ dialogueȱ ofȱ Hindusȱ andȱ Christiansȱ comesȱ onlyȱ later.ȱ Itȱ mightȱ ariseȱ inȱ inȱ aȱ discussionȱ aboutȱmyȱbook,ȱorȱsomethingȱlikeȱthat,ȱorȱinȱresponseȱtoȱqueriesȱ aboutȱ myȱ work.ȱ Suchȱ momentsȱ areȱ importantȱ andȱ mostȱ interȬ esting.ȱ Butȱ myȱ preferredȱ sequenceȱ isȱ clear:ȱ interiorȱ dialogueȱ first,ȱdialogueȱwithȱrepresentativesȱofȱtheȱotherȱreligiousȱtradiȬ tionȱsecond.ȱ Butȱ neitherȱ doȱ Iȱ concludeȱ thatȱ dialogueȱ andȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ areȱ unrelated.ȱ Weȱ mightȱ sayȱ thatȱ dialogueȱ isȱ aȱlargerȱ reality,ȱandȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱcanȱbeȱconceivedȱofȱasȱaȱcomȬ ponentȱorȱaȱdimensionȱwithinȱtheȱlargerȱframeȱofȱcommunitiesȱ inȱdialogue;ȱsoȱtoo,ȱweȱwillȱbeȱableȱtoȱengageȱinȱdialogueȱmoreȱ interestinglyȱafterȱdoingȱcomparativeȱstudy.ȱSoȱweȱcanȱdoȱbetȬ


terȱ thanȱ comingȱ toȱ theȱ tableȱ andȱ saying,ȱ “OK,ȱ Iȱ amȱ theȱ ChrisȬ tian,ȱyou’reȱtheȱBuddhist,”ȱandȱthenȱgoingȱawayȱstillȱsaying,ȱ“Iȱ amȱtheȱChristian,ȱyouȱareȱtheȱBuddhist.”ȱIfȱoneȱhasȱbeenȱdoingȱ comparativeȱ theologicalȱ workȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ time,ȱ thenȱ yes,ȱ oneȱ mayȱbeȱtheȱCatholicȱinȱtheȱdialogue,ȱbutȱoneȱisȱalsoȱdeeplyȱinȬ fluencedȱ byȱ theȱ Hinduismȱ ofȱ theȱ Hinduȱ withȱ whomȱ oneȱ conȬ verses.ȱIdeally,ȱitȱwillȱnoȱlongerȱbeȱpossibleȱtoȱseatȱpeopleȱneatȬ lyȱaroundȱtheȱtableȱaccordingȱtoȱneatlyȱseparatedȱreligions,ȱasȱifȱ peopleȱkeepȱcomingȱtoȱtheȱtableȱwithoutȱhavingȱbeenȱinfluencȬ edȱbyȱtheȱotherȱtradition,ȱasȱifȱinnocentȱofȱpriorȱlearningȱacrossȱ religiousȱboundaries.ȱIdeally,ȱthisȱwillȱalsoȱbeȱtrueȱofȱtheȱHinduȱ orȱtheȱMuslimȱorȱtheȱotherȱpersonȱinȱtheȱdialogueȱwho’sȱdeeplyȱ influencedȱ byȱ Catholicism,ȱ let’sȱ say.ȱ Weȱ canȱ hopeȱ thatȱ bounȬ dariesȱ doȱ getȱ crossedȱ overȱ andȱ again,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ learningȱ thatȱhasȱtakenȱplace.ȱSoȱweȱmightȱdoȱwellȱtoȱsayȱthatȱthereȱareȱ stepsȱtoȱbeȱtraveledȱinȱmovingȱfromȱaȱlargerȱsenseȱofȱdialogueȱ toȱ smallerȱ scaleȱ andȱ veryȱ specificȱ scholarlyȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logicalȱ workȱ withinȱ thatȱ frame.ȱ Butȱ inȱ turn,ȱ thisȱ smallerȱ scaleȱ theologizingȱcanȱenrichȱandȱchangeȱtheȱwayȱdialogueȱisȱthoughtȱ aboutȱandȱpracticed.ȱ Iȱmustȱadd,ȱthoughȱonlyȱinȱpassing,ȱthatȱhistoryȱmatters.ȱItȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ goȱ backȱ andȱ traceȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ itselfȱ –ȱ evenȱ ifȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ aȱ historian,ȱ andȱ cannotȱ enterȱ uponȱ thatȱ historyȱ here.ȱ Theȱ earliestȱ referenceȱ I’veȱ foundȱ isȱ aȱ bookȱbyȱJamesȱGardenȱ(1645–1726),ȱComparativeȱTheology:ȱorȱTheȱ Trueȱ andȱ Solidȱ Groundsȱ ofȱ Pureȱ andȱ Peaceableȱ Theology.ȱ Aȱ Subjectȱ veryȱNecessary,ȱthoȱhithertoȱalmostȱwhollyȱneglected.ȱInȱhisȱwork,ȱitȱ isȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱanȱecumenicalȱtheologyȱfacilitatingȱProtestantsȱofȱ variousȱdenominationsȱtalkingȱtoȱoneȱanother,ȱfindingȱtheȱcomȬ monȱ ground.ȱ Weȱ mightȱ alsoȱ pointȱ toȱ wellȬknownȱ 19 thȬcenturyȱ figures,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Maxȱ Müller,ȱ Johnȱ A.ȱ McCulloch,ȱ Jamesȱ F.ȱ Clarke,ȱ doingȱ comparativeȱ theologicalȱ work.ȱ Iȱ cameȱ toȱ learnȱ somethingȱofȱthisȱhistoryȱonlyȱafterȱIȱhadȱalreadyȱstartedȱusingȱ theȱnameȱ“comparativeȱtheology.”ȱIȱcouldȱalso,ȱinȱanotherȱconȬ text,ȱ updateȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ byȱ reflectionȱ onȱ contemporaryȱ exemplarsȱ ofȱ theȱ disciplineȱ suchȱ asȱ Keithȱ Ward,ȱ Robertȱ Neville,ȱ andȱ Jamesȱ Fredericks,ȱ andȱ aȱ hostȱ ofȱ youngerȱ scholars.ȱ Aȱ momentȱ ofȱ selfȬadvertising:ȱ seeȱ myȱ forthȬ comingȱComparativeȱTheology:ȱDeepȱLearningȱacrossȱReligiousȱBorȬ dersȱ(Oxford:ȱWileyȬBlackwell,ȱ2010),ȱandȱaȱvolumeȱIȱhaveȱeditȬ


ed,ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Comparativeȱ Theology:ȱ Voicesȱ fromȱ theȱ Youngerȱ GenȬ erationȱ(NewȱYork:ȱContinuum/T&TȱClarkȱInternational,ȱ2010).ȱ DoingȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ ButȱitȱisȱmoreȱimportantȱforȱnowȱthatȱIȱemphasizeȱyetȱagainȱthatȱ myȱworkȱmakesȱbestȱsenseȱinȱtheȱspecificȱinstance.ȱWhileȱlargerȱ issuesȱ ofȱ methodȱ andȱ disciplinaryȱ identityȱ areȱ operative,ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ wantȱ myȱ readersȱ toȱ beȱ thinkingȱ primarilyȱ aboutȱ thoseȱ isȬ sues.ȱ Iȱ writeȱ forȱ theȱ details,ȱ andȱ meaningȱ emerges,ȱ ifȱ itȱ does,ȱ fromȱ theȱ detail.ȱ Thus,ȱ 70%ȱ ofȱ myȱ book,ȱ Theȱ Truthȱ theȱ Wayȱ andȱ Theȱ Life:ȱ Christianȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Threeȱ Holyȱ Mantrasȱ ofȱ theȱ SrivaisnavaȱHindusȱ(Louvain:ȱPeetersȱPublishing,ȱ2008),ȱisȱdediȬ catedȱ toȱ theȱ readingȱ ofȱ oneȱ Hinduȱ theologian,ȱ Vedantaȱ Desikaȱ (14thȱcentury),ȱexploringȱhowȱheȱinterpretedȱtheȱmantrasȱinȱhisȱ classicȱ work,ȱ theȱ Srimadȱ Rahasyatrayasaraȱ (Essenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Threeȱ HolyȱMysteries).ȱOutȱofȱthatȱeffortȱIȱsoughtȱalsoȱtoȱgenerateȱsomeȱ reflectionȱ onȱ whatȱ theseȱ mantrasȱ asȱ prayersȱ mightȱ meanȱ forȱ aȱ Christianȱaudience.ȱMyȱotherȱbookȱfromȱ2008,ȱBeyondȱCompare:ȱ St.ȱFrancisȱdeȱSalesȱandȱSriȱVedantaȱDesikaȱonȱLovingȱSurrenderȱtoȱ Godȱ (Washington:ȱ Georgetownȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2008),ȱ hadȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ readingȱ theȱ Treatiseȱ onȱ theȱ Loveȱ ofȱ Godȱ (whichȱ Iȱ hadȱ neverȱ readȱ untilȱ aȱ fewȱ yearsȱ ago)ȱ withȱ Vedantaȱ Desika’sȱ sameȱ text,ȱonȱthisȱthemeȱofȱsurrenderȱtoȱGod.ȱIȱspentȱaȱlotȱofȱtimeȱinȱ readingȱ theseȱ twoȱ authorsȱ togetherȱ andȱ thenȱ inȱ seeingȱ whatȱ comesȱfromȱtheȱreading.ȱMyȱpointȱinȱBeyondȱCompareȱultimatelyȱ isȱthatȱthisȱprocessȱisȱspiritualȱandȱtheological,ȱandȱquiteȱfarȱreȬ movedȱfromȱtheȱrelativismȱthatȱarisesȱdueȱtoȱaȱlessȱfocusedȱandȱ intentionalȱ reflectionȱ onȱ diversity.ȱ Studyingȱ lovingȱ surrender,ȱ radicalȱsurrenderȱtoȱGod,ȱinȱtwoȱtraditionsȱcanȱintensifyȱdevoȬ tionȱ asȱ ifȱ withȱ aȱ magnifyingȱ glassȱ ofȱ twoȱ lensesȱ together.ȱ Butȱ muchȱofȱwhatȱIȱdidȱwasȱsimplyȱreadingȱtheȱtwoȱtextsȱandȱthenȱ askingȱaboutȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱthatȱpractice.ȱ JustȱnowȱIȱamȱgettingȱintoȱaȱnewȱprojectȱonȱcommentariesȱ onȱ someȱ southȱ Indianȱ songsȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ loveȱ lost,ȱ theȱ youngȱ womanȱ inȱ loveȱ andȱ herȱ distanceȱ fromȱ Krishnaȱ whoȱ hasȱ goneȱ awayȱ–ȱsongsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱgreatȱTiruvaymoliȱofȱSatakopanȱ(9thȱ century).ȱInȱAȱGodȱRealȱEnoughȱtoȱBeȱAbsent,ȱmyȱnextȱlargeȱbookȱ project,ȱIȱreadȱtogetherȱtwoȱreligiousȱworksȱofȱloveȱandȱlossȱthatȱ byȱtraditionȱpictureȱtheȱdivineȬhumanȱrelationshipȱasȱaȱdeeplyȱ unpredictableȱseriesȱofȱmomentsȱinȱaȱloveȱrelationship:ȱtheȱbibȬ


licalȱSongȱofȱSongsȱandȱtheȱsouthȱIndianȱHinduȱTiruvaymoli.ȱStillȱ moreȱspecifically,ȱIȱreadȱeachȱinȱaccordȱwithȱkeyȱcommentariesȱ fromȱitsȱmedievalȱtradition,ȱwhileȱyetȱtooȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱdraȬ maticȱpredicamentsȱmanifestȱinȱtheseȱtextsȱsuggestȱanȱimaginaȬ tiveȱ reappropriationȱ ofȱ GodȬlanguageȱ andȱ imagesȱ ofȱ Godȱ thatȱ willȱ beȱ fruitfulȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ today’sȱ religiousȱ diversity.ȱ Inȱ theȱparagraphsȱthatȱfollow,ȱIȱexplainȱtheȱrationaleȱforȱthisȱtextȬ ual,ȱ comparative,ȱ andȱ constructiveȱ project,ȱ soȱ asȱ toȱ giveȱ youȱ aȱ betterȱ senseȱ ofȱ myȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ itsȱ projectsȱ takesȱshape.ȱ First,ȱIȱwillȱbeȱreadingȱtheȱbiblicalȱSongȱofȱSongs,ȱparticularȬ lyȱ thoseȱ portionsȱ expressiveȱ ofȱ theȱ youngȱ woman’sȱ lossȱ andȱ searchȱinȱlove,ȱwhenȱherȱbelovedȱhasȱdepartedȱandȱsheȱsearchesȱ afterȱ him.ȱ Theȱ Songȱ hasȱ beenȱ theologicallyȱ takenȱ toȱ exemplifyȱ theȱdivineȬhumanȱrelationshipȱinȱintenselyȱsensualȱandȱdramatȬ icȱterms.ȱWithȱitȱIȱwillȱthenȱbeȱreadingȱselectivelyȱfromȱamongȱ theȱtwentyȬsixȱelevenȬverseȱsongsȱofȱtheȱ9thȱcenturyȱTiruvaymoliȱ thatȱareȱinȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱyoungȱwomanȱwhoseȱloverȱisȱherȱunȬ predictableȱ lover,ȱ Godȱ (mostȱ oftenȱ Krishna).ȱ Iȱ willȱ focusȱ stillȱ moreȱparticularlyȱonȱtheȱsongsȱthatȱareȱgearedȱtoȱspecificȱtimesȱ ofȱ nightȱ andȱ dayȱ (inȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ olderȱ Tamilȱ poetry)ȱ andȱ markȱ separation,ȱ loss,ȱ andȱ evenȱ despair,ȱ inȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Beloved.ȱ Whileȱ inȱ theȱ Songȱ weȱ findȱ aȱ muchȱ broaderȱ arrayȱ ofȱ vividlyȱ positiveȱ andȱ negativeȱ experiencesȱ inȱ theȱ ongoingȱ livedȱ experienceȱofȱ love,ȱ inȱTiruvaymoli,ȱ theȱpatternȱ isȱ unionȱasȱ aȱ reȬ memberedȱ past,ȱ lossȱ andȱ longing,ȱ andȱ anticipationȱ ofȱ aȱ futureȱ reunionȱthatȱseemsȱtoȱoccurȱonlyȱbeyondȱtheȱconclusionȱofȱTiruȬ vaymoli.ȱInȱboth,ȱhowever,ȱGodȱtooȱ–ȱnotȱjustȱtheȱhumanȱ–ȱactsȱ inȱ aȱ puzzlingȱ manner,ȱ soȱ thatȱ theologicalȱ expectationsȱ areȱ disȬ turbedȱbyȱtheȱprospectȱofȱaȱGodȱwhoȱcomesȱandȱgoesȱunpredicȬ tably.ȱ Inȱ lieuȱ ofȱ relyingȱ entirelyȱ onȱ myȱ ownȱ appreciationȱ ofȱ theȱ SongȱandȱTiruvaymoliȱorȱevenȱmodernȱscholarshipȱonȱeachȱworkȱ andȱ itsȱ literaryȱ genre,ȱ Iȱ followȱ diligentlyȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ workȱ ofȱcommentatorsȱwhoȱtookȱseriouslyȱbothȱtheȱreligiousȱandȱlitȬ eraryȱ meaningsȱ ofȱ theȱ songs.ȱ Iȱ willȱ beȱ readingȱ eachȱ withȱ comȬ mentary,ȱ forȱ theȱ Songȱ theȱ sermonsȱ ofȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvauxȱ (1019Ȭ1153),ȱGilbertȱofȱHoylandȱ(12thȱcentury)ȱandȱJohnȱofȱFordȱ (1140Ȭ1244),ȱ andȱ forȱ Tiruvaymoliȱ theȱ (sermonic)ȱ commentaryȱ ofȱ Nampillaiȱ (1147Ȭ1252),ȱ asȱ recordedȱ byȱ hisȱ disciple,ȱ Vatukkuȱ


Tiruvitiȱ Pillai.ȱ Inȱ readingȱ Bernardȱ (withȱ Gilbertȱ andȱ John)ȱ andȱ Nampillai,ȱ weȱ confrontȱ theȱ additionalȱ possibilitiesȱ andȱ chalȬ lengesȱthatȱareȱpertinentȱforȱreadersȱrespectingȱbothȱtheȱtheoloȬ gicalȱandȱliteraryȱdimensionsȱofȱtexts.ȱTheseȱcommentatorsȱareȱ faithfulȱtoȱpoeticȱdetail,ȱbutȱtheyȱseekȱalsoȱtoȱinscribeȱtheȱunpreȬ dictableȱdramaȱofȱloveȱwithinȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱtheologicalȱexȬ pectations.ȱ Theyȱ doȱ notȱ fullyȱ reconcileȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ aȱ Godȱ everȱfaithfulȱandȱtrueȱwithȱtheȱdramaȱofȱanȱunpredictableȱGod,ȱ butȱinȱtheȱgapȱbetweenȱaȱresistantȱtextȱandȱaȱcommentaryȱthatȱisȱ faithfulȱ bothȱ toȱ theȱ readingȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ community’sȱ theology,ȱ paradoxesȱregardingȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱGodȱcomeȱalive.ȱ BothȱtraditionsȱofȱcommentaryȱpreserveȱtheȱintenseȱincomȬ pletenessȱ inȱ aȱ spaceȱ whereȱ Godȱ andȱ loveȱ areȱ imaginedȱ amidstȱ theȱuncertaintyȱofȱexperiencedȱloveȱrelationships,ȱwithoutȱhighȱ theologiesȱofȱdivineȱperfectionȱundercuttingȱtheȱrealityȱofȱwhatȱ happensȱinȱtimeȱandȱspaceȱforȱembodiedȱbelievers,ȱandȱwithoutȱ familiarȱ scenariosȱ ofȱ humanȱ loveȱ entirelyȱ rulingȱ outȱ theȱ probȬ lematicȱofȱaȱdivineȱlover.ȱBothȱtraditionsȱnoticeȱtheȱambiguousȱ roleȱofȱnatureȱinȱrevealingȱandȱhidingȱGod,ȱtheȱfragileȱcontinuȬ ityȱ ofȱ physicalȱ andȱ spiritualȱ longing,ȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ senses,ȱ andȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ aȱ Godȱ soȱ realȱ asȱ toȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ arriveȱ andȱdepart,ȱbeȱpresentȱandȱbeȱabsent,ȱthusȱmeetingȱorȱfrustratȬ ingȱhumanȱexpectations.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱtruthȱofȱdivineȱrealityȱisȱ certain,ȱtheȱspiritualȱpathȱremainsȱuncertain,ȱopenȬended.ȱTheoȬ logyȱintensifiesȱratherȱthanȱfinishesȱoffȱtheȱdramaȱofȱtheȱdivineȬ humanȱrelationship.ȱNampillai’sȱreadingȱofȱTiruvaymoliȱisȱsupȬ pleȱinȱallowingȱtheȱmoodȱofȱindividualȱsongsȱtoȱcarryȱtheȱday,ȱ largerȱtheologicalȱconcernsȱrecedingȱintoȱtheȱbackground,ȱwhileȱ Bernard’sȱ understandingȱ ofȱ God’sȱ perfectionȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ mostȱofȱtheȱdramaȱoccursȱinȱtheȱhumanȱexperienceȱofȱGod.ȱMyȱ planȱisȱtoȱfocusȱfirstȱonȱBernard’sȱreadingȱ(asȱsupplementedȱbyȱ Gilbertȱ andȱ John),ȱ andȱ thereafterȱ toȱ exploreȱ theȱ stillȱ freerȱ andȱ moreȱdaringȱimaginativeȱpossibilitiesȱentertainedȱinȱNampillai’sȱ readingȱofȱTiruvaymoli.ȱ Muchȱ ofȱ myȱ workȱ willȱ beȱ veryȱ detailed,ȱ obviously,ȱ butȱ Iȱ amȱalsoȱattentiveȱtoȱtheȱcommonȱperceptionȱtodayȱthatȱtheȱsetȬ tledȱtruthsȱofȱtraditionsȱareȱbeingȱcalledȱintoȱquestionȱamidstȱtoȬ day’sȱarrayȱofȱopenȬendedȱspiritualȱpossibilities.ȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱ mentionedȱthisȱdynamicȱatȱtheȱstartȱofȱtheseȱreflections.ȱAȱslenȬ derȱ threadȱ wovenȱ throughȱ theȱ wholeȱ ofȱ thisȱ newȱ bookȱ projectȱ


willȱbeȱmyȱpersonalȱmeditationȱonȱreligiousȱdiversity,ȱhowȱweȱ loseȱ andȱ gainȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ it,ȱ andȱ howȱ myȱ studyȱ ofȱ Christianȱ andȱHinduȱsourcesȱhasȱbothȱaccentuatedȱandȱunsettledȱmyȱownȱ understandingȱ ofȱ God,ȱ Christianȱ andȱ Hindu.ȱ Readingȱ andȱ reȬ flectingȱonȱtextsȱsuchȱasȱIȱhaveȱchosenȱtogetherȱincreasesȱuncerȬ tainty,ȱsinceȱneitherȱnarrativeȱaccountsȱforȱtheȱotherȱscenarioȱofȱ loveȱ lostȱ andȱ found.ȱ Reflectionȱ onȱ themȱ togetherȱ helpsȱ usȱ toȱ (re)imagineȱ theȱ dramaȱ ofȱ aȱ divineȬhumanȱ relationship,ȱ asȱ inȬ tenselyȱbutȱonlyȱpartiallyȱunderstood.ȱIfȱweȱstudyȱtheseȱtextsȱtoȬ getherȱ successfully,ȱ weȱ areȱ confrontedȱ withȱ twoȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ Godȱ loved,ȱ lost,ȱ soughtȱ again,ȱ dramasȱ thatȱ inȱ thisȱ unexpectedȱ juxtapositionȱ accentuateȱ howȱ God’sȱ placeȱ andȱ activityȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ areȱ neverȱ entirelyȱ predictable,ȱ especiallyȱ whenȱ richlyȱ imaginedȱ andȱ theologizedȱ bothȱ inȱ andȱ beyondȱ theȱ capabilitiesȱ ofȱ particularȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Pairingȱ suchȱ dramasȱ ofȱ lossȱ andȱ searchȱ suggestsȱ theȱ wayȱ toȱ aȱ viableȱ alternativeȱ languageȱ aboutȱ Godȱ today.ȱ Myȱ “microȬstudy”ȱ ofȱ theȱ Songȱ andȱ TiruvayȬ moliȱthusȱchartsȱaȱwayȱofȱrethinkingȱandȱreimaginingȱtheȱwiderȱ possibilitiesȱaroundȱusȱtoday.ȱInȱourȱcontemporaryȱsituation,ȱasȱ inȱtheȱSongȱandȱinȱTiruvaymoli,ȱGod’sȱidentityȱandȱlocationȱhaveȱ becomeȱ lessȱ certain:ȱnowȱ too,ȱ Godȱ hidesȱandȱ isȱlostȱsightȱ ofȱ inȱ theȱ gapsȱ betweenȱ traditions.ȱ Comparativeȱ workȱ disclosesȱ newȱ possibilitiesȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱuncertainty,ȱnurturingȱprovisionality:ȱ inȱ short,ȱ aȱ discourseȱ ofȱ divineȱ presenceȱ thatȱ isȱ recognizablyȱ aliveȱandȱactive,ȱlearningȱfidelityȱfromȱcommentarialȱtradition,ȱ withoutȱtheȱburdenȱofȱtooȱliteralȱorȱlogicalȱaȱtheorization.ȱ Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱIȱamȱnotȱsureȱwhatȱwillȱcomeȱoutȱofȱthisȱinȬ terreligiousȱ readingȱ ofȱ intense,ȱ dramaticȱ religiousȱ texts,ȱ butȱ hopefully,ȱifȱitȱworksȱandȱdoesȱnotȱfizzleȱout,ȱthenȱIȱcanȱpossiȬ blyȱ makeȱ aȱ contributionȱ toȱ Christianȱ theology.ȱ Butȱ itȱ onlyȱ makesȱsenseȱbyȱsayingȱthatȱtheȱrealȱpointȱofȱwhatȱIȱdoȱisȱliesȱinȱ theȱparticularitiesȱofȱtheȱlearningȱandȱtheȱcomparison.ȱComparȬ ativeȱ workȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ assessedȱ inȱ itsȱ particularities,ȱ notȱ asȱ ifȱ theȱ particularitiesȱdidȱnotȱexist.ȱButȱifȱitȱworks,ȱIȱneedȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱ sayȱ toȱ theȱ Catholicȱ community,ȱ “Iȱ amȱ notȱ doingȱ damageȱ toȱ Catholicȱteachingȱ(evenȱifȱIȱamȱstretchingȱit),ȱorȱtoȱmyȱCatholicȱ traditionȱ(evenȱifȱIȱopenȱsomeȱclosedȱborders),ȱorȱCatholicȱcomȬ munityȱ(evenȱifȱweȱnowȱhaveȱoverlappingȱcommunalȱbonds)ȱ–ȱ byȱdoingȱsuchȱthingsȱasȱstudyingȱFrancisȱdeȱSalesȱandȱVedantaȱ Desikaȱtogether.”ȱIȱdoȱwhatȱIȱdoȱwithȱaȱhopeȱthatȱIȱamȱnotȱdoȬ


ingȱ damage,ȱ whenȱ Iȱ sayȱ thatȱ theȱ Songȱ ofȱ Songsȱ andȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvaux’sȱcommentsȱcanȱbeȱreadȱinȱlightȱofȱsouthȱIndianȱcomȬ mentariesȱ onȱ Tiruvaymoli’sȱ poetryȱ ofȱ absence.ȱ Yetȱ Iȱ haveȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ caseȱ backȱ andȱ say,ȱ “Look,ȱ thisȱ isȱ whatȱ comesȱ ofȱ it.ȱ Iȱ amȱnotȱsayingȱeveryoneȱshouldȱdoȱthis,ȱbutȱitȱisȱgoodȱforȱCathȬ olicsȱthatȱthisȱkindȱofȱworkȱbeȱdoneȱandȱIȱfeelȱobliged.”ȱHow?ȱ ForȱthisȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱthatȱIȱfinishȱtheȱproject,ȱandȱthatȱreadersȱ readȱit.ȱ TheȱObligationsȱofȱtheȱComparativeȱTheologianȱ Iȱhaveȱtakenȱsomeȱtimeȱtoȱdescribeȱtoȱyouȱmyȱrecentȱprojectsȱsoȱ asȱtoȱgiveȱyouȱaȱglimpseȱofȱhowȱIȱgoȱaboutȱplanningȱandȱcarryȬ ingȱ outȱ comparativeȱ work.ȱ Butȱ letȱ meȱ nowȱ returnȱ toȱ aȱ moreȱ generalȱlevelȱofȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱresponsibilitiesȱofȱtheȱcomparȬ ativeȱtheologian.ȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱstressedȱtheȱobligationȱtoȱtruthȱ asȱ understoodȱ inȱ one’sȱ homeȱ community,ȱ butȱ Iȱ nowȱ wishȱ toȱ makeȱexplicitȱtwoȱotherȱobligations,ȱtoȱtheȱprofessionalȱacademȬ icȱcommunityȱandȱtoȱtheȱcommunityȱwhoseȱreligionȱIȱstudy.ȱ Fosteringȱ dueȱ respectȱ forȱ otherȱ traditions’ȱ truthsȱ andȱ valȬ ues,ȱ theologies,ȱ andȱ theologicalȱ methodsȱ isȱ itselfȱ aȱ demandingȱ practiceȱthatȱopensȱintoȱaȱkindȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogue.ȱIȱhaveȱ triedȱtoȱbeȱsensitiveȱtoȱhowȱtruthȱisȱreceivedȱandȱarticulatedȱinȱ lightȱofȱknowledgeȱofȱtwoȱtraditions.ȱIȱhaveȱalwaysȱtriedȱatȱleastȱ –ȱitȱisȱnotȱalwaysȱpossibleȱtoȱgetȱveryȱfarȱwithȱitȱ–ȱtoȱmakeȱmyȬ selfȱ accountableȱ toȱ livingȱ Hindus,ȱ mostȱ recentlyȱ andȱ regularlyȱ toȱ Srivaisnavaȱ Hindus.ȱ Wereȱ Iȱ toȱ developȱ cultivateȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ scholarshipȱthatȱisȱresponsibleȱtoȱtheȱCatholicȱtheologicalȱcomȬ munityȱ orȱ toȱ Westernȱ Indologistsȱ withoutȱ caringȱ whatȱ theȱ naȬ tivesȱthink,ȱthatȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱaȱgoodȱthing.ȱIȱhaveȱaȱnumberȱofȱ friendsȱamongȱSrivaisnavaȱHinduȱintellectualsȱinȱsouthȱIndia.ȱIȱ giveȱthemȱmyȱbooksȱandȱIȱask,ȱ“Wellȱwhatȱdoȱyouȱthink?”ȱForȱ example,ȱIȱgaveȱbothȱBeyondȱCompareȱandȱTheȱTruth,ȱtheȱWay,ȱtheȱ Lifeȱ inȱ manuscriptȱ formȱ toȱ scholarsȱ inȱ southȱ India,ȱ inȱ hopesȱ ofȱ gettingȱresponsesȱfromȱtheȱSrivaisnavaȱperspectiveȱbeforeȱpubȬ lishingȱthem.ȱAsȱaȱtheologian,ȱIȱam,ȱasȱitȱwere,ȱintrudingȱinȱtheirȱ intellectualȱ theologicalȱ space,ȱ andȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ thinkȱ thatȱ Iȱ couldȱbeȱwelcomedȱintoȱthatȱspaceȱifȱIȱremainȱwillingȱtoȱlisten.ȱ Atȱeveryȱstageȱofȱourȱtheologicalȱreflection,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱkeepȱaȱ respectfulȱ senseȱ ofȱ obligationȱ toȱ truthȱ onȱ bothȱ sidesȱ ofȱ thisȱ


conversation,ȱfosteringȱrespectfulȱinteractionȱinȱmyȱcomparativeȱ work.ȱ Evenȱ whenȱ Iȱ amȱ studyingȱ anotherȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ inȱ aȱ religiouslyȱseriousȱway,ȱIȱalsoȱbearȱimportantȱprofessionalȱobliȬ gationsȱ andȱ responsibilitiesȱ inȱ myȱ study.ȱ Whileȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ distinctȱ fromȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ itȱ canȱ drawȱ andȱ indeedȱ shouldȱ drawȱ onȱ theȱ historicalȱ andȱ methodologicalȱ insightsȱ ofȱ professionalȱ comparativistsȱ –ȱ historiansȱ ofȱ religionȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ areaȱ historians,ȱ theȱ sinologists,ȱ theȱ peopleȱ whoȱ studyȱ Islamȱ fullȱ time,ȱ theȱ Indologists,ȱ theȱ peopleȱ whoȱ doȱ theȱ dedicatedȱworkȱonȱtraditionȱandȱtextsȱandȱsoȱon.ȱMyȱhopeȱoverȱ theȱ yearsȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ this:ȱ yes,ȱ Iȱ amȱ doingȱ theologicalȱ work,ȱ butȱ thatȱ isȱ noȱ excuseȱ forȱ itȱ toȱ beȱ amateurȱ orȱ erroneousȱ withȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱdetailsȱofȱtheȱstudyȱofȱIndiaȱandȱHinduism.ȱ SoȱIȱdoȱnotȱgetȱoffȱtheȱhookȱinȱdoingȱinferiorȱwork,ȱsloppyȱshodȬ dyȱscholarship,ȱjustȱbecauseȱIȱamȱaȱtheologianȱstudyingȱHinduȬ ism.ȱRather,ȱIȱneedȱtoȱsay,ȱ“No,ȱIȱoweȱitȱtoȱtheȱscholarsȱwhoȱdoȱ seriousȱworkȱonȱHinduismȱandȱIndologyȱthatȱmyȱworkȱmayȱatȱ leastȱbeȱrespectableȱinȱtheirȱeyes.”ȱWhenȱIȱsay,ȱ“Iȱamȱstudyingȱ China,ȱIȱamȱstudyingȱIndia,ȱIȱamȱstudyingȱNativeȱAmericanȱculȬ tures,”ȱIȱendȱupȱobligedȱtoȱyetȱanotherȱtraditionȱandȱcommunȬ ity:ȱtheȱprofessionalȱcommunityȱofȱscholarsȱinȱaȱfieldȱlikeȱSinolȬ ogyȱorȱIndology.ȱ Thereȱ mayȱ beȱ realȱ tensionsȱ betweenȱ theologyȱ andȱ areaȱ studiesȱsuchȱasȱIndologyȱandȱtheȱstudyȱofȱIndia,ȱsinceȱtheseȱareȱ differentȱdisciplinesȱwithȱdifferentȱgenealogies,ȱgoalsȱandȱcomȬ munitiesȱofȱconversation.ȱYetȱtheyȱneedȱnotȱbeȱtreatedȱasȱifȱsepȬ aratedȱbyȱaȱwall,ȱasȱifȱtoȱsayȱthatȱifȱIȱamȱaȱtheologian,ȱIȱcannotȱ alsoȱ beȱ anȱ Indologistȱ –ȱanyȱ moreȱ thanȱ anȱ Indologistȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ aȱ Whigȱ historianȱ orȱ aȱ Marxistȱ orȱ aȱ subalternȱ critic.ȱ Norȱ isȱ thereȱ aȱ reasonȱ toȱ thinkȱ thatȱ Indologistsȱ cannotȱ orȱ doȱ notȱ drawȱ onȱ importantȱ theologicalȱ instincts.ȱ Forȱ theȱ realȱ boundariesȱ beȬ tweenȱ disciplinesȱ canȱ beȱ crossedȱ bothȱ ways,ȱ andȱ theseȱ fieldsȱ mayȱbeȱmutuallyȱbeneficial.ȱAreaȱstudiesȱcanȱaidȱtheologyȱinȱitsȱ objectiveȱ dimension,ȱ inȱ gettingȱ straightȱ whatȱ weȱ areȱ talkingȱ about,ȱbutȱalsoȱinȱitsȱsubjectiveȱdimensionsȱtoo,ȱsinceȱbyȱitsȱdisȬ ciplinedȱ attentivenessȱ Indologyȱ showsȱ aȱ wayȱ intoȱ Hinduȱ culȬ tureȱ thatȱ mightȱ otherwiseȱ beȱ closedȱ toȱ theȱ theologian.ȱ Andȱ aȱ comparativeȱ theologicalȱ approachȱ inȱ partȱ servesȱ toȱ stripȱ awayȱ theȱ scholar’sȱ protectiveȱ defensesȱ againstȱ veryȱ deepȱ andȱ transȬ


formativeȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱotherȱculture,ȱandȱfacilitatesȱaȱrichȱ empathyȱ withȱtheȱ otherȱ tradition,ȱaȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ complexȱ reȬ semblances,ȱ andȱ offersȱ someȱ richlyȱ nuancedȱ appreciationȱ forȱ theȱinterrelationshipsȱofȱtexts,ȱpractices,ȱandȱexperiences.ȱ Conclusionȱ Iȱ closeȱ withȱ twoȱ pointsȱ inȱ anticipationȱ ofȱ questionsȱ youȱ mightȱ have.ȱFirst,ȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱhonorsȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱspirȬ itualȱ andȱ mysticalȱ exchangeȱ amongȱ traditionsȱ thatȱ mayȱ eventȬ uallyȱ goȱ beyondȱ ordinaryȱ scholarlyȱ discipline.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ stressedȱ theȱ disciplineȱ andȱ obligationsȱ ofȱ theology,ȱ butȱ inȱ factȱ Iȱ workȱ withȱ aȱ fairlyȱ richȱ senseȱ ofȱ theology.ȱ Theologyȱ alsoȱ hasȱ toȱ doȱ withȱexperience,ȱwithȱmysticism.ȱItȱisȱaȱmysticalȱpracticeȱtoo,ȱitȱ canȱ overflowȱ intoȱ prayer,ȱ itȱ canȱ relateȱ toȱ worship,ȱ andȱ soȱ on.ȱ Seriousȱacademic,ȱseriouslyȱprofessionalȱtheologyȱcanȱalsoȱhaveȱ theseȱspiritual,ȱmystical,ȱandȱprayerfulȱdimensions.ȱItȱneedȱnotȱ beȱtheȱcaseȱthatȱcomparativeȱworksȱstopsȱshortȱofȱprayerȱwhereȬ asȱ otherȱ theologiesȱ areȱ prayerful.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologiansȱ needȱ notȱ onlyȱ talkȱ aboutȱ God,ȱ inȱ theȱ generalȱ sense,ȱ butȱ ourȱ studyȱ alsoȱ intensifiesȱ ourȱ encounterȱ withȱ God,ȱ inȱ andȱ throughȱ theȱcomparativeȱprocessȱitself.ȱIȱcanȱmeetȱGod,ȱIȱcanȱprayȱbetter,ȱ Iȱ canȱ talkȱ inȱ conversationȱ withȱ Godȱ better,ȱ moreȱ intenselyȱ beȬ causeȱIȱhaveȱdoneȱcomparativeȱwork.ȱPerhapsȱthisȱisȱwhyȱGodȱ hasȱgivenȱusȱreligionsȱotherȱthanȱourȱown.ȱ Second,ȱ andȱ consequently,ȱ ifȱ weȱ areȱ deeplyȱ influencedȱ byȱ theȱthingsȱweȱthinkȱaboutȱandȱtheȱthingsȱweȱstudy,ȱparticularlyȱ ifȱ weȱ takeȱ themȱ toȱ heart,ȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ possibility,ȱ orȱ evenȱ likelihood,ȱthatȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱopensȱtheȱdoorȱtoȱaȱkindȱ ofȱmultipleȱreligiousȱbelonging.ȱIfȱIȱsay,ȱ“Iȱspentȱsoȱmuchȱofȱmyȱ timeȱinȱtheȱlastȱ35ȱyearsȱstudyingȱHinduism,”ȱIȱcannotȱsay,ȱ“Oh,ȱ butȱ theseȱ yearsȱ ofȱ studyȱ luckilyȱ haveȱ notȱ affectedȱ myȱ CatholȬ icismȱatȱall,ȱorȱIȱamȱstillȱ100%ȱCatholicȱonly.”ȱAsȱweȱengageȱinȱ theȱ faithfulȱ workȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ weȱ willȱ findȱ ourȬ selvesȱhavingȱcommitmentsȱandȱintuitionsȱpertainingȱtoȱatȱleastȱ twoȱtraditionsȱ–ȱalongȱwithȱaȱcertainȱkindȱofȱempathyȱwithȱothȬ erȱ peopleȱ whoȱ doȱ comparativeȱ work,ȱ whateverȱ theȱ religionsȱ theyȱ belongȱ toȱ andȱ study.ȱ Soȱ ifȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ arisesȱ inȱ andȱfromȱcommunity,ȱitȱmayȱalsoȱgenerateȱaȱkindȱofȱthirdȱcomȬ munityȱ ofȱ peopleȱ withȱ complexȱ belongingȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundaries.ȱInȱmyȱcase,ȱtheȱresultȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱtheȱCatholicȱorȱ


simplyȱ theȱ Hindu,ȱ butȱ someȱ otherȱ spaceȱ inȱ betweenȱ theseȱ worldsȱwhereȱthereȱisȱaȱspiritualityȱofȱabundance,ȱaȱlifeȱonȱtheȱ borders,ȱ aȱ newȱ situationȱ thatȱ developsȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ workȱweȱareȱtryingȱtoȱdoȱwhenȱworkingȱasȱcomparativeȱtheoloȬ gians.ȱWhileȱIȱamȱtryingȱtoȱremainȱtrulyȱCatholic,ȱwithȱaȱspecifȬ icȱandȱevenȱabsoluteȱcommitmentȱtoȱJesusȱChrist,ȱstillȱthatȱCathȬ olicȱ commitmentȱ isȱ deeplyȱ interwovenȱ withȱ theȱ complexitiesȱ thatȱhaveȱarisenȱinȱtryingȱtoȱremainȱanȱintellectuallyȱcommittedȱ Catholicȱwhoȱhasȱtakenȱanotherȱreligionȱtoȱheart.ȱ

EntitledȱtoȱUnderstandȱ ȱ

AȱCriticalȱLookȱatȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ ȱ AlbertinaȱNugterenȱ ȱ

ȱ ComparisonȱasȱaȱThirdȱSpaceȱ Thisȱ essayȱ grewȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ invitationȱ toȱ respondȱ toȱ Francisȱ Clooney’sȱpresentationȱofȱhisȱversionȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱ andȱrephrases,ȱinȱaȱmodestȱway,ȱwhatȱAlasdairȱMacIntyreȱpoinȬ tedȱ toȱ whenȱ heȱ askedȱ ifȱ understandingȱ religionȱ isȱ compatibleȱ withȱ believingȱ inȱ itȱ (MacIntyreȱ 1964,ȱ quotedȱ inȱ Wiebeȱ 2005:ȱ 260ff.),ȱ aȱ questionȱ thatȱ Donaldȱ Wiebeȱ tookȱ toȱ mean:ȱ Doesȱ unȬ derstandingȱ religionȱ requireȱ religiousȱ understandingȱ (Wiebeȱ 2005:ȱ260)?ȱIȱwillȱnotȱtouchȱonȱanyȱofȱtheȱproblemsȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱ questionȱifȱtheologyȱisȱmoreȱorȱlessȱvalidȱthanȱreligiousȱstudies.ȱ Whatȱ Clooney’sȱ workȱ triggersȱ inȱ meȱ is,ȱ apartȱ fromȱ aȱ deepȱ adȬ mirationȱforȱtheȱdepthȱandȱbreadthȱofȱhisȱknowledgeȱofȱatȱleastȱ twoȱreligiousȱtraditions,ȱtheȱchallengeȱtoȱreflectȱonȱwhoȱisȱbestȱ equippedȱtoȱcompareȱandȱwhoȱisȱentitledȱtoȱunderstand.ȱAtȱthisȱ pointȱIȱmustȱintroduceȱmyselfȱasȱaȱrelativeȱoutsider:ȱIȱamȱnotȱaȱ theologianȱ butȱ anȱ Indologistȱ andȱ aȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ specialist.ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ Iȱ wasȱ requestedȱ toȱ respondȱ toȱ Clooney’sȱ presentaȬ tionȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱmayȱbeȱthatȱweȱdoȱhaveȱoneȱthingȱ inȱcommon:ȱtheȱstudyȱofȱIndianȱreligions.ȱ Francisȱ Clooney’sȱ workȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ exeȬ cutedȱ patiently,ȱ painstakingly,ȱ andȱ withȱ integrity.1ȱ Itȱ createsȱ aȱ selfȬconsciouslyȱ composedȱ locusȱ ofȱ encounterȱ inȱ whichȱ aȱ speȬ cificȱtypeȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱoccurs.ȱIdeally,ȱinȱhisȱview,ȱ theȱ comparativeȱ theologianȱ leavesȱ behindȱ theȱ relativeȱ innoȬ cenceȱ ofȱ knowingȱ onlyȱ oneȱ traditionȱ deeply,ȱ i.e.ȱ his/herȱ own,ȱ withȱ merelyȱ fragmentaryȱ andȱ oftenȱ dismissiveȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ otherȱ traditions.ȱ Toȱ him,ȱ theȱ idealȱ comparativistȱ isȱ uniquelyȱ ȱ Iȱ consultedȱ variousȱ ofȱ hisȱ booksȱ publishedȱ sinceȱ theȱ 1990s,ȱ especiallyȱ hisȱ introductoryȱ chaptersȱ toȱ Clooneyȱ 1993,ȱ 1996,ȱ 2008,ȱ asȱ wellȱasȱsomeȱarticles,ȱsuchȱasȱClooneyȱ1997,ȱ2002,ȱ2007.ȱ 1


positionedȱ forȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ intellectualȱ andȱ spiritualȱ learningȱ thatȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ possibleȱ forȱ oneȱ whoȱ knowsȱ onlyȱ oneȱ ofȱ them.ȱ ClooneyȱhimselfȱfocusesȱonȱtextualȱmaterialsȱfromȱspecificȱcorȬ nersȱ ofȱ Christianity,ȱ particularlyȱ itsȱ mysticȱ traditionsȱ emphaȬ sisingȱ devotionalȱ surrender,ȱ andȱ specificȱ devotionalȱ theologyȱ withinȱ Hinduism,ȱ especiallyȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ southȱ Indianȱ SrivaisȬ navaȱ schools.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ extremelyȱ carefulȱ approach,ȱ withȱ meticuȬ lousȱattentionȱtoȱscripturalȱdetail,ȱoftenȱengagingȱvariousȱcomȬ mentariesȱonȱaȱsingleȱphrase,ȱheȱgivesȱampleȱroomȱforȱtheȱ“forȬ eign”ȱtextȱtoȱspeakȱinȱallȱitsȱlayeredness,ȱbothȱinȱitsȱownȱwordsȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ commentarialȱ traditions.ȱ Afterȱ havingȱ thoroughlyȱ studiedȱsuchȱaȱtext,ȱheȱreliesȱonȱhisȱinstinctsȱ(oftenȱtriggeredȱbyȱ associativeȱ thinking)ȱ toȱ bringȱ inȱ aȱ fittingȱ secondȱ textȱ fromȱ hisȱ ownȱtraditionȱwithȱwhichȱheȱstartsȱtheȱcomparison.ȱInȱthisȱwayȱ heȱproducesȱtransgressiveȱlearning,ȱbothȱacademicallyȱandȱspirȬ itually.ȱ Whatȱ Clooneyȱ suggestsȱ isȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ occursȱ onlyȱ afterȱaȱparticularȱcomparativeȱencounterȱhasȱtakenȱplace,ȱinȱtheȱ shapeȱofȱaȱcomparisonȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱexecutedȱfairlyȱandȱmeticȬ ulously.ȱ Theȱ resultȱ isȱ aȱ delicatelyȱ balancedȱ interiorȱ dialogueȱ fromȱtheȱpenȱofȱaȱsingleȱauthor.ȱAȱdefinitiveȱanalysisȱandȱinterȬ pretationȱisȱnotȱoffered,ȱletȱaloneȱaȱgrandȱstatementȱessentialisȬ ingȱtheȱtwoȱtraditions.ȱ Heȱ thusȱ proposesȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ isȱ producedȱ fromȱ theȱ uniqueȱ positionȱ thatȱ accompaniesȱcomparativeȱ study:ȱ itȱ bringsȱ aȱrefinedȱunderstandingȱofȱbothȱtextsȱand,ȱasȱsuch,ȱaȱnewȱlightȱ toȱ bothȱ traditions.ȱ Thisȱ moreȱ intenseȱ wayȱ ofȱ learningȱ andȱ unȬ derstanding,ȱinȱhisȱview,ȱgoesȱbeyondȱmanyȱwellȬintendedȱbutȱ oftenȱ necessarilyȱ lopsidedȱ encountersȱ andȱ comparisons.ȱ Theȱ enterpriseȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱinȱthisȱNorthȱAmericanȱverȬ sion,ȱ thusȱ emergesȱ asȱ theȱ dialecticalȱ andȱ dialogicalȱ activityȱ ofȱ closelyȱ readingȱ andȱ rereadingȱ texts,ȱ i.e.ȱ particularȱ textsȱ fromȱ Hinduȱ theologiansȱ likeȱ Vedantadeshika,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ textsȱ fromȱ Catholicȱ mysticsȱ likeȱ Francisȱ deȱ Sales,ȱ Satakopan’sȱ TiruȬ vaymoliȱ pairedȱ withȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvaux’sȱ sermonsȱ onȱ theȱ SongȱofȱSongs,ȱorȱPatañjali’sȱYogasutrasȱwithȱexcerptsȱfromȱtheȱ Spiritualȱ Exercisesȱ ofȱ Ignatiusȱ Loyola.ȱ Thisȱ reading,ȱ rereading,ȱ andȱ comparingȱ takesȱ placeȱ onȱ theȱ newȱ stageȱ formedȱ byȱ theȱ meetingȱofȱtwoȱdiscrete,ȱdistinct,ȱandȱuntilȱnowȱseparateȱtradiȬ tions,ȱ aȱ stageȱ whereȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ Northȱ Americanȱ theoloȬ gianȱisȱinstrumentalȱinȱmakingȱtwoȱvoicesȱheard:ȱthatȱof,ȱforȱinȬ

ENTITLEDȱTOȱUNDERSTANDȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ151ȱ

stance,ȱ aȱ southȱ Indianȱ theologianȬcumȬmysticȱ whoȱ livedȱ andȱ workedȱ severalȱ centuriesȱ agoȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ mysticallyȱ inclinedȱ fatherȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ whoȱ likewiseȱ evokesȱ theȱ readerȱ toȱ loseȱ oneselfȱinȱlovingȱsurrenderȱtoȱGod.ȱ Itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ thisȱ moreȱ intenseȱ wayȱ ofȱ reading,ȱ learning,ȱ andȱ understandingȱ demandsȱ highȱ erudition,ȱ notȱ leastȱ ofȱ allȱ aȱ proficiencyȱ inȱ languages,ȱ andȱ aȱ bothȱ scholarlyȱ andȱ spiritualȱ sensitivityȱ toȱ theȱ evocativeȱ powerȱ ofȱ textsȱ producedȱ longȱ ago.ȱ Clooneyȱfocusesȱemphaticallyȱonȱtextualȱmaterialsȱandȱleavesȱtoȱ othersȱ theȱ equallyȱ importantȱ fieldworkȱ thatȱ isȱ requiredȱ toȱ unȬ derstandȱtheȱmeaningȱthatȱactualȱlivingȱpeopleȱgiveȱtoȱreligiousȱ issuesȱandȱtheȱwayȱtheyȱshapeȱtheirȱdevotionȱinȱdailyȱlife.ȱComȬ parativeȱ theologyȱ thusȱ createsȱ aȱ thirdȱ spaceȱ andȱ becomesȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ contentȱ withȱ comparingȱ theȱ twoȱ separateȱ spacesȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ underȱ scrutinyȱ butȱ insteadȱ isȱ willingȱ toȱ be,ȱ evenȱanticipatesȱbeing,ȱtransformedȱinȱtheȱprocess.ȱThisȱmakesȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ mayȱ beȱ deeplyȱ changedȱ byȱ itsȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ detailsȱ ofȱ multipleȱ religious,ȱ theological,ȱ andȱspiritualȱtraditions.ȱȱ ReadingȱthroughȱvariousȱintroductionsȱtoȱClooney’sȱworkȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ Iȱ admireȱ theȱ careful,ȱ eloquent,ȱ andȱ selfȬconsciousȱwayȱinȱwhichȱheȱtreadsȱtheȱground.ȱHeȱappearsȱ toȱanticipateȱmostȱofȱtheȱcriticismsȱthatȱmightȱcomeȱhisȱwayȱbyȱ proceedingȱ withȱ aȱ cautiousȱ yetȱ stubbornȱ conviction.ȱ Despiteȱ thisȱ cautiousȱ attitude,ȱ heȱ obviouslyȱ believesȱ inȱ hisȱ course,ȱ aȱ courseȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ comparativeȱ dynamicȱ ofȱ readingȱ acrossȱtheȱbordersȱofȱtwoȱspiritualȱtraditionsȱandȱthusȱcreatingȱaȱ thirdȱ spaceȱ inȱ whichȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ leastȱ hisȱ ownȱ Christianȱ theoȬ logyȱisȱexpectedȱtoȱbeȱdeeplyȱtransformedȱbyȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱ theȱencounter.ȱ Verstehen/UnderstandingȱasȱFaithȬBased?ȱ Itȱisȱexactlyȱthisȱextremelyȱcarefulȱapproach,ȱwithȱmeticulousȱatȬ tentionȱ toȱ scripturalȱ details,ȱ thatȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ winȱ meȱ over.ȱYetȱthisȱentireȱexerciseȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱoutspoȬ kenlyȱ faithȬgrounded.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Clooney,ȱ aȱ comparativeȱ theologianȱ shouldȱ haveȱ his/herȱ rootsȱ inȱ someȱ particularȱ reliȬ giousȱtradition,ȱandȱhaveȱaȱcommitmentȱandȱengagementȱtoȱit.ȱ Theȱtermsȱ“we,”ȱ“us,”ȱ“ours,”ȱandȱ“ourȱown”ȱabound.ȱWhoȱisȱ addressedȱandȱincludedȱhere?ȱWhoȱfeelsȱselfȬevidentlyȱandȱnatȬ


urallyȱenclosedȱbyȱtheseȱreferences?ȱIȱmustȱadmitȱIȱdoȱnot.ȱEvenȱ moreȱ so,ȱ Iȱ feelȱ excludedȱ fromȱ theȱ entireȱ exerciseȱ preciselyȱ onȱ thisȱground.ȱ Thisȱeasilyȱandȱnaturallyȱsupposedȱfaithȱasȱaȱcriterion,ȱasȱaȱ precondition,ȱ strikesȱ meȱ asȱ questionable.ȱ Isȱ meticulousȱ scholȬ arshipȱ notȱ enough,ȱ alongȱ withȱ empathy,ȱ integrity,ȱ sensitivity,ȱ apartȱ fromȱ languageȱ skillsȱ andȱ philologicalȱ endurance?ȱ Whyȱ wouldȱaȱscholarȱofȱreligionȱneedȱtoȱbelongȱtoȱaȱfaith?ȱWouldȱitȱ notȱ thenȱ rightfullyȱ beȱ calledȱ theologyȱ otherwise?ȱ Or,ȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱtheȱthirdȱspaceȱIȱmentionedȱabove,ȱtheȱplatformȱonȱwhichȱtheȱ supposedȱintellectual,ȱ theological,ȱandȱ spiritualȱtransformationȱ canȱ takeȱ place:ȱ Isȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ belongȱ toȱ eitherȱ tradiȬ tion—orȱ anyȱ religiousȱ tradition,ȱ forȱ thatȱ matter—deniedȱ enȬ trance?ȱ ForȱtheȱwellȬtrainedȱcomparativist,ȱcautiouslyȱmovingȱforȬ ward,ȱ examiningȱ detailsȱ ratherȱ thanȱ entireȱ religiousȱ systems,ȱ whatȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ advantageȱ ofȱ belongingȱ toȱ aȱ particularȱ tradition,ȱ preferablyȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ beingȱ compared?ȱ Areȱ scholarsȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱbelongȱtoȱaȱtraditionȱ–ȱsinceȱthereȱareȱmanyȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ specialistsȱ todayȱ whoȱ writeȱ highlyȱ sensitiveȱ andȱ insightfulȱ worksȱ onȱ particularȱ detailsȱ ofȱ oneȱ orȱ moreȱ reliȬ giousȱ traditionsȱ locatedȱ elsewhereȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ –ȱ notȱ equallyȱ equippedȱ toȱ produceȱ whatȱ Clooney’sȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ aimingȱ for?ȱ Wouldȱ oneȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ theologian,ȱ aȱ “belonger”ȱ (Davieȱ1994) ȱ andȱaȱbelieverȱasȱwellȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱcompareȱfruitȬ fully,ȱ creatively,ȱ andȱ beȱ willingȱ toȱ beȱ transformedȱ inȱ theȱ proȬ cess,ȱtranscendingȱbothȱtraditionsȱbyȱenteringȱaȱnewȱspace,ȱtheȱ thirdȱspaceȱofȱdeeper,ȱmaybeȱevenȱshared,ȱmeaningsȱandȱmesȬ sages?ȱȱ InȱClooney’sȱhands,ȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱdistinguishedȱ byȱ attentivenessȱ toȱ theȱ dynamicsȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ andȱ spiritualȱ learning,ȱdeepenedȱandȱmadeȱcomplexȱthroughȱtheȱcloseȱstudyȱ ofȱ twoȱ traditions,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ whichȱ isȱ otherȱ thanȱ one’sȱ own.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ requirementȱ forȱ thisȱ experimentȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ wouldȱ beȱ historical,ȱ cultural,ȱ andȱ linguisticȱ expertiseȱ inȱ (atȱ least)ȱtwoȱtraditions.ȱTheȱsecondȱrequirementȱisȱthatȱsuchȱaȱreȬ searcherȱ(Clooneyȱcallsȱhimȱ“reader,”ȱwithȱaȱstaggeringȱdownȬ playȱofȱtheȱpainstakingȱphilologicalȱgroundworkȱrequiredȱforȱaȱ fairȱencounterȱofȱtexts)ȱwouldȱbeȱpersistentȱinȱtheȱinterrogationȱ ofȱ theȱ ideasȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ twoȱ texts.ȱ Theȱ thirdȱ requirementȱ


wouldȱ beȱ opennessȱ toȱ theȱ fullȱ forceȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ “foreign”ȱ text,ȱ allowingȱ aȱ changeȱ ofȱ perspectiveȱ thatȱ mayȱ evenȱ proveȱ toȱ beȱ radical.ȱ Theȱ fourthȱ requirementȱ wouldȱ beȱ thatȱ suchȱ anȱ enȬ counterȱ wouldȱ notȱ remainȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ privateȱ sphereȱ ofȱ theȱ solitaryȱ readerȱ orȱ evenȱ theȱ selectedȱ companyȱ ofȱ experts,ȱ butȱ wouldȱbenefitȱaȱmuchȱwiderȱaudienceȱ(Clooneyȱ2008:ȱ2).ȱ Whatȱisȱatȱstakeȱhere,ȱinȱmyȱview,ȱisȱtheȱquestionȱhowȱleȬ gitimateȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ toȱ beȱ transformedȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ andȱ stillȱ remainȱ loyalȱ toȱ “one’sȱ ownȱ tradition.”ȱ Consideringȱ Clooney’sȱ backgroundȱ asȱ aȱ Jesuitȱ priest,ȱ Iȱ couldȱ wellȱ imagineȱ thatȱ theȱ possibleȱ–ȱorȱevenȱprobableȱ–ȱtransformationȱinȱthatȱthirdȱspaceȱ requiresȱ anȱ anticipatoryȱ defence,ȱ justification,ȱ orȱ legitimation.ȱ Consideringȱ Clooney’sȱ credentialsȱ asȱ aȱ Harvardȱ scholar,ȱ theȱ shiftȱ fromȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ mereȱ observerȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ spirituallyȱ persuadedȱ practitionerȱ mayȱ alsoȱ needȱ someȱ apologetics.ȱ FurȬ thermore,ȱ consideringȱ Clooney’sȱ associationȱ withȱ Srivaisnavaȱ scholarsȱ inȱ southernȱ India,ȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ nationalisticȱ fervour,ȱ hisȱ closeȱ engagementȱ withȱ “their”ȱ Vedantadeshikaȱ mayȱ wellȱ raiseȱantiȬcolonialȱandȱantiȬChristianȱsuspicions. 2ȱȱ EntitledȱtoȱUnderstand?3ȱ TheȱonlyȱwayȱIȱcanȱattemptȱtoȱaccessȱthisȱendeavourȱofȱcomparȬ ativeȱ theologyȱ criticallyȱ isȱ throughȱ theȱ allegedȱ spiritualȱ transȬ figurationȱtoȱwhichȱClooneyȱhimselfȱpoints.ȱNaturally,ȱforȱacaȬ demia,ȱbyȱofferingȱaȱ(new)ȱtranslationȱwithȱfairȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱ variousȱ commentaries,ȱ Clooney’sȱ disclosureȱ ofȱ aȱ relativelyȱ unȬ knownȱ Hinduȱ textȱ wouldȱ beȱ sufficientȱ justificationȱ forȱ hisȱ efȬ forts.ȱHisȱphilologicalȱeffortsȱareȱjustifiedȱdoublyȱbyȱbringingȱinȱ aȱ comparableȱ textȱ fromȱ “hisȱ own”ȱ tradition.ȱ Butȱ Clooneyȱ stillȱ obviouslyȱwantsȱmore.ȱThisȱentireȱenterpriseȱofȱenteringȱaȱthirdȱ spaceȱbeyondȱbothȱtextsȱmayȱbeȱproductive,ȱcreative,ȱandȱstimȬ ulatingȱinȱtheȱhandsȱofȱaȱpersonȱlikeȱhim,ȱwithȱtheȱsafeguardȱofȱ bothȱ anȱ impressiveȱ scholarlyȱ recordȱ andȱ aȱ delicateȱ evenȱ eloȬ 2ȱAsȱonȱvariousȱwebsites,ȱaddedȱasȱreaders’ȱreviewsȱonȱpublishȬ ers’ȱandȱbooksellers’ȱpages.ȱ

ȱThisȱphraseȱisȱaȱvariationȱonȱtheȱtitleȱofȱanȱexpertȱseminarȱ“EnȬ titledȱ toȱ Surrender,”ȱ organisedȱ byȱ Norbertȱ Hintersteinerȱ aroundȱ FrancisȱClooney’sȱwork,ȱ5ȱJulyȱ2006,ȱatȱUtrechtȱUniversity.ȱ 3


quentȱ anticipationȱ ofȱ whateverȱ critiqueȱ mayȱ comeȱ hisȱ way.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ hands,ȱ however,ȱ suchȱ anȱ enterpriseȱ mayȱ slideȱ intoȱ theȱ sameȱ oldȱ pitfallsȱ toȱ whichȱ pastȱ comparativeȱ endeavoursȱ wereȱ prone.ȱȱ Whatȱcouldȱbeȱtheȱpitfallȱifȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱbecomes,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ aȱ comparativeȱ (studyȱ of)ȱ spirituality?ȱ Theȱ revelaȬ toryȱ andȱ evocativeȱ characterȱ ofȱ Verstehenȱ soȱ farȱ transcendsȱ theȱ jobȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ academicȱ studentȱ ofȱ religion.4ȱ Clooneyȱ admitsȱ toȱ aȱ significantȱ changeȱ inȱ hisȱ ownȱ Christianȱ theologyȱ throughȱ anȱ endeavour,ȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ thatȱisȱ explicitlyȱ faithȬgrounded.ȱ Applyingȱ Graceȱ Davie’sȱ usefulȱ distinctionȱ beȬ tweenȱ belongingȱ andȱ believingȱ toȱ theȱ persistenceȱ ofȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ beliefȱ (orȱ spiritualityȱ inȱ itsȱ presentȱ connotation)ȱ inȱ manyȱ situȬ ationsȱ inȱ whichȱ ratherȱ dramaticallyȱ decliningȱ “belonging”ȱ canȱ beȱfound,ȱasȱisȱtheȱcaseȱinȱwesternȱEuropeȱtoday,ȱwouldȱaȱcomȬ parativeȱ spiritualityȱ beȱ bothȱ moreȱ accessibleȱ andȱ foolȬproofȱ thanȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ inȱ handsȱ otherȱ thanȱ Clooney’s?ȱ Heȱ speaksȱofȱtransgressiveȱlearning:ȱDoesȱthisȱpointȱtoȱwhatȱIȱindiȬ catedȱ asȱ thatȱ newlyȱ createdȱ thirdȱ spaceȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logy?ȱ Inȱ thatȱ case,ȱ wouldȱ comparativeȱ spiritualityȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ speakȱofȱtransgressiveȱlearningȱtoo,ȱalbeitȱnotȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱaȱ newlyȱ createdȱ thirdȱ spaceȱ butȱ inȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ newlyȱ accessedȱ thirdȱ space,ȱaȱspaceȱthatȱisȱsupposedȱtoȱexistȱbeyondȱallȱdistinctions,ȱ paradoxes,ȱ andȱ otherness,ȱ aȱ spaceȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ createdȱbutȱisȱalways,ȱperenniallyȱthere,ȱreadyȱtoȱbeȱaccessedȱbyȱ theȱ advancingȱ spiritualȱ adept.ȱ Comparativeȱ spirituality,ȱ then,ȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ transgressiveȱ learningȱ requiringȱ aȱ faith:ȱ notȱ belongingȱ necessarily,ȱ butȱ believing.ȱ Asȱ such,ȱ itȱ wouldȱnotȱmatterȱmuchȱwhetherȱtheȱexerciseȱisȱcalledȱcomparȬ ativeȱtheologyȱorȱcomparativeȱspirituality.ȱ ȱ Anyoneȱ whoȱ speaksȱ ofȱ somethingȱ surpassingȱ distinctȱ categories,ȱ discreteȱ theologicalȱ systems,ȱ enclosedȱ “we”ȱ comȬ munitiesȱofȱpeerȱbelievers,ȱandȱespeciallyȱtheȱsafeȱboundariesȱofȱ theȱecclesiasticalȱorȱscholarlyȱstatusȱquoȱwillȱbeȱtheȱrecipientȱofȱ ȱPleaseȱnoteȱthatȱIȱamȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱisȱintroducingȱtheȱcontestedȱ notionȱofȱVerstehen,ȱnotȱClooney.ȱForȱanȱattemptȱtoȱbridgeȱtheȱgapȱbeȬ tweenȱ theȱ twoȱ approachesȱ ofȱ explanationȱ andȱ understandingȱ byȱ apȬ plyingȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱtheoryȱofȱPaulȱRicoeurȱseeȱKepnesȱ1986.ȱ 4


disdain,ȱscepticism,ȱandȱcritiqueȱfromȱvariousȱcornersȱasȱwellȱasȱ cheers,ȱadmiration,ȱandȱevenȱadorationȱfromȱotherȱcorners.ȱTheȱ readingȱofȱancientȱtextsȱinȱaȱnovelȱwayȱisȱboundȱtoȱdrawȱcomȬ ments,ȱraiseȱsuspicions,ȱandȱbeȱexperiencedȱasȱintrusiveȱbyȱbothȱ sides,ȱ particularlyȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ calledȱ deepȱ learning,ȱ andȱ aȱ firstȬ personȱparticipatoryȱperspectiveȱandȱ“postȬobjective”ȱempathyȱ areȱrequired.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱwhenȱconsideredȱfromȱtheȱangleȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue,ȱ itȱ mayȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ anȱ intelligentȱ reȬ sponseȱ toȱ today’sȱ pluralisticȱ lifeȬworldȱ inȱ whichȱ religionsȱ noȱ longerȱ standȱ alone.ȱ Althoughȱ Clooneyȱ clearlyȱ leavesȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ actualȱ encounterȱ inȱ dailyȱ lifeȱ toȱ others,ȱ byȱ readingȱ beyondȱ boundariesȱ heȱ drawsȱ hisȱ readersȱ alongȱ withȱ himȱ intoȱ aȱ transȬ formativeȱ process,ȱ makingȱ aȱ particularȱ contributionȱ toȱ interreȬ ligiousȱunderstanding.ȱVerstehen,ȱthen,ȱinȱtheȱlastȱanalysis,ȱisȱreȬ ligiousȱinȱnatureȱ(Waardenburgȱ1978:ȱ228).ȱ Clooney’sȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ oftenȱ farȱ removedȱ fromȱ theȱ moreȱ immediateȱ arenaȱ ofȱ actualȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ inȱ practice,ȱdistinguishesȱitselfȱbyȱtwoȱfeatures:ȱitsȱempiricalȱmethȬ odȱ andȱ itsȱ resistanceȱ toȱ generalisationsȱ aboutȱ particularȱ reliȬ gionsȱ (Nicholsonȱ 2009:ȱ 620).ȱ Still,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gionsȱ itȱ hasȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ aȱ commonȱ genealogyȱ inȱ theȱ comparȬ ativeȱ methodȱ ofȱ theȱ lateȱ nineteenthȱ century.ȱ Itȱ advertisesȱ itselfȱ asȱ aȱ nonȬhegemonicȱ formȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ theologicalȱ disȬ course,ȱ patientlyȱ deferringȱ issuesȱ ofȱ truth,ȱ butȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ hegemonism,ȱ althoughȱ mutedȱ byȱ adoptingȱ anȱ emȬ piricalȱ methodȱ andȱ refrainingȱ fromȱ excessiveȱ generalisation,ȱ isȱ stillȱ apparentȱ (Nicholsonȱ 2009:ȱ 620).ȱ Avoidingȱ aȱ totalisingȱ perȬ spectiveȱ byȱ emphasisingȱ theȱ localȱ andȱ particular,ȱ itȱ challengesȱ theȱ discretenessȱ andȱ othernessȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱ theologicallyȱ deȬ finedȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ inȱ theȱ world,ȱ inȱ Clooney’sȱ case,ȱ theȱ conceptualȱ constructionsȱ likeȱ “Hinduism”ȱ andȱ “Christianity.”ȱ Religiousȱboundariesȱmayȱthusȱbeȱdeconstructed,ȱnotȱasȱnonȬexȬ istentȱbutȱratherȱasȱfluidȱandȱporous.ȱȱ Comparativeȱtheologyȱalsoȱridesȱtheȱtideȱofȱglobalisation.ȱItȱ remainsȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ ifȱ thereȱ willȱ beȱ onlyȱ oneȱ kindȱ ofȱ winnerȱ inȱ theȱglobalȱmarketplaceȱofȱtheȱfuture:ȱeitherȱtheȱextremelyȱparticȬ ularȱ andȱ bounded,ȱ providingȱ aȱ cocoonedȱ kindȱ ofȱ religiousȱ beȬ longing,ȱ orȱ anȱ extremelyȱ freeȱ tradeȱ inȱ whichȱ belongingȱ isȱ onlyȱ momentousȱ andȱ collated,ȱ notȱ aȱ lifelongȱ choiceȱ andȱ commitȬ ment.ȱThereȱmayȱwellȱbeȱmanyȱwinnersȱsimultaneously,ȱcaterȬ


ingȱtoȱtheȱmanifoldȱandȱvariegatedȱneeds.ȱAndȱasȱlongȱasȱneedsȱ areȱdiverse,ȱthereȱwillȱbeȱmanyȱstallsȱandȱshopsȱinȱtheȱmarket.ȱ TheȱHegelianȱsynthesisȱ(aȱthirdȱspaceȱinȱitself!)ȱthatȱmanyȱseekȱ todayȱ isȱ readilyȱ providedȱ byȱ “mindstyle”ȱ magazines,ȱ spiritualȱ books,ȱ inspirationalȱ courses,ȱ andȱ feelȬgoodȱ programmes.ȱ GloȬ balisation,ȱ commodification,ȱ andȱ commercialisation,ȱ however,ȱ createȱ theȱ illusionȱ ofȱ anȱ endlessȱ varietyȱ onȱ offer,ȱ where,ȱ onȱ closerȱscrutiny,ȱtheȱgoodsȱareȱremarkablyȱalike,ȱasȱareȱtheȱreliȬ giousȱ goodsȱ thatȱ areȱ beingȱ offered.ȱ Erasingȱ national,ȱ cultural,ȱ andȱ linguisticȱ boundaries,ȱ inȱ additionȱ toȱ manyȱ obviousȱ adȬ vantages,ȱ alsoȱ hasȱ theȱ byȬeffectȱ thatȱ thingsȱ soonȱ beginȱ toȱ lookȱ ratherȱ plain,ȱ flat,ȱ andȱ interchangeable.ȱ Erasingȱ religiousȱ bounȬ dariesȱ byȱ aȱ vagueȱ kindȱ ofȱ spiritualityȱ orȱ wellȬintentionedȱ uniȬ versalismȱ mayȱ haveȱ producedȱ aȱ widerȱ senseȱ ofȱ selfȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ century,ȱ butȱ itȱ remainsȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ ifȱ thereȱ isȱ muchȱ “deepȱ learningȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ boundaries”ȱ asȱ Clooneyȱ advocates.5ȱ Deepȱ learningȱ requiresȱ aȱ tremendousȱ effortȱ andȱ heavyȱ sacriȬ fices,ȱcommitmentȱtoȱanȱidealȱthatȱmayȱbeȱdrivenȱbyȱaȱspiritual,ȱ mystical,ȱ philosophical,ȱ ecological,ȱ orȱ evenȱ economicȱ inspiraȬ tionȱ ofȱ interȬbeing,ȱ butȱ oneȱ hasȱ toȱ startȱ atȱ home,ȱ andȱ inȱ thatȱ senseȱIȱreadilyȱadmitȱthatȱClooneyȱhasȱaȱpointȱbyȱstartingȱfromȱ hisȱownȱrichȱCatholicȱtraditionȱandȱhisȱJesuitȱheritage.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ inȱ Clooney’sȱ handsȱ breaksȱ throughȱ conventionalȱ boundariesȱ byȱ aȱ wellȱ thoughtȱ outȱ juxtaposingȱ ofȱ particularȱ texts,ȱ butȱ evenȱ hisȱ extremelyȱ cautiousȱ approachȱ cannotȱrelieveȱmeȱofȱaȱsenseȱofȱdoubtȱandȱsuspicion.ȱInȱcolonialȱ times,ȱadventurousȱandȱgreedyȱmenȱsailedȱoffȱtoȱdistantȱplaces,ȱ especiallyȱ theȱ Orient,ȱ inȱ theȱ searchȱ forȱ spicesȱ withȱ whichȱ theyȱ couldȱpreserveȱandȱseasonȱtheirȱblandȱfoodȱatȱhome.ȱNow,ȱcanȱ theȱ sameȱ mistakeȱ beȱ avoidedȱ here,ȱ i.e.ȱ thatȱ ofȱ interferingȱ thoughtlesslyȱ withȱ farȬawayȱ peopleȱ andȱ theirȱ socioȬeconomicȱ infrastructuresȱinȱthisȱageȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱaddingȱnonȬChristianȱ spicesȱtoȱaȱChristianȱdishȱthatȱmayȱhaveȱbecomeȱtooȱbland?ȱInȱ otherȱ words,ȱ aligningȱ themselvesȱ withȱ theȱ forcesȱ ofȱ globalȬ isation,ȱ theȱ “we”ȱ thatȱ Clooneyȱ soȱ selfȬevidentlyȱ usesȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ blindȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ powerȱ balanceȱ here.ȱ Manyȱ ȱSeeȱtheȱtitleȱofȱhisȱnewȱbookȱComparativeȱTheology:ȱDeepȱLearningȱ acrossȱReligiousȱBorders.ȱȱ 5


areȱnowȱwellȱawareȱofȱtheȱblindȱspotsȱinȱtheȱcolonialȱenterprise,ȱ suchȱ asȱ blatantȱ culturalȱ assumptionsȱ andȱ dramaticallyȱ unevenȱ powerȱrelations.ȱYetȱmanyȱareȱstillȱguiltyȱofȱbeingȱmindlessȱconȬ sumersȱonȱtoday’sȱmarkets.ȱ Inȱ today’sȱ globalȱ marketplaceȱ thereȱ isȱ anȱ unprecedentedȱ varietyȱ ofȱ spicesȱ onȱ offer,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ anȱ unprecedentedȱ varietyȱ ofȱreligiousȱwritingsȱfromȱallȱtimesȱandȱtraditions.ȱEvenȱifȱIȱstillȱ feelȱ slightlyȱ uncomfortableȱ withȱ Clooney’sȱ project,ȱ Iȱ acknowlȬ edgeȱ itsȱ evocativeȱ powerȱ especiallyȱ inȱ learningȱ toȱ readȱ closelyȱ twoȱtextsȱfromȱwidelyȱdivergentȱtraditions,ȱtextsȱwhichȱofferȱaȱ strikingȱ familyȱ resemblanceȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ selectedȱ passagesȱ exȬ tractedȱforȱeasyȱquotationsȱbutȱevenȱafterȱdisciplinedȱandȱcareȬ fulȱconsiderationȱofȱtheirȱoverallȱmessageȱandȱmeaning.ȱIfȱanyȬ thing,ȱ Clooneyȱ teachesȱ usȱ toȱ sitȱ downȱ andȱ patientlyȱ immerseȱ ourselvesȱ inȱ twoȱ ancientȱ texts,ȱ readȱ themȱ fromȱ coverȱ toȱ cover,ȱ andȱletȱthemȱspeak,ȱsinglyȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱinteraction.ȱRefrainingȱ fromȱ generalisingȱ statementsȱ onȱ theȱ twoȱ religiousȱ systemsȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ twoȱ textsȱ areȱ embedded,ȱ inȱ hisȱ finalȱ chapterȱ heȱ limitsȱhisȱtheologyȱtoȱanȱintimateȱconversationȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱ textsȱthatȱhaveȱjointlyȱcomeȱtoȱlifeȱbeforeȱhim.ȱAtȱtheȱveryȱleastȱ thisȱisȱaȱdisciplinedȱexerciseȱinȱcloseȱreading.ȱ ReligiosityȱasȱanȱAddedȱValue?ȱ Returningȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱofȱmyȱinitialȱquestions,ȱonȱwhatȱmightȱ beȱ theȱ addedȱ valueȱ ofȱ beingȱ religiousȱ forȱ aȱ researcherȱ inȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ religion,ȱ Iȱ amȱ wellȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ romanticȱ andȱ subjecȬ tiveȱcharacterȱofȱVerstehen,ȱasȱproposedȱbyȱDilthey,ȱandȱcarriedȱ onȱ byȱ scholarsȱ suchȱ asȱ Vanȱ derȱ Leeuwȱ andȱ Söderblomȱ (WaarȬ denburgȱ1973:ȱ53ff.).ȱThoseȱhistoriansȱofȱreligionȱwhoȱwantedȱtoȱ applyȱ thisȱ “understanding”ȱ inȱ theirȱ fieldȱ feltȱ thatȱ theȱ rationȬ alisticȱ approachesȱ ofȱ theirȱ timeȱ wereȱ notȱ onlyȱ explainingȱ reliȬ gionȱbutȱwereȱalsoȱexplainingȱitȱaway.ȱTheȱtermȱVerstehenȱwasȱ introducedȱintoȱphilosophyȱandȱtheȱhumanȱsciencesȱinȱorderȱtoȱ contrastȱ thisȱ typeȱ ofȱ knowingȱ withȱ theȱ externalȱ objectifyingȱ thirdȬpersonȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ descriptionȱ andȱ explanation.ȱ Doesȱ theȱ strenuousȱ effortȱ ofȱ learningȱ toȱ seeȱ inȱ aȱ newȱ way,ȱ asȱ indiȬ catedȱ byȱ Clooney’sȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ requireȱ aȱ graspingȱ thatȱ includesȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ observableȱ partȱ ofȱ religion?ȱ ReȬ gardingȱ this,ȱ W.C.ȱ Smithȱstatedȱthatȱ “theȱ wholeȱpathȱandȱsubȬ stanceȱofȱreligiousȱlifeȱliesȱinȱitsȱrelationȱtoȱwhatȱcannotȱbeȱobȬ


served.”ȱWiebe,ȱwhoȱisȱknownȱasȱaȱfierceȱopponentȱtoȱthis,ȱreȬ sponds:ȱ “Ifȱ Smithȱ isȱ right,ȱ faithȱ cannotȱ beȱ knownȱ objectivelyȱ andȱitsȱexpressionsȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱproperlyȱunderstoodȱfromȱwithȬ inȱ theȱ faithȱ experience,”ȱ thusȱ concludingȱ that,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Smith,ȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱreligionȱisȱimpossibleȱwithoutȱreliȬ giousȱunderstanding:ȱ“aȱstudyȱofȱreligionȱbasedȱuponȱthatȱdisȬ tinction,ȱtherefore,ȱbecomesȱaȱkindȱofȱreligiousȱexercise”ȱ(Wiebeȱ 2005:ȱ264Ȭ68,ȱesp.ȱ266).ȱ Hereȱweȱseeȱthatȱevenȱwithinȱtheȱcriticalȱorȱacademicȱstudyȱ ofȱ religion,ȱ whichȱ was,ȱ fromȱ theȱ veryȱ beginning,ȱ intentȱ onȱ avoidingȱ suchȱ aȱ metaphysicalȱ condition,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ greatȱ writȬ ers,ȱW.C.ȱSmith,ȱtookȱwhatȱis,ȱinȱeffect,ȱaȱtheologicalȱstance.ȱTheȱ academicȱ studyȱ ofȱ religionȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ idealȱinȱlifeȱbutȱis,ȱrather,ȱanȱattemptȱtoȱreflectȱuponȱthatȱideal.ȱ ConsideringȱClooney’sȱideal,ȱandȱthatȱofȱmanyȱothersȱengagedȱ inȱsomeȱkindȱofȱfairȱinterreligiousȱencounter,ȱIȱcannotȱhelpȱbutȱ seeȱanȱintellectuallyȱandȱtheologicallyȱjustifiedȱpartiality,ȱnotȱsoȱ muchȱ towardsȱ one’sȱ ownȱ religionȱ orȱ evenȱ towardsȱ aȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ otherȱ thanȱ one’sȱ ownȱ –ȱ bothȱ doȱ occur,ȱ andȱ bothȱ areȱ biases,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ hegemonicȱ type,ȱ theȱ otherȱ ofȱ theȱ romanticȱ typeȱ –ȱ butȱ ratherȱ towardsȱ theȱ religiousȱ lifeȱ itself.ȱ Iȱ wonderȱ ifȱ suchȱaȱstanceȱdisqualifiesȱtheȱnonȬreligiousȱunderstandingȱofȱreȬ ligion.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱlearnedȱfromȱassociatingȱwithȱtheologiansȱforȱ moreȱthanȱthirtyȱyears,ȱitȱmayȱwellȱbeȱthatȱourȱuseȱasȱreligiousȱ studiesȱ specialistsȱ isȱ stillȱ consideredȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ ancilla,ȱ aȱ handȬ maidenȱ toȱ theology.ȱ Theȱ finerȱ craftȱ –ȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ embodiedȱ exȬ perienceȱ andȱ aȱ spiritualȱ transformation,ȱ allowedȱ onlyȱ afterȱ theȱ meticulousȱ readingȱ ofȱ texts,ȱ theȱ empiricalȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ aȱ particularȱ objectȱ ofȱ study,ȱ andȱ theȱ conceptualȱ orderingȱ haveȱ beenȱexecutedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱmétierȱofȱtheȱacademicȱstudyȱofȱ religionȱ–ȱstillȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱleftȱonlyȱtoȱinsiders,ȱtoȱtheologians,ȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ “belong.”ȱ Theȱ crowningȱ exercise,ȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ inȬ teriorȱ dialogueȱ andȱ aȱ transformationȱ thatȱ isȱ bothȱ personallyȱ spiritualȱ andȱ theological,ȱ wouldȱ ultimatelyȱ justifyȱ theȱ intellecȬ tualȱ effortsȱ byȱ itsȱ utilityȱ andȱ itsȱ capacityȱ toȱ inspireȱ theȱ particiȬ pantsȱ intoȱ becomingȱ betterȱ peopleȱ withȱ aȱ higherȱ senseȱ ofȱ beȬ longing.ȱȱ Ifȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ case,ȱ thenȱ whatȱ mayȱ lookȱ cautious,ȱ delicate,ȱ andȱpatientȱ inȱ Clooney’sȱ booksȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ suspectedȱ ofȱ havȬ ingȱ anȱ underlyingȱ motive.ȱ Geneticallyȱ speaking,ȱ fromȱ theȱ perȬ


spectiveȱofȱevolutionaryȱbiology,ȱtheȱpersistenceȱofȱreligionȱmayȱ beȱdueȱpartlyȱtoȱitsȱadvantageȱforȱtheȱsurvivalȱofȱtheȱspeciesȱbyȱ individualȱ people’sȱ surrenderȱ toȱ aȱ greaterȱ senseȱ ofȱ self,ȱ beȱ itȱ aȱ nuclearȱfamily,ȱaȱtribe,ȱorȱsociety,ȱhumanity,ȱandȱlifeȱinȱgeneral.ȱ Beliefȱ andȱ belongingȱ areȱ inȱ ourȱ genes,ȱ soȱ toȱ speak.ȱ Butȱ narȬ rowingȱ thisȱ downȱ toȱ theȱ actualȱ lifeȬworld,ȱ theȱ globalȱ mapȱ inȱ whichȱ ESITISȱ conferences,ȱ forȱ allȱ kindsȱ ofȱ reasons,ȱ manageȱ toȱ drawȱmainlyȱWesternȱtheologians,ȱIȱfeelȱpressedȱtoȱvoiceȱsomeȱ ofȱ myȱ caveats,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ fromȱ theȱ ongoingȱ discussionȱ onȱ theȱ acaȬ demicȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ religiousȱ understandingȱ andȱ underȬ standingȱreligionȱbutȱalsoȱaboutȱtheȱsameȱoldȱpitfallsȱtoȱwhichȱ theȱ comparativeȱ enterpriseȱ isȱ prone,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ theology.ȱOneȱshouldȱbewareȱofȱgoingȱinȱcirclesȱandȱbewareȱofȱ anȱ agendaȱ notȱ unlikeȱ theȱ seafaringȱ ofȱ ourȱ colonialȱ forebearsȱ whoȱbroughtȱcargoesȱofȱspicesȱhome.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ denyingȱ thatȱ ourȱ kitchenȱ hasȱ gainedȱ muchȱ fromȱthoseȱforaysȱintoȱforeignȱlands.ȱButȱwasȱitȱfairȱtrade?ȱLikeȬ wise,ȱisȱitȱfairȱtradeȱwhenȱWesternȱtheologiansȱexecuteȱaȱfaithȬ basedȱ exerciseȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ howeverȱ spirituallyȱ uplifting?ȱ Literatureȱ Clooney,ȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ SJ.ȱ (2010).ȱ Comparativeȱ Theology:ȱ Deepȱ Learningȱ acrossȱ Religiousȱ Borders.ȱ Malden/Oxford/Chicester:ȱ WileyȬBlackȬ well.ȱ (2008).ȱBeyondȱCompare:ȱSt.ȱFrancisȱdeȱSalesȱandȱSriȱVedantaȱDesikaȱ onȱ Lovingȱ Surrenderȱ toȱ God.ȱ Washington,ȱ DC:ȱ Georgetownȱ UniȬ versityȱPress.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Comparativeȱ Theology.”ȱ In:ȱ Oxfordȱ Handbookȱ toȱ SystemȬ aticȱTheology.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ653Ȭ69.ȱȱ (2002).ȱ “Godȱ forȱ Us:ȱ Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belongingȱ asȱ Spiritualȱ Practiceȱ andȱ Divineȱ Response.”ȱ In:ȱ Catherineȱ Cornilleȱ (ed.).ȱ Manyȱ Mansions?ȱ MultipleȱReligiousȱ Belongingȱ andȱ ChristianȱIdentiȬ ty.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱPp.ȱ44Ȭ60.ȱ (1997).ȱ “Professorȱ Halbfassȱ andȱ theȱ Opennessȱ ofȱ theȱ ComparaȬ tiveȱProject.”ȱIn:ȱEliȱFrancoȱandȱKarinȱPreisendanzȱ(eds.).ȱBeyondȱ Orientalism:ȱTheȱWorkȱofȱWilhelmȱHalbfassȱandȱitsȱImpactȱonȱIndianȱ andȱ CrossȬCulturalȱ Studies.ȱ Poznanȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Philosophyȱ ofȱ Sciencesȱ andȱ Humanitiesȱ 59.ȱ Amsterdam/Atlanta:ȱ Editionsȱ RoȬ dopi.ȱPp.ȱ29Ȭ47.ȱ

160ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ (1996).ȱSeeingȱThroughȱTexts:ȱDoingȱTheologyȱamongȱtheȱSrivaisnavasȱ ofȱSouthȱIndia.ȱAlbany,ȱNY:ȱSUNYȱPress.ȱ (1993).ȱTheologyȱafterȱVedanta:ȱAnȱExerciseȱinȱComparativeȱTheology.ȱ Albany,ȱNY:ȱSUNYȱPress.ȱ Davie,ȱ G.ȱ (1994).ȱ Religionȱ inȱ Britainȱ sinceȱ 1945:ȱ Believingȱ Withoutȱ BeȬ longing.ȱOxford/Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Kepnes,ȱS.D.ȱ(1986).ȱ“BridgingȱtheȱGapȱBetweenȱExplanationȱandȱUnȬ derstandingȱApproachesȱinȱtheȱStudyȱofȱReligion.”ȱJournalȱforȱtheȱ ScientificȱStudyȱofȱReligionȱ25:ȱ504Ȭ12.ȱ Nicholson,ȱH.ȱ(2009).ȱ“TheȱReunificationȱofȱTheologyȱandȱComparisonȱ inȱtheȱNewȱComparativeȱTheology.”ȱJournalȱofȱtheȱAmericanȱAcaȬ demyȱofȱReligionȱ77:ȱ609Ȭ46.ȱ Waardenburg,ȱ J.J.ȱ (1978).ȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Religion,ȱ Includingȱ anȱEssayȱonȱtheȱWorkȱofȱGerardusȱvanȱderȱLeeuw.ȱTheȱHague/CamȬ bridge:ȱMouton/UniversityȱofȱCambridgeȱPress.ȱ (1973).ȱClassicalȱApproachesȱtoȱtheȱStudyȱofȱReligion:ȱAims,ȱMethodsȱ andȱ Theoriesȱ ofȱ Research.ȱ Introductionȱ andȱ Anthology.ȱ Theȱ Hague:ȱ Mouton.ȱ Wiebe,ȱ D.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Doesȱ Understandingȱ Religionȱ Requireȱ Religiousȱ Understanding?”ȱ In:ȱ R.T.ȱ McCutcheonȱ (ed.).ȱ Theȱ Insider/Outsiderȱ Problemȱ inȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Religion:ȱ Aȱ Reader.ȱ London/Newȱ York:ȱ Continuum.ȱPp.ȱ260Ȭ73.

ComparativeȱTheologyȱȱ inȱSearchȱofȱaȱHermeneuticalȱFrameworkȱ ȱ ȱ MarianneȱMoyaertȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ

Comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ presentedȱ asȱ aȱ genuinelyȱ adequateȱ wayȱtoȱunderstandȱandȱappreciateȱtheȱothernessȱofȱtheȱreligiousȱ otherȱ withoutȱ losingȱ sightȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ identity.ȱ Theȱ propoȬ nentsȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ regardȱ itȱ asȱ theȱ futureȱ ofȱ theoȬ logy:ȱ “Anyȱ theologyȱ inȱ anyȱ traditionȱ thatȱ takesȱ religiousȱ plurȬ alismȱseriouslyȱmustȱeventuallyȱbecomeȱcomparativeȱtheology”ȱ (Tracyȱ1987:ȱ454).ȱStill,ȱupȱuntilȱtodayȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱreȬ mainsȱaȱmarginalȱandȱnotȱwidelyȱunderstoodȱdisciplineȱwithinȱ theologicalȱstudiesȱ(Nicholsonȱ2005:ȱ191).ȱEvenȱmoreȱstrongly,ȱitȱ isȱ beingȱ criticizedȱ asȱ beingȱ “aȱ deeplyȱ ambiguousȱ discipline”ȱ (Nicholsonȱ 2007:ȱ 229),ȱ lackingȱ aȱ clearȱ scientificȱ framework.ȱ Itsȱ hermeneuticalȱ presuppositionsȱ especiallyȱ remainȱ underdevelȬ oped.ȱ ThisȱcontributionȱaimsȱtoȱovercomeȱthisȱcritiqueȱbyȱsketchȬ ingȱ theȱ originalȱ researchȱ profileȱ ofȱ theȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ projectȱmoreȱclearly.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱpart,ȱIȱwillȱsituateȱcomparativeȱ theologyȱ withinȱ theȱ broaderȱ theologicalȱ landscape,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱIȱwillȱdevelopȱaȱhermeneuticalȱframeworkȱforȱcomparaȬ tiveȱ theology.ȱ Toȱ thatȱ end,ȱ Iȱ willȱ brieflyȱ exploreȱ itsȱ mainȱ herȬ meneuticalȱ presuppositions.ȱ Next,ȱ Iȱ willȱ furtherȱ elaborateȱ onȱ theseȱpresuppositionsȱbyȱplacingȱthemȱwithinȱPaulȱRicoeur’sȱinȬ terpretationȱ theory.ȱ Iȱ willȱ pointȱ outȱ possibleȱ interconnectionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ projectȱ andȱ Ricoeur’sȱ herȬ meneuticalȱphilosophy.ȱInȱdoingȱso,ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthatȱRicoeur’sȱ textȱ hermeneuticsȱ canȱ functionȱ asȱ theȱ methodologicalȱ frameȬ workȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱneeds.ȱ SituatingȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ withinȱtheȱBroaderȱTheologicalȱLandscapeȱ Theȱoriginalityȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱshowsȱitselfȱinȱdialogueȱ andȱinȱconfrontationȱwithȱalreadyȱexistingȱpositions.ȱInȱtheȱfolȬ lowing,ȱIȱwillȱfirstȱlookȱatȱtheȱclassicalȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱandȱ


explainȱinȱwhatȱsenseȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱpresentsȱitselfȱasȱanȱ alternativeȱ toȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ soteriologicalȱ approachȱ toȱ religiousȱ diversity.ȱNext,ȱIȱwillȱexploreȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱcomparativeȱ theologyȱandȱpostliberalȱtheology.ȱItȱhasȱbeenȱarguedȱthatȱcomȬ parativeȱtheologyȱisȱfoundedȱonȱtheȱgroundworkȱofȱpostliberalȬ ismȱ (Knitterȱ 2002:ȱ 177).ȱ Iȱ disputeȱ thisȱ point,ȱ arguingȱ thatȱ comȬ parativeȱ theologyȱ displaysȱ itsȱ newnessȱ preciselyȱ whereȱ itȱ deȬ partsȱfromȱpostliberalism.ȱBothȱtheologicalȱprojectsȱhaveȱaȱveryȱ differentȱappreciationȱofȱreligiousȱdiversity.ȱWhereasȱpostliberȬ alismȱembracesȱanȱintratextualȱhermeneutics,ȱcomparativeȱtheoȬ logyȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱinȱtermsȱofȱintertextuality.ȱ ComparativeȱTheologyȱandȱitsȱRelationȱtoȱtheȱTheologyȱofȱReligionsȱ Christiansȱareȱbeingȱchallengedȱtodayȱtoȱreflectȱonȱtheȱquestionȱ ofȱhowȱtheirȱfaithȱcommitmentȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱcontemporaryȱsituȬ ationȱ ofȱ religiousȱ diversity.ȱ Theologiansȱ respondȱ toȱ thisȱ chalȬ lengeȱbyȱconsideringȱtheȱtheologicalȱmeaningȱofȱreligiousȱdiverȬ sity.ȱ Theȱ wholeȱ ofȱ Christianȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ turnsȱ onȱ soȬ teriologicalȱ questionsȱ (Merriganȱ 1999:ȱ 339).ȱ Whatȱ isȱ theȱ natureȱ andȱ functionȱ ofȱ nonȬChristianȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ Christianȱfaithȱinȱtheȱsalvificȱcharacterȱofȱtheȱlife,ȱdeath,ȱandȱreȬ surrectionȱofȱJesusȱChrist?ȱAreȱallȱreligionsȱvalidȱinȱGod’sȱeyesȱ–ȱ allȱ equallyȱ effectiveȱ inȱ puttingȱ peopleȱ inȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ DiȬ vine?ȱDoesȱGodȱregardȱotherȱreligionsȱasȱaȱcurseȱorȱaȱblessing?ȱ InȱresponseȱtoȱtheseȱsoteriologicalȱquestionsȱtheȱthreefoldȱtypolȬ ogyȱ ofȱ exclusivism,ȱ inclusivism,ȱ andȱ pluralismȱ hasȱ emerged.ȱ TheȱexclusivistȱmodelȱproposedȱthatȱonlyȱChristiansȱcanȱattainȱ salvation.ȱ Inclusivismȱ acknowledgesȱ that,ȱ althoughȱ itȱ isȱ possiȬ bleȱforȱ“nonȬChristians”ȱtoȱbeȱsaved,ȱChristȱisȱalwaysȱinvolvedȱ inȱ thisȱ soteriologicalȱ process.ȱ Theȱ pluralistȱ viewȱ regardsȱ reliȬ giousȱtraditionsȱasȱdifferent,ȱmoreȱorȱlessȱequal,ȱsalvificȱpathsȱtoȱ ultimateȱ reality.ȱ Upȱ untilȱ today,ȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ thisȱ soteriologȬ icalȱ approachȱ areȱ involvedȱ inȱ anȱ ongoingȱ debateȱ onȱ theȱ quesȬ tionȱofȱwhichȱoneȱofȱtheseȱmodelsȱsucceedsȱinȱformulatingȱtheȱ mostȱ appropriateȱ theologicalȱ answerȱ toȱ theȱ challengeȱ ofȱ reliȬ giousȱ plurality.ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ repeatȱ thisȱ debate,ȱ butȱ Iȱ doȱ wantȱ toȱ drawȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ thisȱ discussionȱ definesȱ opennessȱ forȱ theȱ religiousȱ otherȱ orȱ theȱ lackȱ thereofȱ inȱ soterioȬ logicalȱ termsȱ (SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 2005:ȱ 161).ȱ Hence,ȱ theȱ depictionȱ

INȱSEARCHȱOFȱAȱHERMENEUTICALȱFRAMEWORKȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ163ȱ

ofȱexclusivismȱasȱ“closed,”ȱinclusivismȱasȱhalfȱopen,ȱandȱpluralȬ ismȱasȱopen.ȱ Inȱ recentȱ literatureȱ oneȱ canȱ noteȱ anȱ increasingȱ dissatisfacȬ tionȱwithȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligions.ȱTheȱcriticismȱreadsȱthatȱtheȱ soteriologicalȱapproachȱamountsȱtoȱaȱperversionȱofȱtheȱvirtueȱofȱ “openness.”ȱ Theȱ threefoldȱ typologyȱ asksȱ Christianȱ questionsȱ andȱsuggestsȱChristianȱanswers.ȱConsequently,ȱitȱtendsȱtoȱdressȱ theȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱinȱitsȱownȱterms:ȱ eitherȱoneȱbaptizesȱtheȱotherȱreligionsȱandȱclaimsȱthatȱtheyȱ areȱimplicitȱversionsȱofȱone’sȱownȱorȱoneȱdevelopsȱaȱphiloȬ sophicalȱ standpointȱ fromȱ whichȱ oneȱ claimsȱ toȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ evaluateȱallȱtheȱreligions.ȱ(Placherȱ1989:ȱ144)ȱ

Moreȱ oftenȱ thanȱ not,ȱ theseȱ modelsȱ areȱ abstractȱ designs,ȱ developedȱ withoutȱ referenceȱ toȱ anyȱ particularȱ religiousȱ tradeȬ tionȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ Christianȱ (Clooneyȱ 1993:ȱ 194).ȱ Withinȱ theȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ soteriologyȱ whatȱ theȱ religiousȱ otherȱ asserts,ȱ valȬ ues,ȱ practices,ȱ andȱ hopesȱ doesȱ notȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ ofȱ realȱ import,ȱ andȱtheȱvoicesȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱbeingȱdiscussedȱareȱabsentȱfromȱ theȱ conversationȱ (Fredericksȱ 2002:ȱ 15).ȱ Manyȱ theologiansȱ feelȱ thatȱ theȱ soteriologicalȱ threefoldȱ schemeȱ isȱ bothȱ insultingȱ (Placherȱ 1989:ȱ 145)ȱ andȱ patronizingȱ (Barnesȱ 2002:ȱ 15):ȱ theȱ reliȬ giousȱ otherȱ isȱ understoodȱ withoutȱ beingȱ heard.ȱ Theȱ soteriȬ ologicalȱfixationȱisȱcontraryȱtoȱhermeneuticalȱopenness.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ presentsȱ itselfȱ asȱ anȱ alternativeȱ toȱ theȱ classicȱ soteriologicalȱ approach,ȱ avoidingȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ biasesȱofȱtheȱclassicalȱtheologyȱofȱreligions.ȱFirst,ȱitȱmovesȱawayȱ fromȱ aȱ prioriȱ theologicalȱ interpretationȱ schemesȱ thatȱ disregardȱ theȱselfȬunderstandingȱofȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱNext,ȱitȱrejectsȱtheȱ theologicalȱassumptionȱofȱaȱglobal,ȱmetaȬperspectiveȱonȱreligionȱ thatȱ(implicitly)ȱclaimsȱtoȱknowȱotherȱreligionsȱbetterȱthanȱtheirȱ ownȱadherents,ȱ whetherȱasȱtheȱvainȱproductsȱofȱhumanȱpresumption,ȱasȱinȱ Barth’sȱ exclusivism,ȱ asȱ variousȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ anonymousȱ Christianity,ȱasȱinȱRahner’sȱinclusivism,ȱorȱasȱvariousȱformsȱ ofȱ RealityȬcenteredness,ȱ asȱ inȱ Hick’sȱ pluralism.ȱ (Nicholsonȱ 2009:ȱ619)ȱ

Rather,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ claimsȱ thatȱ comprehensionȱ (herȬ meneutics)ȱprecedesȱjudgement.ȱThird,ȱitȱsetsȱoutȱtoȱunderstandȱ


theȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱChristianȱtraditionȱbyȱexploringȱitȱinȱlightȱofȱ theȱteachingsȱofȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ Likeȱcomparativeȱreligion,ȱitȱsharesȱtheȱintentionȱofȱunderȬ standingȱ otherȱ religionsȱ inȱ theȱ mostȱ objectiveȱ andȱ fairȬmindedȱ mannerȱpossible.ȱItȱaimsȱatȱarticulatingȱ“aȱviableȱunderstandingȱ ofȱtheȱ‘other’ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱencounteredȱ‘other’ȱisȱnotȱmanufacȬ turedȱ toȱ theȱ comparativist’sȱ prejudicesȱ andȱ expectations”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 1993:ȱ 7).ȱ Insteadȱ ofȱ “solvingȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ religiousȱ diversity”ȱwithȱaȱtheologicalȱmetaȬnarrative,ȱcomparativeȱtheoȬ logyȱacceptsȱthatȱlearningȱfromȱtheȱotherȱentailsȱdisturbingȱexȬ periencesȱ ofȱ alienation,ȱ disenchantment,ȱ andȱ frictionȱ (Clooneyȱ 2001:ȱ 165).ȱ Theȱ otherȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ doesȱ notȱ fitȱ intoȱ ourȱ preȬ conceptionsȱ andȱ whoȱ challengesȱ usȱ toȱ leaveȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ known.ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱisȱ“notȱtheȱdomainȱofȱgeneralistsȱ butȱ ratherȱ ofȱ thoseȱ willingȱ toȱ engageȱ inȱ detailedȱ study,ȱ tentaȬ tivelyȱ andȱ overȱ time”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2001:ȱ 164).ȱ Thisȱ detailedȱ studyȱ entailsȱprimarilyȱaȱcloseȱreadingȱofȱstrangeȱreligiousȱtexts.ȱ Unlikeȱ comparativeȱ religion,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ reȬ mainsȱ aȱ theologicalȱ project.ȱ Theȱ detailedȱ studyȱ ofȱ otherȱ tradiȬ tionsȱhappensȱbecauseȱofȱaȱcommitmentȱtoȱGod.ȱInȱopeningȱupȱ toȱ theȱ religiousȱ otherȱ inȱ andȱ throughȱ aȱ detailedȱ studyȱ ofȱ hisȱ texts,ȱoneȱachievesȱaȱfullerȱknowledgeȱofȱGodȱ(Clooneyȱ2001:ȱ7).ȱ Clooneyȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ “unfinished”ȱ natureȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱnotȱasȱfactȱbutȱinȱprinciple.ȱTheȱtheologicalȱreflectionsȱ thatȱ followȱ fromȱ detailedȱ comparisonsȱ “canȱ onlyȱ beȱ tentativeȱ andȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱtakenȱasȱprecludingȱwhatȱwillȱbeȱlearnedȱinȱ furtherȱ experiments”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2001:ȱ 164).ȱ Comparativeȱ theoȬ logyȱ isȱ anȱ ongoingȱ andȱ neverȬendingȱ conversationalȱ process:ȱ particularȱ comparisonsȱ yieldȱ particularȱ insights,ȱ insightsȱ thatȱ mightȱ beȱ revisedȱ inȱ theȱ futureȱ underȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ otherȱ particularȱ comparisons.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ reȬ mainsȱ“preȬsystematicȱandȱpreȬdogmatic.”ȱItȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱ ambitionȱ ofȱ leadingȱ upȱ toȱ aȱ “definiteȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2008:ȱ 176).ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ lookingȱ forȱ clearȬcutȱ anȬ swersȱ toȱ clearȬcutȱ questionsȱ areȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ disappointed,ȱ forȱ manyȱ questionsȱ willȱ beȱ leftȱ openȱ afterȱ inȬdepthȱ studyȱ untilȱ “moreȱcommentarialȱworkȱhasȱbeenȱdone,ȱbyȱmoreȱtheologians,ȱ overȱ aȱ muchȱ longerȱ periodȱ ofȱ time”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2008:ȱ 184).ȱ Theȱ onlyȱacceptableȱ“theologyȱofȱreligions”ȱwillȱbeȱaȱposteriori,ȱconȬ structedȱfromȱtheȱgroundȱup.ȱ


ComparativeȱTheologyȱ andȱitsȱSoȬcalledȱIndebtednessȱtoȱPostliberalismȱ Inȱ hisȱ bookȱ Introducingȱ Theologiesȱ ofȱ Religions,ȱ Paulȱ Knitterȱ situatesȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ underȱ theȱ umbrellaȱ ofȱ whatȱ heȱ callsȱ“theȱacceptanceȱmodel.”ȱThisȱmodelȱ“grewȱupȱduringȱtheȱ lastȱtwoȱdecadesȱofȱtheȱtwentiethȱcenturyȱbothȱasȱaȱ‘childȱofȱitsȱ times’ȱandȱasȱaȱreactionȱtoȱtheȱinadequaciesȱofȱotherȱmodelsȱforȱ aȱChristianȱtheologyȱofȱreligions”ȱ(Knitterȱ2002:ȱ173).ȱInȱsketchȬ ingȱtheȱprofileȱofȱtheȱacceptanceȱmodel,ȱKnitterȱclaimsȱthatȱitȱreȬ liesȱ onȱ “theȱ groundȬbreakingȱ andȱ foundationȬlayingȱ workȱ ofȱ Georgeȱ Lindbeck,ȱ whoȱ hasȱ launchedȱ thisȱ modelȱ andȱ soonȱ atȬ tractedȱ aȱ wideȱ followingȱ ofȱ otherȱ theologiansȱ andȱ ordinaryȱ Christianȱbelievers”ȱ(Knitterȱ2002:ȱ177).ȱKnitterȱherebyȱsuggestsȱ thatȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱ“thoughȱnotȱdependentȱon”ȱit,ȱisȱinȬ debtedȱtoȱpostliberalismȱandȱitsȱculturalȬlinguisticȱtheoryȱofȱreȬ ligion.ȱ Atȱ theȱ veryȱ least,ȱ itȱ “resonates”ȱ withȱ postliberalism’sȱ groundwork.ȱ Althoughȱ thereȱ areȱ indeedȱ certainȱ resonancesȱ betweenȱ postliberalismȱ andȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ Knitter’sȱ categorizaȬ tionȱstrikesȱmeȱasȱunfortunate.ȱItȱdetractsȱfromȱtheȱfreshnessȱofȱ theȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱproject.ȱPostliberalismȱandȱcomparaȬ tiveȱ theologyȱ shareȱ aȱ deepȱ concernȱ forȱ “religiousȱ particulariȬ ties”;ȱhowever,ȱtheirȱhermeneuticalȱoutlookȱandȱtheologicalȱasȬ sumptionsȱdifferȱfundamentally.ȱItȱisȱworthȱexploringȱtheirȱrelaȬ tionȱfurther,ȱsinceȱthisȱwillȱallowȱusȱtoȱoutlineȱtheȱnoveltyȱofȱtheȱ comparativeȱtheologyȱprojectȱfurther.ȱ Underpinningȱ postliberalismȱ isȱ aȱ theoryȱ thatȱ understandsȱ religionsȱ toȱ beȱ analogousȱ toȱ languagesȱ andȱ cultures.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱ Lindbeck,ȱ whoȱ firstȱ formulatedȱ thisȱ theoryȱ ofȱ religion,ȱ talksȱaboutȱaȱculturalȬlinguisticȱtheoryȱofȱreligion.ȱReligionȱisȱaȱ comprehensiveȱ culturalȱ and/orȱ linguisticȱ frameworkȱ thatȱ enȬ ablesȱ theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ reality,ȱ theȱ formulationȱ ofȱ convictions,ȱ andȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱreligiousȱfeelings.ȱEachȱreligionȱhasȱaȱspeȬ cificȱ vocabulary,ȱ whichȱ isȱ bothȱ discursiveȱ andȱ nonȬdiscursive,ȱ asȱwellȱasȱaȱgrammarȱdeterminingȱhowȱthatȱvocabularyȱcanȱbeȱ meaningfullyȱusedȱ(Lindbeckȱ1984:ȱ33). ȱ Becomingȱreligiousȱisȱaȱ longȱprocessȱofȱinteriorization,ȱinȱwhichȱpeopleȱacquireȱtheȱreliȬ giousȱlanguageȱandȱlearnȱtoȱperformȱtheȱreligiousȱpracticesȱandȱ ritualsȱ inȱ anȱ appropriateȱ way.ȱ Onlyȱ whenȱ peopleȱ speakȱ aȱ reliȬ giousȱlanguageȱandȱacquireȱparticularȱreligiousȱskillsȱdoesȱitȱbeȬ


comeȱpossibleȱforȱthemȱtoȱhaveȱcertainȱexperiences.ȱFromȱthisȱitȱ followsȱthatȱ adherentsȱ ofȱ differentȱ religionsȱ doȱ notȱ diverselyȱ thematizeȱ theȱsameȱexperience,ȱratherȱtheyȱhaveȱdifferentȱexperiences.ȱ Buddhistȱcompassion,ȱChristianȱloveȱandȱ…ȱFrenchȱrevoluȬ tionaryȱ fraternitéȱ areȱ notȱ diverseȱ modificationsȱ ofȱ aȱ singleȱ humanȱ awareness,ȱ emotion,ȱ attitude,ȱ orȱ sentiment,ȱ butȱ areȱ radicallyȱ (i.e.,ȱ fromȱ theȱ root)ȱ distinctȱ waysȱ ofȱ experiencingȱ andȱ beingȱ orientedȱ towardȱ self,ȱ neighbor,ȱ andȱ cosmos.ȱ (Lindbeckȱ1984:ȱ40)ȱ

Evenȱifȱreligionsȱemployȱtheȱsameȱcategories,ȱsuchȱasȱGod,ȱ love,ȱ peace,ȱ orȱ justice,ȱ theseȱ wordsȱ meanȱ somethingȱ different,ȱ preciselyȱbecauseȱtheyȱderiveȱtheirȱmeaningȱfromȱtheȱparticularȱ religionȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ function.ȱ Ifȱ thereȱ areȱ similaritiesȱ andȱ commonalitiesȱ betweenȱ theȱ religions,ȱ thenȱ theseȱ areȱ merelyȱ superficialȱ (Lindbeckȱ 1997:ȱ 433).ȱ Religionsȱ areȱ incommensuraȬ ble.ȱ Lindbeckȱ alsoȱ concludesȱ thatȱ religionsȱ areȱ incomparable,ȱ forȱ “thereȱ existsȱ noȱ commonȱ frameworkȱ withinȱ whichȱ toȱ comȬ pareȱthem”ȱ(Lindbeckȱ1984:ȱ49).ȱ Theȱ culturalȬlinguisticȱ modelȱ focusesȱ onȱ theȱ interplayȱ beȬ tweenȱdoctrinalȱgrammarȱandȱaȱspecificȱvocabularyȱfromȱwhichȱ aȱparticularȱfaithȱcommunityȱdrawsȱitsȱidentity.ȱToȱunderstandȱ aȱ religion,ȱ oneȱ needsȱ toȱ understandȱ thisȱ interplay.ȱ Meaningȱ isȱ immanent,ȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱwayȱaȱspecificȱlanguageȱisȱusedȱinȱ aȱparticularȱtradition.ȱToȱdetermineȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ“God”ȱimȬ pliesȱ investigatingȱ theȱ wayȱ itȱ functionsȱ withinȱ theȱ Christianȱ religionȱandȱhowȱitȱshapesȱChristianȱrealityȱandȱexperience.ȱOnȬ lyȱ byȱ aȱ detailedȱ familiarityȱ withȱ theȱ imaginativeȱ universeȱ inȱ whichȱ actsȱ areȱ signsȱ canȱ oneȱ comprehendȱ andȱ describeȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theseȱ actsȱ forȱ theȱ adherentsȱ ofȱ aȱ religionȱ (Geertzȱ 1975:ȱ1Ȭ30).ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ culturalȬlinguisticȱ model,ȱ Lindbeckȱ deȬ velopsȱ anȱ intratextualȱ theology.ȱ Intratextualityȱ meansȱ thatȱ oneȱ setsȱoutȱtoȱexplainȱandȱanayzeȱtheȱ“worldȱoutside”ȱtheȱtextȱbyȱ wayȱofȱintratextualȱcategories.ȱLindbeckȱspeaksȱinȱthisȱperspecȬ tiveȱofȱtheȱmetaphorȱofȱabsorption:ȱ Itȱisȱtheȱtextȱsoȱtoȱspeak,ȱwhichȱabsorbsȱtheȱworld,ȱratherȱthanȱ theȱworldȱtheȱtext.ȱAȱscripturalȱworldȱ...ȱisȱableȱtoȱabsorbȱtheȱ universe.ȱ Itȱ suppliesȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ frameworkȱ withinȱ

INȱSEARCHȱOFȱAȱHERMENEUTICALȱFRAMEWORKȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ167ȱ whichȱ believersȱ seekȱ toȱ liveȱ theirȱ livesȱ andȱ understandȱ reality.ȱ(Lindbeckȱ1984:ȱ118)ȱ

Forȱ Christians,ȱ thisȱ meansȱ thatȱ theyȱ willȱ notȱ readȱ theȱ Bibleȱ inȱ lightȱofȱcontemporaryȱchallenges,ȱquestions,ȱorȱexperiencesȱbutȱ willȱ readȱ contemporaryȱ challenges,ȱ questions,ȱ andȱ experiencesȱ inȱlightȱofȱtheȱBible.ȱIntratextualȱtheologyȱaffirmsȱ first,ȱ thatȱ everyȱ humanlyȱ conceivableȱ realityȱ canȱ beȱ transȬ latedȱ (orȱ redescribed)ȱ inȱ theȱ biblicalȱ universeȱ ofȱ discourseȱ withȱ aȱ gainȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ lossȱ ofȱ truthȱ orȱ significance,ȱ whereas,ȱsecond,ȱnothingȱcanȱbeȱtranslatedȱoutȱofȱthisȱidiomȱ intoȱ someȱ supposedlyȱ independentȱ communicativeȱ systemȱ withoutȱperversion,ȱdiminutionȱorȱincoherenceȱofȱmeaning.ȱ (Lindbeckȱ1997:ȱ429)ȱ

TheȱtheologianȱisȱmostlyȱconcernedȱwithȱintrasystematicȱcoherȬ enceȱratherȱthanȱwithȱconnectingȱtoȱtruthȱclaimsȱorȱexperiencesȱ beyondȱtheȱdefinedȱbordersȱofȱhisȱculturalȬlinguisticȱcommuniȬ tyȱ(Hollandȱ2006:ȱ75).ȱ Toȱaȱcertainȱextent,ȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱcouldȱagreeȱwithȱ theȱ centralȱ culturalȬlinguisticȱ thesisȱ thatȱ “meaningȱ isȱ immanȬ ent.”ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱtoo,ȱsearchesȱforȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱreȬ ligiousȱ beliefsȱ byȱ turningȱ toȱ theirȱ concreteȱ embeddingȱ (Stoschȱ 2007:ȱ 510).ȱ Onlyȱ byȱ becomingȱ deeplyȱ andȱ holisticallyȱ engagedȱ inȱaȱtradition,ȱdoesȱitȱbecomeȱpossibleȱtoȱunderstandȱandȱevaluȬ ateȱaȱreligiousȱ textȱ ofȱanotherȱ tradition.ȱ Learningȱ theȱlanguageȱ ofȱ anotherȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ isȱ prerequisiteȱ toȱ understandingȱ strangeȱ religiousȱ texts.ȱ Clooneyȱ alsoȱ advocatesȱ readingȱ reliȬ giousȱ textsȱ alongȱ withȱ theirȱ formalȱ traditionalȱ commentaries,ȱ theirȱrelatedȱscripturesȱandȱinȱlightȱofȱnormativeȱreligiousȱpracȬ tice.ȱ(Clooneyȱ1990:ȱ30).ȱ AccordingȱtoȱClooney,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱreligionsȱisȱ farȱ messierȱ thanȱ Lindbeck’sȱ culturalȬlinguisticȱ modelȱ acknowlȬ edges.ȱLindbeckȱtendsȱtoȱabsolutizeȱtheȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱtheȱ religions.ȱHeȱseesȱreligionsȱasȱindependent,ȱselfȬinterpretingȱinȬ commensurableȱsemioticȱsystemsȱandȱpaysȱpracticallyȱnoȱattenȬ tionȱ toȱ theȱ overlapsȱ andȱ commonalitiesȱ betweenȱ theȱ differentȱ religiousȱlanguagesȱ(Slaterȱ1995:ȱ69;ȱRuparellȱ1995:ȱ62).ȱTheȱoutȬ comeȱ ofȱ theȱ culturalȬlinguisticȱ theoryȱ isȱ aȱ reifiedȱ viewȱ ofȱ reliȬ gion,ȱ leadingȱ toȱ theȱ undervaluationȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ theology.ȱ Overȱ againstȱ aȱ reifiedȱ notionȱ ofȱ religion,ȱ Clooneyȱ emphasizesȱ


thatȱ one’sȱ religionȱ changesȱ inȱ responseȱ toȱ theȱ encounterȱ withȱ otherȱreligions.ȱ Veryȱlittleȱofȱimportanceȱinȱcontentȱ…ȱbelongsȱsolelyȱtoȱanyȱ oneȱ theologicalȱ traditionȱ orȱ evenȱ oneȱ religion,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ suchȱ conceptsȱ andȱ themes,ȱ asȱ oneȱ conceivesȱ themȱ inȱ actualȱ cirȬ cumstances,ȱ remainȱ deeplyȱ rootedȱ inȱ theȱ particularitiesȱ ofȱ specificȱtraditions.ȱ(Clooneyȱ2001:ȱ8)ȱ

Theȱhistoryȱofȱreligionsȱisȱaȱhistoryȱofȱencounter,ȱinteraction,ȱinȬ terrelation,ȱsynthesisȱandȱconflict,ȱadaptationȱandȱrejection,ȱexȬ clusionȱandȱinclusion.ȱ Whereasȱ postliberalismȱ claimsȱ thatȱ religionsȱ doȱ noȱ moreȱ thanȱ simplyȱ talkȱ pastȱ oneȱ another,ȱ Clooneyȱ isȱ convincedȱ thatȱ reasonȱ canȱ provideȱ aȱ frameworkȱ forȱ dialogueȱ amongȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ(Schmalzȱ2003:ȱ135).ȱ Theȱcommonȱfeaturesȱofȱhumanȱreasoningȱmakeȱitȱpossibleȱ forȱ believersȱ inȱ manyȱ differentȱ traditionsȱ atȱ leastȱ toȱ underȬ standȱ oneȱ anotherȱ andȱ possiblyȱ toȱ agreeȱ onȱ topicsȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ God,ȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ Godȱ mightȱ becomeȱ embodied,ȱ andȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ Godȱ speaksȱ toȱ humansȱ inȱ particularȱ words.…ȱ Ifȱ faithȱ isȱ articulatedȱ inȱ reasonableȱ termsȱ andȱ defendedȱ reasonably,ȱ thenȱ thatȱ reasoningȱ proȬ videsȱaȱsharedȱtheologicalȱground,ȱandȱintelligentȱdisagreeȬ mentsȱbecomeȱpossibleȱinȱanȱinterreligiousȱcontext.ȱ(CloonȬ eyȱ2001:ȱ8Ȭ9)ȱ

Theologyȱ itselfȱ isȱ aȱ humanȱ andȱ religiousȱ activityȱ commonȱ toȱ manyȱtraditions.ȱ Theȱwaysȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱandȱpostliberalismȱpartȱ onȱtheȱprincipleȱofȱintratextuality,ȱwhichȱseemsȱtoȱimplyȱaȱsecȬ tarianȱtendencyȱatȱoddsȱwithȱtheȱdialogicalȱattitudeȱofȱcomparaȬ tiveȱtheology.ȱThisȱsectarianȱtendencyȱrevealsȱitselfȱinȱtheȱmetaȬ phorȱofȱabsorptionȱespecially,ȱwhichȱLindbeckȱusesȱtoȱillustrateȱ whatȱheȱmeansȱbyȱintratextuality.ȱ [Thisȱ metaphor]ȱ worryinglyȱ suggestsȱ aȱ ratherȱ unilateralȱ processȱ wherebyȱ theȱ worldȱ hasȱ nothingȱ toȱ offerȱ toȱ theȱ Churchȱandȱdoesȱnotȱinȱanyȱwayȱdisruptȱandȱchallengeȱtheȱ narrativeȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Church,ȱ itsȱ readingȱ andȱ practiceȱ ofȱscripture.ȱ(D’Costaȱ2005:ȱ142).ȱ


Theȱ principleȱ ofȱ intratextualityȱ negatesȱ theȱ potentialȱ creativeȱ powerȱ andȱ theologicalȱ meaningȱ ofȱ “extratextualȱ experiencesȱ andȱinsights.”ȱClooneyȱacceptsȱLindbeck’sȱpositionȱthatȱ Christiansȱmustȱalwaysȱ“read”ȱtheȱworldȱinȱChrist,ȱfindingȱ itsȱmeaningȱinȱhisȱdeathȱandȱresurrection,ȱandȱmustȱinȱsomeȱ wayȱ ventureȱ theȱ claimȱ thatȱ thisȱ meaningȱ pertainsȱ toȱ everyȱ humanȱ beingȱ asȱ theȱ single,ȱ allȬembracingȱ horizonȱ forȱ huȬ manȱexperience.ȱ(Clooneyȱ1990:ȱ38)ȱ

However,ȱ heȱ alsoȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ theȱ comparativeȱ theologianȱ takesȱonȱaȱvulnerableȱandȱopenȱposture:ȱstrangeȱreligiousȱtextsȱ challengeȱandȱ influenceȱ Christianȱtexts.ȱAccordingȱ toȱ Clooney,ȱ “theȱ ‘nonȬChristian’ȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ problemȱ toȱ beȱ solvedȱ [intratextȬ ually],ȱ butȱ ratherȱ aȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ givenȱ toȱ us”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 1990:ȱ 38).ȱ Clearly,ȱ Clooneyȱ doesȱ notȱ associateȱ comȬ parisonȱandȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱlossȱofȱmeaningȱ–ȱ althoughȱheȱdoesȱrecognizeȱthisȱpossibilityȱ–ȱheȱemphasizesȱraȬ therȱtheȱcreativeȱtheologicalȱpotentialityȱofȱencounteringȱtheȱreȬ ligiousȱother.ȱHeȱbelievesȱstronglyȱinȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱcrossȬferȬ tilizationȱ andȱ transformationȱ throughȱ theologicalȱ comparisonȱ andȱ expressesȱ theȱ hopeȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ willȱ widenȱ ourȱtheologicalȱhorizonsȱandȱourȱspiritualȱoutlookȱ(Stoschȱ2008:ȱ 512).ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ entailsȱ aȱ rereadingȱ ofȱ oneȱ theoȬ logicalȱtraditionȱinȱlightȱofȱanother.ȱThisȱrereadingȱconstitutesȱaȱ newȱ creativeȱ contextȱ outȱ ofȱ whichȱ creativeȱ theologicalȱ insightsȱ canȱemerge.ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱisȱthusȱpicturedȱasȱaȱcreativeȱ experimentalȱtheologicalȱprocessȱinȱwhichȱtheȱdialogueȱpartnersȱ areȱmutuallyȱenriched.ȱLindbeck’sȱdichotomyȱbetweenȱtheȱtextȱ (Bible)ȱ andȱ theȱ worldȱ isȱ overstated.ȱ Intratextualityȱ andȱ exȬ tratextualityȱ areȱ notȱ simplyȱ opposedȱ toȱ oneȱ anotherȱ butȱ creaȬ tivelyȱandȱconstructivelyȱimplyȱoneȱanotherȱ(Gohȱ2000:ȱ237).ȱInȱ viewȱofȱthis,ȱIȱwouldȱwantȱtoȱargueȱthatȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱ isȱactuallyȱaȱformȱofȱintertextualȱtheology.ȱ TowardsȱaȱHermeneuticalȱFrameworkȱforȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ aȱ hermeneuticalȱ enterpriseȱ aimedȱ atȱ understandingȱ theȱ othernessȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ other.ȱ However,ȱ fundamentalȱideasȱsuchȱasȱ“aȱcreativeȱintertext,”ȱtheȱtransformȬ ativeȱpowerȱofȱtext,ȱalienationȱandȱunsettlement,ȱdefamiliarizaȬ tion,ȱ imaginationȱ andȱ reconstructionȱ (Lambelinȱ 2008:ȱ 67)ȱ areȱ


notȱreflectedȱuponȱwithinȱaȱmethodologicalȱframework.ȱCloonȬ eyȱactuallyȱadmitsȱthatȱheȱisȱnotȱthatȱinterestedȱinȱtheories.ȱHeȱ evenȱ seemsȱ toȱ reconcileȱ himselfȱ withȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ whatȱ heȱandȱothersȱareȱdeȱfactoȱdoingȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱtheoretically:ȱ manyȱpeopleȱthemselvesȱareȱalreadyȱengagedȱinȱcloserȱmoreȱ intenselyȱ configuredȱ exchangesȱ toȱ whichȱ settledȱ meaningȱ cannotȱ beȱ easilyȱ assignedȱ orȱ denied.ȱ Properlyȱ orȱ notȱ suchȱ peopleȱ haveȱ crossedȱ religiousȱ boundariesȱ soȱ asȱ toȱ formȱ afȬ fectiveȱ attachmentsȱ thatȱ areȱ intelligent,ȱ liableȱ toȱ affirmationȱ andȱ provocativeȱ ofȱ changesȱ inȱ theirȱ wayȱ ofȱ living.ȱ Thisȱ afȬ fectiveȱconnectionȱrootedȱinȱpracticeȱisȱenormouslyȱimportantȱ andȱconvincing,ȱevenȱifȱinȱtheoryȱtheȱcomparativeȱprocessȱisȱ flawed,ȱ theȱ learningȱ incomplete,ȱ andȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ilȬ logicalȱandȱunwarranted.ȱ(Clooneyȱ2005:ȱ367Ȭ68)ȱ

Comparativeȱ theologyȱ attemptsȱ toȱ shunȱ frameworksȱ andȱ constructsȱ ofȱ interestȱ ofȱ genuineȱ dialogueȱ (Hansonȱ 2006:ȱ 8Ȭ9).ȱ Theoriesȱ areȱ treatedȱ withȱ suspicion.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologiansȱ doȱ notȱ standȱ aloneȱ withȱ theirȱ suspicion.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ postmodernȱ turn,ȱrelianceȱonȱfoundationalismȱhasȱbeenȱrefuted.ȱTheȱideaȱisȱ thatȱ “weȱ shouldȱ notȱ stressȱ navigationȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ theȱ journeyȱ itself”ȱ (Stiverȱ 2003:ȱ 170).ȱ Clooneyȱ isȱ afraidȱ thatȱ lingeringȱ tooȱ longȱ inȱ theoreticalȱ discussionsȱ willȱ detractȱ fromȱ realȱ interreliȬ giousȱtheology.ȱConsequently,ȱtheȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱprojectȱ lacksȱ aȱ clearlyȱ developedȱ hermeneuticalȱ frameworkȱ inȱ whichȱ Clooneyȱ laysȱ outȱ itsȱ methodologicalȱ principles.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ atȱ theȱ mostȱ findȱ hermeneuticalȱ fingerprintsȱ ofȱ variousȱ authors,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Foucault,ȱ Iser,ȱ Tracy,ȱ Gadamer,ȱ etc.ȱ (Hansonȱ 2006:ȱ 3).ȱ This,ȱ however,ȱ givesȱ aȱ somewhatȱ eclecticȱ impression,ȱ whichȱ strengȬ thensȱ theȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ ambiguityȱ levelledȱ atȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logy.ȱ Ifȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ toȱ succeedȱ inȱ overcomingȱ thisȱ critiqueȱaȱmoreȱstronglyȱdevelopedȱhermeneuticalȱframeworkȱisȱ necessary.ȱ“Inȱaȱtimeȱofȱtransitionȱinȱphilosophyȱandȱinȱaȱtimeȱ ofȱ fluxȱ inȱ theology,ȱ beingȱ clearȱ aboutȱ one’sȱ [hermeneutical]ȱ commitmentsȱ andȱ presuppositionsȱ continuesȱ toȱ beȱ desirable”ȱ (Stiverȱ2003:ȱ175).ȱ Toȱ thatȱ end,ȱ Iȱ willȱ elaborateȱ furtherȱ onȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ “herȬ meneuticalȱ presuppositions”ȱ (Hansonȱ 2006:ȱ 3)ȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ byȱ placingȱ themȱ withinȱ Ricoeur’sȱ textualȱ hermeneutȬ ics.ȱ Thisȱ mayȱ seemȱ somewhatȱ surprisingȱ –ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ Clooneyȱ doesȱ notȱ referȱ toȱ Ricoeur,ȱ andȱ Ricoeurȱ didȱ notȱ applyȱ hisȱ herȬ


meneuticsȱ toȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue.ȱ However,ȱ Iȱ tendȱ toȱ agreeȱ withȱ Jensȱ Matternȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ alwaysȱ possibleȱ that,ȱ evenȱthoughȱanȱauthorȱmayȱtreatȱtheȱchallengeȱofȱreligiousȱandȱ culturalȱdiversityȱonlyȱmarginally,ȱhisȱthinkingȱcanȱneverthelessȱ implicitlyȱcontainȱessentialȱfoundationsȱforȱanȱexplicitȱreflectionȱ (Matternȱ 2008:ȱ 13).ȱ Asȱ Iȱ willȱ show,ȱ Ricoeur’sȱ textualȱ hermenȬ euticsȱ entailsȱ suchȱ “basicȱ foundations.”ȱ Manyȱ affinitiesȱ existȱ betweenȱ theȱ “hermeneuticalȱ presuppositionsȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology”ȱ andȱ Ricoeur’sȱ textualȱ hermeneutics.ȱ Especiallyȱ RiȬ coeur’sȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ “productiveȱ notionȱ ofȱ distanciation”ȱ forȱ textualȱ hermeneuticsȱ isȱ ofȱ theȱ utmostȱ importance.ȱ Thisȱ notionȱ notȱ onlyȱ opensȱ upȱ religiousȱ textsȱ forȱ “interreligiousȱ readings,”ȱitȱalsoȱexplainsȱwhyȱRicoeur,ȱlikeȱClooney,ȱdoesȱnotȱ regardȱstrangeȱencountersȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱpotentialȱlossȱofȱmeanȬ ingȱ butȱ asȱ aȱ catalystȱ toȱ discoverȱ newȱ meaningsȱ thatȱ hadȱ notȱ beenȱpreviouslyȱthoughtȱof.ȱ LetȱmeȱstartȱthisȱprocessȱwithȱaȱquoteȱfromȱClooney:ȱ Religiousȱliteratureȱ…ȱaimsȱforȱtheȱaffectiveȱtransformationȱofȱ theȱ readerȱ whoȱ paysȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ cluesȱ availableȱ inȱ theȱ text.ȱ Readȱ attentively,ȱ theȱ religiousȱ classicȱ producesȱ andȱ rendersȱ legibleȱ aȱ particularȱ instanceȱ –ȱ aȱ situation,ȱ opportunity,ȱ chalȬ lenge,ȱ etc.ȱ –ȱ thatȱ begsȱ forȱ andȱ provokesȱ interpretiveȱ andȱ afȬ fectiveȱ responseȱ thatȱ enableȱ theȱ readerȱ toȱ fitȱ intelligentlyȱ andȱ affectivelyȱ intoȱ theȱ religiousȱ situationȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ presenȬ ted.ȱAgain,ȱallȱofȱthisȱseemsȱtrueȱwhetherȱtheȱreaderȱisȱaȱmemberȱofȱ anȱ intendedȱ religiousȱ audience,ȱ orȱ isȱ ratherȱ anȱ outsiderȱ whoȱ findsȱ herȱorȱhisȱwayȱtoȱthatȱtraditionȱthroughȱtexts.ȱ(Clooneyȱ2005:ȱ307)ȱ

Whatȱ isȱ strikingȱ hereȱ isȱ (1)ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ strangeȱ religiousȱ textsȱ canȱbecomeȱmeaningfulȱforȱtheȱreader,ȱwhetherȱheȱisȱaȱmemberȱ ofȱtheȱintendedȱaudienceȱorȱanȱoutsider;ȱ(2)ȱreligiousȱtextsȱproȬ vokeȱanȱaffectiveȱresponseȱfromȱtheȱreader;ȱ(3)ȱprerequisiteȱforȱ thisȱisȱthatȱtheȱreaderȱfindsȱaȱwayȱtoȱdecodeȱtheȱinternalȱcodesȱ ofȱtheȱstrangeȱtext.ȱ CrossingȱBorders:ȱTheȱSemanticȱAutonomyȱofȱTextsȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ restsȱ onȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ bothȱ possibleȱandȱmeaningfulȱtoȱreadȱstrangeȱreligiousȱtexts.ȱTextualȱ meaningȱcanȱcrossȱculturalȱandȱreligiousȱborders.ȱInterestinglyȱ enough,ȱClooneyȱstatesȱthatȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱentailsȱreadȬ ingȱtextsȱthatȱoneȱisȱnotȱauthorizedȱtoȱread,ȱtherebyȱagainȱhighȬ


lightingȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ oneȱ isȱ andȱ remainsȱ anȱ outsiderȱ (Schmalzȱ 2003:ȱ136).ȱ Comparativeȱ theology’sȱ basicȱ faithȱ inȱ theȱ meaningfulnessȱ ofȱ crossȬreligiousȱreadingȱ givesȱ riseȱtoȱseveralȱquestions:ȱWhatȱ isȱmeaning?ȱWhoȱdeterminesȱtextualȱmeaning?ȱIsȱitȱtheȱauthor,ȱ theȱreader,ȱtheȱtext?ȱWhatȱisȱthereȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱwhenȱreadȬ ingȱaȱstrangeȱtext?ȱWhatȱareȱtheȱprescriptionsȱforȱinterreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ(Christopherȱ2009:ȱ409)?ȱWhoȱdeterminesȱifȱanȱinȬ terpretationȱisȱacceptable:ȱtheȱauthor,ȱtheȱreader,ȱorȱtheȱtextȱitȬ self?ȱ Theseȱ questionsȱ pointȱ atȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ aȱ thoroughlyȱ elaboratedȱtextȱtheory.ȱInȱhisȱwellȬknownȱessayȱWhatȱisȱaȱText?ȱ Ricoeurȱ setȱ outȱ toȱ developȱ theȱ groundworkȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ textȱ theory,ȱansweringȱsomeȱofȱtheȱquestionsȱformulatedȱabove.ȱAlȬ thoughȱRicoeurȱhasȱnotȱreflectedȱonȱhisȱtextȱtheoryȱwithȱrespectȱ toȱ interreligiousȱ encounters,ȱ thisȱ textȱ theoryȱ canȱ groundȱ comȬ parativeȱtheologyȱasȱaȱviableȱproject.ȱ Centralȱ toȱ Ricoeur’sȱ textȱ theoryȱ isȱ whatȱ theȱ Frenchȱ philoȬ sopherȱ callsȱ theȱ “productiveȱ notionȱ ofȱ distanciation”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ 1998b:ȱ 131Ȭ44).ȱ Withinȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ tradition,ȱ distanciaȬ tionȱisȱnaturallyȱseenȱasȱsomethingȱtoȱbeȱovercome,ȱratherȱthanȱ asȱ somethingȱ positive,ȱ letȱ aloneȱ productive.ȱ Theȱ commonȱ asȬ sumptionȱ isȱ thatȱ becauseȱ textsȱ areȱ “distanced”ȱ fromȱ us,ȱ fromȱ ourȱ “context,”ȱ fromȱ ourȱ outlook,ȱ theyȱ areȱ strange,ȱ andȱ thisȱ strangenessȱ shouldȱ beȱ resolvedȱ byȱ removingȱ theȱ distance.ȱ RiȬ coeurȱ nuancesȱ thisȱ commonȱ assumptionȱ byȱ sayingȱ thatȱ “VerȬ fremdungȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ whatȱ understandingȱ mustȱ overcomeȱ butȱ alsoȱ whatȱ conditionsȱ it”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ 1998b:ȱ 140).ȱ Asȱ Iȱ willȱ show,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ doesȱ thisȱ originalȱ lineȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ openȱ upȱ religiousȱ textsȱforȱ“interreligiousȱreadings,”ȱitȱalsoȱexplainsȱwhyȱRicoeur,ȱ likeȱClooney,ȱdoesȱnotȱregardȱstrangeȱencountersȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱ potentialȱlossȱofȱmeaningȱbutȱasȱaȱcatalystȱforȱdiscoveringȱnewȱ meanings.ȱ Ricoeurȱ emphasizesȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ thatȱ distanciationȱ orȱ VerȬ fremdungȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ methodologyȱ andȱ henceȱ someȬ thingȱsuperfluousȱandȱparasitical.ȱRather,ȱitȱconstitutesȱtheȱpheȬ nomenonȱofȱtheȱtextȱasȱaȱwrittenȱwork.ȱThereȱisȱaȱthreefoldȱseȬ manticȱ autonomy:ȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ author’sȱ intention,ȱ inȱ relaȬ tionȱ toȱ theȱ economic,ȱ social,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ circumstancesȱ ofȱ itsȱ production,ȱandȱinȱrelationȱtoȱitsȱreceptionȱbyȱitsȱoriginalȱaudiȬ enceȱ(Ricoeurȱ1998a:ȱ91).ȱ


First,ȱwritingȱrendersȱtheȱtextȱautonomousȱ“withȱrespectȱtoȱ theȱ intentionȱ ofȱ theȱ author”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ 1998a:ȱ 91):ȱ whatȱ theȱ textȱ signifiesȱ noȱ longerȱ coincidesȱ withȱ whatȱ theȱ authorȱ meant.ȱ RicȬ oeurȱisȱreactingȱhereȱtoȱRomanticȱhermeneuticsȱ(Schleiermacher),ȱ whichȱ claimsȱ thatȱ readingȱ aȱ strangeȱ textȱ entailsȱ readingȱ theȱ mindȱofȱtheȱauthor.ȱToȱunderstandȱtheȱtextȱisȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱ intentionȱofȱtheȱauthor.ȱNotȱonlyȱhasȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱeffortȱofȱ tryingȱtoȱreadȱtheȱmindȱofȱtheȱauthorȱprovenȱunsuccessful,ȱitȱalȬ soȱseriouslyȱlimitsȱtheȱcreativeȱpotentialȱofȱtexts.ȱClooneyȱwouldȱ agreeȱwithȱRicoeur.ȱHeȱisȱlikewiseȱconvincedȱthatȱtheȱhermenȬ euticalȱfocusȱonȱtheȱauthorȱ restrictsȱ textsȱ byȱ orderingȱ themȱ toȱ aȱ designatedȱ author,ȱ whoseȱ intentionsȱ determineȱ whatȱ theȱ textsȱ areȱ allowedȱ toȱ mean.ȱ Authorsȱ areȱ usedȱ toȱ confineȱ theȱ encompassing,ȱ unȬ boundedȱ “event”ȱ ofȱ languageȱ withinȱ manageableȱ limits.ȱ (Clooneyȱ1987:ȱ675)ȱ

Clooneyȱ statesȱ thatȱ textualȱ meaningȱ isȱ notȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ authorȱbutȱratherȱbyȱtheȱtextȱitself.ȱTheȱtextȱyieldsȱmeaning.ȱInȱ thisȱsenseȱitȱhasȱcertainȱautonomyȱwithȱregardȱtoȱitsȱoriginalȱauȬ thor.ȱTheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱtextȱactuallyȱtranscendsȱtheȱintentionsȱ ofȱtheȱauthor.ȱTheȱtextȱpossessesȱ“horizonsȱandȱscopesȱofȱsignifȬ icanceȱwiderȱthanȱthoseȱbelongingȱtoȱanyȱgivenȱsetȱofȱauthors”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 1987:ȱ 675).ȱ Thanksȱ toȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ writing,ȱ whatȱ Gadamerȱ callsȱ “theȱ matterȱofȱ theȱ text”ȱ mayȱexplodeȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱtheȱauthorȱ(Ricoeurȱ1998b:ȱ139).ȱ Ricoeurȱ notȱ onlyȱ reflectsȱ onȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ distanciationȱ withȱregardȱtoȱtheȱauthor’sȱoriginalȱintentions.ȱTheȱsemanticȱauȬ tonomyȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ alsoȱ holdsȱ trueȱ forȱ theȱ originalȱ sociologicalȱ culturalȱ andȱ economicȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ theȱ productionȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ (Ricoeurȱ 1998a:ȱ 91).ȱ Thatȱ isȱ whyȱ theȱ textȱ opensȱ itselfȱ toȱ anȱ unȬ limitedȱ seriesȱ ofȱ readings,ȱ themselvesȱ situatedȱ inȱ differentȱ soȬ cioculturalȱ conditions.ȱ Theȱ processȱ ofȱ distanciationȱ alsoȱ reȬ movesȱtheȱaudienceȱaddressedȱfromȱtheȱoriginalȱhistoricalȱandȱ socialȱconditions.ȱTextsȱcanȱcrossȱborders,ȱregardlessȱofȱwhetherȱ theȱlatterȱareȱhistorical,ȱculturalȱorȱreligious.ȱ Andȱlast,ȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱtheȱemancipationȱfromȱauthorialȱinȬ tentionȱhasȱaȱparallelȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱreceiveȱtheȱtext.ȱ Whereasȱinȱaȱdialogicalȱsituation,ȱtheȱvisȬàȬvisȱisȱdeterminedȱbyȱ theȱcontextȱofȱtheȱdiscourse,ȱwithȱregardȱtoȱwrittenȱtextsȱtheȱauȬ dienceȱisȱextendedȱtoȱanyoneȱwhoȱcanȱread.ȱAȱtextȱisȱopenȱtoȱanȱ


indefiniteȱ numberȱ ofȱ readersȱ andȱ thereforeȱ ofȱ interpretation.ȱ Theȱ textȱ “hasȱ aȱ universalȱ rangeȱ ofȱ addressees”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ 1998c:ȱ 210).ȱ Theȱ opportunityȱ forȱ multipleȱ readingsȱ isȱ theȱ dialecticalȱ counterpartȱofȱtheȱsemanticȱautonomyȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱ Ricoeurȱremindsȱusȱthatȱdistanciationȱisȱnotȱsomethingȱweȱ shouldȱregret.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱthanksȱtoȱtheȱprocessȱofȱdistanȬ ciation,ȱtheȱtextȱentersȱtheȱrealmȱofȱinterpretation.ȱTheȱautonoȬ mousȱtextȱisȱnotȱaȱhistoricalȱrelicȱorȱanȱarchaeologicalȱfossil,ȱbutȱ aȱlivingȱentityȱwithȱpotentialȱrelevanceȱforȱcontemporaryȱreadȬ ers.ȱ Thanksȱ toȱ itsȱ semanticȱ autonomy,ȱ aȱ textȱ canȱ beȱ decontextȬ ualizedȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱitȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱrecontextualized.ȱTheȱ mostȱ importantȱ questionȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ whatȱ theȱ textȱ usedȱ toȱ meanȱbutȱwhatȱitȱmeansȱtodayȱ(Ricoeurȱ1995a:ȱ219).ȱ Ricoeur’sȱtextȱtheoryȱchallengesȱtheȱideaȱthatȱ“insiders”ȱareȱ theȱ onlyȱ trueȱ possessorsȱ ofȱ theirȱ traditionȱ andȱ henceȱ theȱ onlyȱ onesȱ authorizedȱ toȱ readȱ andȱ interpretȱ theirȱ religiousȱ texts.ȱ Thanksȱtoȱtheȱthreefoldȱprocessȱofȱdistanciation,ȱaȱstrangeȱreliȬ giousȱtextȱcanȱdiscloseȱitsȱmeaningȱtoȱattentiveȱreaders,ȱevenȱifȱ theyȱdoȱnotȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱ“community”ȱforȱwhichȱtheȱtextȱwasȱ originallyȱ meant.ȱ Inȱ viewȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneutics,ȱ theȱ importanceȱofȱtheȱdistanciationȱofȱtheȱtextȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱunderȬ estimated.ȱItȱisȱactuallyȱpreconditionalȱtoȱanȱinterreligiousȱherȬ meneuticsȱ thatȱ presumesȱ thatȱ “oneȱ canȱ alsoȱ understandȱ thatȱ whatȱ oneȱ isȱ not,ȱ cannotȱ be,ȱ orȱ doesȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ be”ȱ (Matternȱ 2008:ȱ 71).ȱ Theȱ processȱ ofȱ distanciationȱ makesȱ strangeȱ textsȱ acȬ cessibleȱbeyondȱtheȱbordersȱofȱtheirȱcultural,ȱreligious,ȱandȱhisȬ toricalȱ community.ȱ Withȱ hisȱ notionȱ ofȱ distanciation,ȱ Ricoeurȱ countersȱ culturalȱ andȱ religiousȱ ethnocentrismȱ andȱ countersȱ aȱ merelyȱ intratextualȱ hermeneutics.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ comparaȬ tiveȱtheology’sȱthrustȱinȱintertextualityȱisȱvalidated.ȱ TransformationȱthroughȱReadingȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Clooney,ȱ readingȱ strangeȱ religiousȱ textsȱ entailsȱ theȱ disturbingȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ alienation,ȱ disenchantment,ȱ andȱ frictionȱ (Clooneyȱ 2001:ȱ 165).ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ highlightsȱ theȱcreativeȱpowerȱtextsȱhaveȱtoȱchallenge,ȱinterrupt,ȱandȱtransȬ formȱ theȱ reader.ȱ Closeȱ readingȱ andȱ deepȱ learningȱ ofȱ religiousȱ textsȱ hasȱ imaginativeȱ andȱ affectiveȱ implications.ȱ Itȱ offersȱ newȱ opportunitiesȱ ofȱ understandingȱ ourselves.ȱ Asȱ Clooneyȱ putsȱ it,ȱ theȱ realȱ fruitsȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ


“livingȱ interconnectionsȱ evenȱ whileȱ reasonȱ isȱ busyȱ ponderingȱ whetherȱsuchȱaffectiveȱexchangeȱacrossȱreligiousȱboundariesȱisȱ possibleȱ atȱ all”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2005:ȱ 389).ȱ Inȱ theȱ end,ȱ deepȱ learningȱ throughȱcloseȱreadingȱopensȱupȱnewȱpossibilitiesȱofȱbeingȱinȱtheȱ world,ȱ theȱ outcomeȱ ofȱ whichȱ isȱ thatȱ one’sȱ religiousȱ identityȱ isȱ transformed.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ whyȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ fundamenȬ tallyȱ aȱ dynamicȱ process,ȱ whichȱ notȱ onlyȱ presupposesȱ thatȱ theȱ readerȱ isȱ openȱ toȱ newȱ meaningsȱ butȱ alsoȱ thatȱ textsȱ possessȱ transformativeȱpower.ȱ Whenceȱthisȱtransformativeȱpowerȱofȱreligiousȱtexts?ȱHowȱ canȱ weȱ understandȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ redescriptionȱ throughȱ reading?ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱclaimsȱthatȱtextsȱhaveȱtheȱpowȬ erȱ toȱ refigureȱ orȱ transformȱ theȱ reader.ȱ Butȱ howȱ doesȱ thisȱ transformationȱtakeȱplace?ȱWhenceȱtheȱpowerȱofȱreligiousȱtextsȱ toȱ interruptȱ whatȱ isȱ familiarȱ andȱ toȱ guideȱ theȱ readerȱ intoȱ theȱ realmȱofȱtheȱpossible?ȱ Theseȱareȱcrucialȱhermeneuticalȱquestions,ȱwhichȱagainȱareȱ answeredȱ throughȱ reflectingȱ onȱ theȱ particularȱ natureȱ ofȱ texts.ȱ Ricoeurȱ addressesȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ transformativeȱ powerȱ ofȱ textsȱinȱhisȱtextȱtheory.ȱHeȱbelievesȱstronglyȱinȱtheȱpowerȱofȱreȬ ligiousȱ textsȱ toȱ interruptȱ whatȱ isȱ familiarȱ andȱ toȱ guideȱ theȱ readerȱ intoȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ theȱ possible.ȱ Itȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ centralȱ tenetsȱ ofȱ hisȱ hermeneuticalȱ philosophy.ȱ Ricoeurȱ explainsȱ thisȱ transformativeȱpowerȱofȱtextsȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱway.ȱ Aȱtextȱisȱfirstȱofȱallȱaȱlinkȱinȱaȱcommunicativeȱchain.ȱOneȱofȱ life’sȱexperiencesȱisȱbroughtȱtoȱlanguage;ȱitȱbecomesȱdiscourse.ȱ Characteristicȱ ofȱ anyȱ formȱ ofȱ discourseȱ isȱ itsȱ referentialȱ funcȬ tion:ȱ someoneȱ saysȱ somethingȱ toȱ someoneȱ aboutȱ something.ȱ Discourseȱ alwaysȱ relatesȱ toȱ anȱ extraȬlinguisticȱ reality.ȱ Ricoeurȱ distinguishesȱ betweenȱ twoȱ formsȱ ofȱ discourse:ȱ oralȱ discourseȱ andȱwrittenȱdiscourse.ȱ Inȱoralȱdiscourseȱtheȱproblemȱofȱreferenceȱisȱresolvedȱbyȱtheȱ ostensiveȱfunctionȱofȱdiscourse,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱreferenceȱisȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ pointȱ toȱ aȱ realityȱ commonȱ toȱ interlocutors.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ cannotȱ pointȱ toȱ theȱ thingȱ aboutȱ whichȱ weȱspeak,ȱatȱleastȱweȱcanȱsituateȱitȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱuniqueȱ spatiotemporalȱnetworkȱthatȱisȱsharedȱbyȱtheȱinterlocutors.ȱ (Ricoeurȱ1998b:ȱ141)ȱ

Ricoeurȱconnectsȱtheȱostensiveȱfunctionȱofȱdiscourseȱbothȱwithȱ dailyȱ languageȱ andȱ withȱ scientificȱ discourse,ȱ whichȱ isȱ actuallyȱ


inȱlineȱwithȱdaily,ȱdescriptiveȱdiscourse.ȱWhatȱisȱreferredȱtoȱbeȬ longsȱtoȱtheȱrealmȱofȱmanipulableȱobjects.ȱHereȱtruthȱisȱunderȬ stoodȱasȱempiricalȱtruth,ȱasȱsomethingȱthatȱisȱinȱprincipleȱveriȬ fiable.ȱ Inȱwrittenȱdiscourse,ȱtheȱreferentialȱfunctionȱisȱmoreȱcomȬ plexȱ thanȱ inȱ oralȱ discourse.ȱ “Thereȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ aȱ commonȱ situationȱ betweenȱ theȱ writerȱ andȱ theȱ reader.ȱ Andȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱtheȱconcreteȱconditionsȱforȱtheȱactȱofȱpointingȱsomethingȱ outȱnoȱlongerȱexists”ȱ(Ricoeurȱ1995b:ȱ42).ȱThus,ȱtheȱostensiveȱreȬ ferentialȱ functionȱ isȱ suspendedȱ withinȱ writtenȱ discourse.ȱ Aȱ literaryȱ textȱ doesȱ notȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ immediateȱ surroundingȱ conȬ textȱ –ȱ asȱ isȱ theȱ caseȱ inȱ dialogue,ȱ forȱ example.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ speaksȱ aboutȱpossibleȱworldsȱinȱwhichȱtheȱreaderȱcouldȱlive.ȱInȱwrittenȱ discourse,ȱ theȱ possibilityȱ arisesȱ ofȱ referringȱ toȱ aȱ worldȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱgivenȱinȱtheȱrealmȱofȱwhatȱisȱknownȱandȱfamiliar.ȱTheȱsusȬ pensionȱofȱostensiveȱreferentialityȱopensȱtheȱreaderȱtoȱtheȱrealmȱ ofȱwhatȱisȱunknownȱandȱtheȱstranger.ȱThatȱisȱwhyȱRicoeurȱwillȱ neverȱspeakȱaboutȱtheȱhiddenȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱi.e.ȱhiddenȱinȱ theȱmindȱofȱtheȱwriterȱorȱinȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱHeȱprefersȱ theȱideaȱofȱmeaningȱdisclosureȱinȱfrontȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱAȱliteraryȱtextȱ hasȱtheȱcapacityȱofȱunfoldingȱaȱworldȱinȱfrontȱofȱitself.ȱRicoeurȱ callsȱthisȱtheȱpoeticȱpowerȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱ Heȱobjectsȱtoȱtheȱideaȱthatȱreferentialȱdiscourseȱstopsȱatȱtheȱ thresholdȱofȱpoeticȱdiscourseȱorȱthatȱpoeticȱdiscourseȱonlyȱrefersȱ toȱ theȱ deepestȱ andȱ mostȱ personalȱ emotionsȱ ofȱ theȱ author.ȱ AlȬ thoughȱpoeticȱdiscourseȱdoesȱnotȱaddȱtoȱourȱknowledgeȱofȱobȬ jects,ȱtheȱsuspensionȱofȱdescriptiveȱandȱdenotativeȱdiscourseȱisȱ theȱconditionȱofȱpossibilityȱforȱtheȱ liberationȱofȱaȱmoreȱoriginalȱreferentialȱfunction,ȱwhichȱmayȱ beȱcalledȱsecondȬorderȱonlyȱbecauseȱdiscourseȱthatȱhasȱaȱdeȬ scriptiveȱ functionȱ hasȱ usurpedȱ theȱ firstȱ rankȱ inȱ dailyȱ life,ȱ assistedȱinȱthisȱrespectȱbyȱscience.ȱ(Ricoeurȱ1995a:ȱ222)ȱ

PoeticȱdiscourseȱdoesȱnotȱreferȱtoȱtheȱworldȱofȱmanipulableȱobȬ jects;ȱrather,ȱitȱ“refersȱtoȱtheȱmanyȱwaysȱweȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱworldȱ beforeȱweȱopposeȱourselvesȱtoȱthingsȱunderstoodȱasȱobjectsȱthatȱ standȱbeforeȱaȱsubject.”ȱHereȱtruthȱisȱatȱstake,ȱnotȱtruthȱunderȬ stoodȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ adequatioȱ intellectusȱ atȱ remȱ butȱ truthȱ asȱ maniȬ festation,ȱ “inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ lettingȱ beȱ whatȱ showsȱ itself.ȱ Whatȱ showsȱ itselfȱ isȱ eachȱ timeȱ theȱ proposingȱ ofȱ aȱ world,ȱ aȱ worldȱ whereinȱ Iȱ canȱ projectȱ myȱ ownȱ mostȱ possibilities”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ


1995a:ȱ223).ȱWhatȱmustȱbeȱinterpretedȱinȱaȱtextȱisȱpreciselyȱtheȱ “typeȱ ofȱ beingȬinȬtheȬworldȱ unfoldedȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theȱ text”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ1998b:ȱ141).ȱThroughȱreadingȱtextsȱnewȱpossibilitiesȱofȱ beingȱinȱtheȱworldȱareȱopenedȱup.ȱThus,ȱtextsȱnotȱonlyȱhaveȱtheȱ potentialȱtoȱexplodeȱtheȱworldȱofȱtheȱauthor,ȱtheyȱalsoȱhaveȱtheȱ potentialȱtoȱredescribeȱtheȱworldȱofȱtheȱreader.ȱEverydayȱrealityȱ isȱ metamorphosedȱ byȱ whatȱ couldȱ beȱ calledȱ theȱ imaginativeȱ variationsȱ(Ricoeurȱ1995c).ȱ Ricoeur’sȱtextualȱhermeneuticsȱbacksȱupȱcomparativeȱtheoȬ logy’sȱ claimȱ thatȱ readingȱ strangeȱ religiousȱ textsȱ canȱ beȱ enrichȬ ing.ȱ Ricoeur’sȱ textualȱ hermeneuticsȱ explainsȱ howȱ theȱ world’sȱ culturalȱ andȱ religiousȱ classicsȱ canȱ expansivelyȱ figureȱ richȱ andȱ fullȱprojectionsȱofȱanotherȱwayȱofȱbeingȱinȱtheȱworldȱthatȱliberȬ atesȱ whatȱ isȱ essentialȱ byȱ suggestingȱ whatȱ isȱ possible.ȱ Readingȱ “strange”ȱreligiousȱtextsȱisȱanȱopportunityȱtoȱenterȱtheȱworldȱofȱ theȱ otherȱ andȱ exploreȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ theyȱ present.ȱ Asȱ such,ȱ theyȱhelpȱusȱtoȱseeȱourselves,ȱothers,ȱandȱourȱsituationsȱinȱtermsȱ ofȱ aȱ worldȱ thatȱ weȱ mightȱ inhabit.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ regardȱ textsȱ haveȱ theȱ powerȱtoȱrefigureȱandȱtransformȱtheȱworldȱofȱtheȱreader.ȱ ComparativeȱTheologyȱandȱtheȱHermeneuticalȱArcȱ “Religiousȱliteratureȱ…ȱaimsȱforȱtheȱaffectiveȱtransformationȱofȱ theȱ readerȱ whoȱ paysȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ cluesȱ availableȱ inȱ theȱ text”ȱ (Clooneyȱ2005:ȱ307).ȱClooneyȱisȱconsciousȱofȱhowȱdemandingȱitȱ isȱ toȱ understandȱ andȱ appropriateȱ strangeȱ religiousȱ texts.ȱ Heȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ readersȱ haveȱ certainȱ obligationsȱ toȱ theȱ strangeȱ textȱ andȱ expressesȱ theseȱ obligationsȱ inȱ ethicalȱ language.ȱ TheȱreaderȱisȱtoȱdoȱjusticeȱtoȱtheȱtextȱandȱtoȱbewareȱofȱtheȱherȬ meneuticalȱpitfallsȱofȱprojection.ȱ Toȱavoidȱhineininterpretierung,ȱunderstandingȱaȱstrangeȱtextȱ impliesȱaȱcloseȱreading.ȱTheȱcomparativeȱtheologianȱ mustȱachieveȱaȱcertainȱdistanceȱfromȱherȱorȱhisȱownȱstartingȱ point,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ learnȱ fromȱ anotherȱ traditionȱ byȱ underȬ standingȱitȱonȱitsȱownȱterms,ȱandȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱcanȱneverȱbeȱ entirelyȱpredicatedȱonȱtheȱexpectationsȱofȱone’sȱhomeȱtradiȬ tion,ȱ becauseȱ itȱ reformulatesȱ thoseȱ expectationsȱ regardingȱ theȱhomeȱtradition.ȱ(Clooneyȱ1993:ȱ7)ȱ

TheȱappropriateȱattitudeȱofȱtheȱreaderȱisȱoneȱofȱsubmissionȱraȬ therȱ thanȱ someȱ sortȱ ofȱ “consumeristȱ …ȱ miningȱ ofȱ textsȱ inȱ serȬ viceȱ ofȱ aȱ preconceivedȱ agendaȱ neglectfulȱ ofȱ theȱ text’sȱ ownȱ


purposes”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2008:ȱ 8).ȱ Theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ textȱ andȱ readerȱisȱcomparableȱtoȱthatȱofȱaȱteacherȱandȱhisȱstudent.ȱTextsȱ educateȱtheirȱstudents.ȱThereȱisȱaȱclearȱasymmetry.ȱForȱwhatȱaȱ textȱ meansȱ alwaysȱ precedes,ȱ exceeds,ȱ andȱ evenȱ supersedesȱ itsȱ readersȱ(Clooneyȱ2008:ȱ9).ȱUnderstandingȱtheȱtextȱimpliesȱaȱcerȬ tainȱ“selfȬeffacementȱbeforeȱtheȱtext;ȱpatience,ȱperseveranceȱandȱ imagination”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2008:ȱ 13).ȱ Onlyȱ thenȱ willȱ itȱ beȱ possibleȱ forȱtheȱreaderȱtoȱbeȱdrawnȱintoȱtheȱworldȱofȱtheȱtext.ȱ Comparativeȱtheologyȱentailsȱaȱhermeneuticalȱprocessȱthatȱ isȱ quiteȱ similarȱ toȱ Ricoeur’sȱ wellȬknownȱ theoryȱ ofȱ interpretaȬ tion.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ consistsȱ ofȱ threeȱ phases,ȱ aȱ firstȱ naïveȱ underȬ standing,ȱ criticalȱ analysis,ȱ andȱ appropriation,ȱ whichȱ Ricoeurȱ alsoȱ callsȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ arc.ȱ Toȱ understandȱ aȱ textȱ requiresȱ passingȱ throughȱ theseȱ threeȱ phases.ȱ Theȱ hermeneuticalȱ arcȱ isȱ drivenȱ byȱ aȱ dialecticȱ betweenȱ understandingȱ andȱ explaining:ȱ explainingȱ moreȱ toȱ understandȱ better.ȱ This,ȱ soȱ itȱ seems,ȱ isȱ exȬ actlyȱ whatȱ Clooneyȱ wouldȱ endorseȱ whenȱ heȱ saysȱ thatȱ closeȱ readingȱleadsȱtoȱdeepȱlearning.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ phaseȱ ofȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ arcȱ isȱ aȱ preliminary,ȱ precriticalȱreading.ȱInȱthisȱphase,ȱtheȱreaderȱapproachesȱtheȱtextȱ fromȱhisȱownȱperspective.ȱEveryȱreaderȱisȱalwaysȱfirstȱandȱforeȬ mostȱ someoneȱ whoseȱ identityȱ isȱ formedȱ byȱ aȱ linguisticȱ tradiȬ tion,ȱaȱculturalȱcontext,ȱaȱhistoricalȱbackgroundȱandȱaȱreligiousȱ commitment.ȱEveryȱreaderȱisȱpartlyȱdeterminedȱbyȱhisȱcultural,ȱ religious,ȱ historicalȱ background.ȱ Theȱ processȱ ofȱ interpretationȱ startsȱ fromȱ there.ȱ Everyȱ readerȱ guessesȱ atȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ text,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱassumptionȱofȱaȱcommunityȱofȱmeaning.ȱRiȬ coeurȱalsoȱcallsȱthisȱaȱnaïveȱreading:ȱitȱisȱanȱinterpretationȱthatȱ isȱ contentȱ withȱ theȱ immediateȱ meaningȱ thatȱ comesȱ toȱ mindȱ whenȱreadingȱtheȱtextȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtime.ȱItȱisȱreadingȱaȱtextȱasȱifȱ exegesisȱ doesȱ notȱ exist.ȱ Hereȱ theȱ effectsȱ ofȱ cultureȱ andȱ contextȱ areȱfullyȱmanifested;ȱtheyȱdetermineȱtheȱspaceȱwithinȱwhichȱtheȱ readerȱmakesȱtheȱtextȱhisȱtext.ȱ Thatȱ aȱ strangeȱ textȱ appealsȱ toȱ theȱ readerȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ readerȱ canȱ alreadyȱ understandȱ somethingȱ ofȱ itȱ isȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ horizonȱofȱtheȱreader.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱfirstȱnaiveȱreadingȱneedsȱtoȱ beȱchecked,ȱvalidated,ȱand,ȱifȱneedȱbe,ȱcorrectedȱtoȱprecludeȱtheȱ readerȱfromȱprojectingȱhisȱownȱcultural,ȱreligious,ȱorȱhistoricalȱ backgroundȱintoȱtheȱtext.ȱAȱgoodȱinterpreterȱavoidsȱreadingȱhisȱ orȱ herȱ ownȱ presuppositionsȱ intoȱ theȱ text.ȱ Understandingȱ imȬ


pliesȱ followingȱ theȱ innerȱ dynamicȱ ofȱ aȱ text.ȱ Forȱ thatȱ Ricoeurȱ claimsȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ aȱ secondȱ criticalȱ phase,ȱ whichȱ heȱ callsȱ l’exégèseȱsavante,ȱwhichȱsetsȱoutȱtoȱexplainȱtheȱtextȱinȱaȱmoreȱsciȬ entificȱ way.ȱ Theȱ scientificȱ readingȱ placesȱ theȱ textȱ atȱ aȱ distanceȱ (Ricoeurȱ1993:ȱ28):ȱitsȱgoalȱisȱobjectiveȱobservation.ȱCriticalȱanalȬ ysisȱtreatsȱtheȱtextȱasȱaȱstudyȱobjectȱinȱtheȱhandsȱofȱtheȱreader.ȱ Theȱlatterȱcanȱmakeȱuseȱofȱseveralȱmethodsȱtoȱdecodeȱtheȱworldȱ ofȱ theȱ text:ȱ theȱ historicalȬcriticalȱ method,ȱ literaryȱ criticism,ȱ structuralism,ȱ evenȱ psychoanalysis.ȱ Whateverȱ methodȱ isȱ used,ȱ criticalȱanalysisȱaȱnecessaryȱphaseȱinȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱprocess.ȱ Itȱ allowsȱ theȱ readerȱ toȱ transcendȱ aȱ superficialȱ andȱ tooȱ generalȱ firstȱreadingȱofȱaȱstrangeȱtextȱtoȱaȱcloseȱandȱdeepȱreading.ȱUnȬ derstandingȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱaȱstrangeȱtextȱdemandsȱsuchȱaȱconȬ frontationȱ withȱ theȱ “objectivity”ȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Theȱ alternativeȱ isȱ mereȱsubjectivism:ȱoneȱreadsȱwhatȱoneȱwants.ȱ Clooneyȱ wouldȱ agreeȱ withȱ Ricoeur.ȱ Whatȱ theȱ latterȱ callsȱ criticalȱ analysisȱ orȱ exégèseȱ savante,ȱ Clooneyȱ callsȱ closeȱ reading.ȱ Clooneyȱ acknowledgesȱ thatȱ thisȱ closeȱ readingȱ isȱ aȱ highlyȱ deȬ manding,ȱ intellectualȱ process,ȱ requiringȱ variousȱ criticalȱ skills,ȱ suchȱ asȱ languageȱ learning,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ cultural,ȱ linguistic,ȱ andȱ historicalȱstudies.ȱInȱthisȱsense,ȱtheȱcriticalȱworkȱofȱcomparativeȱ theologyȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱformȱofȱtextualȱexegesisȱthatȱ alsoȱusesȱseveralȱcriticalȱmethods,ȱsuchȱasȱliteraryȱcriticismȱandȱ theȱ historicalȬcriticalȱ methodȱ (Scheberaȱ 2003:ȱ 15).ȱ Comparativeȱ theologiansȱneedȱtoȱ takeȱ seriouslyȱ wholeȱ texts,ȱ notȱ merelyȱ selectȱ ideasȱ orȱ theȱ moreȱinterestingȱpartsȱofȱtexts;ȱweȱneedȱtoȱnoticeȱtheȱspecificȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱ literaryȱ documentsȱ beforeȱ usȱ inȱ anyȱ givenȱ instance,ȱ genre,ȱ mannerȱ ofȱ writing,ȱ andȱ theȱ inȬ tentionsȱ ofȱ theȱ authorȱ (andȱ redactor)ȱ areȱ intrinsicȱ toȱ aȱ text’sȱ significance,ȱ inȱ additionȱ toȱ anyȱ thesesȱ orȱ conceptsȱ proposedȱ insideȱ theȱ text.ȱ Strategiesȱ forȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ poetry,ȱ scripturalȱ citations,ȱ anecdotes,ȱ allusionȱ toȱ divineȱ andȱ humanȱ spiritualȱ exemplars,ȱ rebukesȱ toȱ opponentsȱ andȱ appealsȱ toȱ readersȱ toȱ takeȱ theȱ teachingȱ toȱ heartȱ inȱ practicalȱ waysȱ –ȱ theseȱ areȱ allȱ substantiveȱdimensionsȱofȱwhatȱweȱareȱreadingȱandȱwhatȱisȱ toȱbeȱunderstood,ȱrequiringȱofȱusȱsomeȱsimilarlyȱcomplexȱreȬ sponse.ȱ(Clooneyȱ2008:ȱ6)ȱ

Withoutȱ criticalȱ analysis,ȱ readersȱ wouldȱ projectȱ meaningȱ intoȱ theȱtextȱratherȱthanȱtheȱotherȱwayȱaround.ȱCloseȱreadingȱisȱtheȱ


wayȱ toȱ deeperȱ meaning.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ processȱ ofȱ closeȱ reading,ȱ theȱ readerȱ fulfilsȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ aȱ commentator,ȱ highlightingȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱhisȱpersonalȱandȱsubjectiveȱcommitmentsȱareȱbracketed.ȱ Criticalȱ analysisȱ isȱ butȱ oneȱ stepȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ towardsȱ transformation;ȱitȱis,ȱhowever,ȱaȱnecessaryȱstep.ȱCertainly,ȱwhenȱ religiousȱtextsȱareȱreadȱacrossȱreligiousȱborders,ȱthisȱcriticalȱanȬ alysisȱ andȱ commentaryȱ provesȱ itsȱ importanceȱ forȱ theologiansȱ tryingȱ toȱ makeȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ other.ȱ However,ȱ readersȱ whoȱ regardȱ theȱ phaseȱ ofȱ criticalȱ analysisȱ asȱ theȱ finalȱ hermenȬ euticalȱstage,ȱreduceȱtheȱtextȱtoȱaȱdeadȱbodyȱtoȱbeȱdissected.ȱTheȱ textȱ losesȱ itsȱ potentialȱ toȱ speak,ȱ toȱ challenge,ȱ toȱ yieldȱ meaningȱ forȱ aȱ currentȱ audience.ȱ Itȱ becomesȱ meaningless.ȱ Afterȱ goingȱ throughȱ theȱ phaseȱ ofȱ criticalȱ analysisȱ (explanation),ȱ theȱ readerȱ needsȱtoȱaskȱtheȱquestion:ȱWhatȱdoesȱthisȱtextȱmeanȱforȱmeȱtoday?ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ isȱ centralȱ toȱ theȱ lastȱ phaseȱ ofȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ arc,ȱnamelyȱthatȱofȱappropriation,ȱwhichȱ“actualizesȱtheȱmeanȬ ingȱofȱtheȱtextȱforȱtheȱpresentȱreader”ȱ(Ricoeurȱ1998d:ȱ158).ȱApȬ propriationȱ isȱ theȱ ontologicalȱ groundingȱ ofȱ interpretationȱ inȱ livedȱexperience.ȱOnlyȱwhenȱaȱtextȱisȱ“appropriated”ȱdoesȱitȱreȬ alizeȱ itsȱ poeticȱ powerȱ toȱ transformȱ theȱ reader.ȱ Nowhereȱ doesȱ Ricoeurȱ stateȱ thisȱ moreȱ clearlyȱ thanȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ passage:ȱ “ByȱappropriationȱIȱunderstandȱthis:ȱthatȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱaȱ textȱ culminatesȱ inȱ theȱ selfȬinterpretationȱ ofȱ aȱ subjectȱ whoȱ thenceforthȱ understandsȱ himselfȱ better,ȱ understandsȱ himselfȱ differentlyȱ orȱ simplyȱ beginsȱ toȱ understandȱ himself”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ 1998d:ȱ158).ȱItȱisȱnotȱaȱmatterȱofȱimposingȱourȱfiniteȱcapacityȱforȱ understandingȱonȱtheȱtextȱbutȱofȱexposingȱusȱtoȱtheȱtextȱandȱreȬ ceivingȱfromȱitȱanȱenlargedȱself.ȱSoȱunderstandingȱisȱquiteȱdifȬ ferentȱ fromȱ thatȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ subjectȱ possessesȱ theȱ keyȱ toȱ theȱ constitutionȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ thatȱ theȱ readerȱ isȱ constitutedȱbyȱtheȱtext.ȱRicoeurȱputsȱitȱasȱfollows:ȱasȱaȱreaderȱIȱ findȱmyselfȱbyȱlosingȱmyself.ȱ“Theȱmovementȱtowardȱlisteningȱ requiresȱ givingȱ upȱ (desaissement)ȱ theȱ humanȱ selfȱ inȱ itsȱ willȱ toȱ mastery,ȱ sufficiency,ȱ andȱ autonomy”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ 1995a:ȱ 224).ȱ RiȬ coeurȱalsoȱspeaksȱaboutȱ“laȱdépossessionȱduȱsoiȱnarcissiqueȱ[theȱ dispossessionȱ ofȱ theȱ narcissisticȱ self]”ȱ (Ricoeurȱ 1976:ȱ 94).ȱ UnȬ derstandingȱ meansȱ toȱ understandȱ oneselfȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Or,ȱasȱClooneyȱwouldȱputȱit,ȱbeingȱtaughtȱbyȱaȱstrangeȱtextȱenȬ tailsȱundergoingȱaȱspiritualȱprocessȱthatȱchangesȱtheȱreaderȱandȱ perhapsȱrevealsȱGodȱinȱanȱunexpectedȱway.ȱ


Conclusionȱ Theȱpastȱhasȱnotȱonlyȱtaughtȱusȱhowȱappealingȱitȱisȱtoȱrelateȱtoȱaȱ projectedȱotherȱbutȱalsoȱhowȱdevastatingȱformsȱofȱinterreligiousȱ hineininterpretierungȱ canȱ become.ȱ Atȱ theȱ veryȱ least,ȱ theyȱ hyȬ pothecateȱinterreligiousȱdialogue.ȱInȱanȱoriginalȱandȱrefreshingȱ way,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ setsȱ outȱ toȱ overcomeȱ thisȱ problemȱ byȱ addressingȱ theȱ religiousȱ otherȱ asȱ Other.ȱ Itȱ distancesȱ itselfȱ fromȱ theȱsoteriologicalȱ fixationȱ ofȱ theȱ classicȱthreefoldȱ scheme:ȱ exclusivism,ȱ inclusivism,ȱ andȱ pluralism.ȱ Overȱ againstȱ aȱ prioriȱ theologicalȱ generalizations,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ placesȱ aȱ deȬ tailedȱstudyȱofȱtheȱreligiousȱtextsȱofȱotherȱreligions.ȱMoreover,ȱitȱ isȱconvincedȱthatȱtheseȱtextsȱhaveȱtheȱpowerȱtoȱchallenge,ȱinterȬ rupt,ȱandȱtransformȱ“outsiders”ȱwhoȱundertakeȱaȱcloseȱreadingȱ ofȱ theseȱ texts.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ dissociatesȱ itselfȱfromȱtheȱpostliberalȱprincipleȱofȱintratextuality.ȱComparaȬ tiveȱ theologyȱ “emphasizesȱ theȱ reflectiveȱ practiceȱ ofȱ beingȱ educatedȱanewȱthroughȱaȱnewȱcombinationȱofȱmaterials,ȱdrawnȱ fromȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ traditionȱ whichȱ areȱ thenȱ toȱ beȱ readȱ toȬ gether,ȱinȱaȱprocessȱwhichȱ(gradually)ȱfashionsȱaȱnewȱliteracy”ȱ (Clooneyȱ1993:ȱ198Ȭ99).ȱ However,ȱtheȱoriginalityȱofȱtheȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱproȬ jectȱisȱthreatenedȱbyȱitsȱlackȱofȱaȱscientificȱframework.ȱClooney’sȱ suspicionȱ ofȱ theoriesȱ doesȱ notȱ helpȱ toȱ takeȱ awayȱ theȱ auraȱ ofȱ ambiguityȱsurroundingȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱManyȱofȱitsȱherȬ meneuticalȱ presuppositionsȱ needȱ furtherȱ elaboration.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ contributionȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologiansȱ canȱ findȱ anȱ allyȱ inȱ Ricoeur’sȱ textualȱ hermeneutics.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ highȬ lightedȱseveralȱresonancesȱbetweenȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱassumpȬ tionsȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ handȱ andȱ Ricoeur’sȱ hermeneuticalȱ philosophyȱ onȱ theȱ other.ȱ Ricoeurȱ canȱ provideȱ aȱ hermeneuticalȱframeworkȱforȱtheȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱproject,ȱ therebyȱ givingȱ theȱ latterȱ moreȱ credibility.ȱ Thisȱ contributionȱ shouldȱbeȱreadȱasȱaȱfirstȱstepȱinȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱaȱmoreȱsysȬ tematicȱ hermeneuticalȱ frameworkȱ forȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Moreȱworkȱinȱthisȱdirectionȱisȱneeded.ȱ Bibliographyȱ Barnes,ȱ M.ȱ (2002).ȱ Theologyȱ andȱ theȱ Dialogueȱ ofȱ Religions.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ

182ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Christopher,ȱD.ȱ(2009).ȱ“InterreligiousȱReadingȱandȱSelfȬDefinitionȱforȱ Raimonȱ Panikkarȱ andȱ Francisȱ Clooney.”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Ecumenicalȱ Studiesȱ44:ȱ409Ȭ31.ȱ Clooney,ȱFrancisȱX.ȱSJ.ȱ(2008).ȱTheȱTruth,ȱtheȱWayȱandȱtheȱLife:ȱChristianȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Threeȱ Holyȱ Mantrasȱ ofȱ theȱ Srivaisnavaȱ Hindus.ȱ ChristianȱCommentariesȱonȱNonȬChristianȱSacredȱTexts.ȱLouvain:ȱ Peetersȱ (2006).ȱ “Francisȱ Xavier,ȱ andȱ theȱ Worldȱ Weȱ (Don’tȱ Quite)ȱ Share.”ȱ In:ȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ Clooneyȱ SJȱ (ed.).ȱ Jesuitȱ Postmodern:ȱ Scholarship,ȱ Vocation,ȱandȱIdentityȱinȱtheȱ21 stȱCentury.ȱOxford:ȱLexingtonȱBooks.ȱ Pp.ȱ157Ȭ80.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Passionateȱ Comparison:ȱ Theȱ Intensificationȱ ofȱ Affectȱ inȱ Interreligiousȱ Readingȱ ofȱ Hinduȱ andȱ Christianȱ Texts.”ȱ Harvardȱ TheologicalȱReviewȱ98:ȱ370.ȱ (2001).ȱHinduȱGod,ȱChristianȱGod:ȱHowȱReasonȱHelpsȱBreakȱDownȱtheȱ BarriersȱbetweenȱReligions.ȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (1996).ȱSeeingȱthroughȱTexts:ȱDoingȱTheologyȱamongȱtheȱSrivaisnavasȱ ofȱSouthȱIndia.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ (1995).ȱ “Currentȱ Theology:ȱ Comparativeȱ Theology:ȱ aȱ Reviewȱ ofȱ RecentȱBooksȱ(1989Ȭ1995).”ȱTheologicalȱStudiesȱ56:ȱ521Ȭ50.ȱ (1993). ȱ Theologyȱ afterȱ Vedanta:ȱ Anȱ Experimentȱ inȱ Comparativeȱ TheoȬ logy.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ (1990).ȱ“WhenȱtheȱReligionsȱBecomeȱContext.”ȱTheologyȱTodayȱ47:ȱ 30Ȭ38.ȱ (1987).ȱ “Whyȱ theȱ Vedaȱ hasȱ noȱ Author:ȱ Languageȱ asȱ Ritualȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Mimamsaȱ andȱ Postmodernȱ Theology.”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ theȱ AmerȬ icanȱAcademyȱofȱReligionȱ55:ȱ659Ȭ84.ȱ D’Costa,ȱ G.ȱ (2005).ȱ Theologyȱ inȱ theȱ Publicȱ Square:ȱ Church,ȱ Academyȱ andȱ Nation.ȱChallengesȱinȱContemporaryȱTheology.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Dupuis,ȱ J.ȱ (1997).ȱ Towardȱ aȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism.ȱ NewȱYork:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ Fredericks,ȱ J.ȱ (2002).ȱ Buddhistsȱ andȱ Christians:ȱ Throughȱ Comparativeȱ TheologyȱtoȱSolidarity.ȱNewȱYork:ȱOrbis.ȱ ȱ (1995).ȱ“AȱUniversalȱReligiousȱExperience:ȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ asȱanȱAlternativeȱtoȱaȱTheologyȱofȱReligions.”ȱHorizonsȱ22:ȱ67Ȭ87.ȱ Garcia,ȱ L.M.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Onȱ Paulȱ Ricoeurȱ andȱ theȱ Translationȱ InterpreȬ tationȱofȱCulture.”ȱThesisȱElevenȱ94:ȱ72Ȭ87.ȱ Goh,ȱ J.K.ȱ (2000).ȱ ChristianȱTraditionȱToday:ȱAȱPostliberalȱVisionȱofȱChurchȱ andȱ Word.ȱ Louvainȱ Theologicalȱ &ȱ Pastoralȱ Monographsȱ 28.ȱ Louvain:ȱPeeters.ȱ

INȱSEARCHȱOFȱAȱHERMENEUTICALȱFRAMEWORKȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ183ȱ Hanson,ȱR.ȱ(2006).ȱTheȱHermeneuticsȱofȱComparativeȱTheology.ȱPaperȱ presentedȱ atȱ theȱ “Engagingȱ Particularities”ȱ Conference,ȱ 2006;ȱ BostonȱCollege.ȱ Holland,ȱ S.ȱ (2006).ȱ Howȱ Doȱ Storiesȱ Saveȱ Us?ȱ Anȱ Essayȱ onȱ theȱ Questionȱ withȱ theȱ Theologicalȱ Hermeneuticsȱ ofȱ Davidȱ Tracyȱ inȱ View.ȱ Louvain:ȱ Peeters.ȱ Knitter,ȱP.F.ȱ(2002).ȱIntroducingȱTheologiesȱofȱReligions.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱ Books.ȱ Lambelin,ȱ J.ȱ (2008).ȱ Answeringȱ Discursiveȱ Destiny:ȱ Integratingȱ CulȬ turalȱandȱReligiousȱDiversityȱinȱTheologicalȱMethod.ȱInterculturalȱ andȱ Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ asȱ Possibilitiesȱ forȱ Framingȱ InterreliȬ giousȱDialogue?ȱPh.D.ȱDissertation,ȱFacultyȱofȱTheology,ȱCatholicȱ UniversityȱLouvain.ȱ Lindbeck, ȱ G.A.ȱ (1997).ȱ “Theȱ Gospel’sȱ Uniqueness:ȱ Electionȱ andȱ UnȬ translatability.”ȱModernȱTheologyȱ13:ȱ423Ȭ50.ȱ ȱ (1984).ȱ TheȱNatureȱofȱDoctrine:ȱReligionȱandȱTheologyȱinȱaȱPostliberalȱ Age.ȱPhiladelphia:ȱWestminsterȱPress.ȱ Mattern,ȱ J.ȱ (2008).ȱ Zwischenȱ kulturellerȱ Symbolikȱ andȱ allgemeinerȱ WahrȬ heit.ȱ Paulȱ Ricoeurȱ interkulturellȱ gelesen.ȱ Nordhausen:ȱ Traugottȱ Bautz.ȱ Merrigan,ȱT.ȱ(1999).ȱ“ForȱUsȱandȱforȱOurȱSalvation:ȱTheȱNotionȱofȱSalȬ vationȱHistoryȱinȱtheȱContemporaryȱTheologyȱofȱReligions.”ȱIrishȱ TheologicalȱQuarterlyȱ64:ȱ339Ȭ48.ȱ Mudge,ȱL.S.ȱ(1980).ȱ“PaulȱRicoeurȱonȱBiblicalȱInterpretation.”ȱInȱ:ȱL.S.ȱ Mudgeȱ (ed.).ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Biblicalȱ Interpretation.ȱ Philadelphia:ȱ ForȬ tress.ȱPp.ȱ1Ȭ40.ȱ Nicholson,ȱ H.ȱ (2009).ȱ “Reunificationȱ ofȱ Theologyȱ andȱ Comparison.”ȱ JournalȱofȱtheȱAmericanȱAcademyȱofȱReligionȱ77:ȱ609Ȭ46.ȱ (2007).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheologyȱafterȱLiberalism.”ȱModernȱTheologyȱ 23:ȱ229Ȭ51.ȱ (2005).ȱ“AȱCorrelationalȱModelȱofȱComparativeȱTheology.”ȱJournalȱ ofȱReligionȱ85:ȱ191Ȭ213.ȱ Pellauer,ȱD.ȱ(1990).ȱ“NarrativeȱIdentityȱandȱReligiousȱIdentity.”ȱIn:ȱR.ȱ DetweilerȱandȱW.ȱG.ȱDotyȱ(eds.).ȱTheȱDaemonicȱImagination:ȱBiblicalȱ TextȱandȱSecularȱStory.ȱAtlanta:ȱScholar’sȱPress.ȱ Placher, ȱ W.ȱ (1989).ȱ UnapologeticȱTheology:ȱAȱChristianȱVoiceȱinȱaȱPluralȬ isticȱConversation.ȱLouisville:ȱJohnȱKnoxȱPress.ȱ Ricoeur,ȱ P.ȱ (2006).ȱ Onȱ Translation.ȱ Thinkingȱ inȱ Action.ȱ Oxford:ȱ RoutȬ ledge.ȱ

184ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ (1998a).ȱ“HermeneuticsȱandȱCritiqueȱofȱIdeology.”ȱIn:ȱP.ȱRicoeur.ȱ Hermeneuticsȱ andȱ theȱ Humanȱ Sciences:ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Language,ȱ Actionȱ andȱ Interpretation.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press.ȱ Pp.ȱ 61Ȭ100.ȱ (1998b).ȱ“TheȱHermeneuticalȱFunctionȱofȱDistanciation.”ȱIn:ȱP.ȱRiȬ coeur.ȱ Hermeneuticsȱ andȱ theȱ Humanȱ Sciences:ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Language,ȱ ActionȱandȱInterpretation.ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Pp.ȱ131Ȭ44.ȱ ȱ (1998c).ȱ“TheȱModelȱofȱtheȱText.”ȱIn:ȱP.ȱRicoeur.ȱHermeneuticsȱandȱ theȱ Humanȱ Sciences:ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Language,ȱ Actionȱ andȱ Interpretation.ȱ Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ197Ȭ222.ȱ (1998d)ȱ “Whatȱ isȱ aȱ Text?ȱ Explanationȱ andȱ Understanding.”ȱ Inȱ P.ȱ Ricoeur, ȱ HermeneuticsȱandȱtheȱHumanȱSciences:ȱEssaysȱonȱLanguage,ȱ Actionȱ andȱ Interpretation.ȱ Cambridgeȱ:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press.ȱPp.ȱ145Ȭ64.ȱ (1996).ȱ “Reflectionsȱ onȱ aȱ Newȱ Ethosȱ forȱ Europe.”ȱ In:ȱ R.ȱ Kearneyȱ (ed.).ȱPaulȱRicoeur:ȱTheȱHermeneuticsȱofȱAction.ȱLondon:ȱSage.ȱPp.ȱ3Ȭ 13.ȱ (1995a).ȱ “Namingȱ God.”ȱ In:ȱ P.ȱ Ricoeur.ȱ Figuringȱ theȱ Sacred:ȱ ReliȬ gion,ȱ Narrativeȱ andȱ Imagination.ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ Fortressȱ Press.ȱ Pp.ȱ 217Ȭ36.ȱ ȱȱ (1995b).ȱ “Philosophyȱ andȱ Religiousȱ Language.”ȱ In:ȱ P.ȱ Ricoeur.ȱ Figuringȱ theȱ Sacred:ȱ Religion,ȱ Narrativeȱ andȱ Imagination.ȱ MinneaȬ polis:ȱFortressȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ35Ȭ47.ȱ (1993)ȱ “Herméneutiqueȱ:ȱ Lesȱ finalitésȱ deȱ l’exégèseȱ biblique.”ȱ In:ȱ D.ȱBourgȱandȱA.ȱLionȱ(eds.).ȱLaȱbibleȱenȱphilosophie:ȱApprochesȱconȬ temporaines.ȱParis:ȱEditionsȱduȱCerf.ȱPp.ȱ28Ȭ51.ȱ (1976).ȱInterpretationȱTheory:ȱDiscourseȱandȱtheȱSurplusȱofȱMeaning.ȱ FortȱWorth:ȱTexasȱChristianȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (1971).ȱ “Esquisseȱ deȱ conclusion.”ȱ Inȱ:ȱ X.ȱ LeonȬDufourȱ (ed.).ȱ ExéȬ gèseȱetȱherméneutique.ȱParis:ȱSeuil.ȱPp.ȱ285Ȭ95.ȱ Ruparell,ȱ S.T.ȱ (1995).ȱ “AȱMethodologyȱforȱInterreligiousȱTheologizing:ȱ TowardȱanȱInterstitialȱTheology.”ȱARC:ȱTheȱJournalȱofȱtheȱFacultyȱofȱ ReligiousȱStudiesȱ23:ȱ58Ȭ74.ȱ Schebera,ȱR.ȱ(2003).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheology:ȱAȱNewȱMethodȱofȱInterȬ religiousȱDialogue.”ȱDialogueȱandȱAllianceȱ17:ȱ7Ȭ18.ȱ Schmalz,ȱM.ȱ(2003).ȱ“TraditionȱandȱTransgressionȱinȱtheȱComparativeȱ TheologyȱofȱFrancisȱX.ȱClooney.”ȱReligiousȱStudiesȱReviewȱ29:ȱ130Ȭ 36.ȱ

INȱSEARCHȱOFȱAȱHERMENEUTICALȱFRAMEWORKȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ185ȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱP.ȱ(2005).ȱGottȱohneȱGrenzen:ȱEineȱchristlicheȱundȱpluralȬ istischeȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen.ȱ Gütersloh:ȱ Gütersloherȱ VerlagsȬ haus.ȱ Slater,ȱP.ȱ (1995).ȱ “Lindbeck,ȱHickȱandȱtheȱNatureȱofȱReligiousȱTruth.”ȱ StudiesȱinȱReligionȱ24:ȱ57Ȭ75.ȱ Stiver,ȱ D.ȱ (2003).ȱ “Theologicalȱ Method.”ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Vanhoozerȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Cambridgeȱ Companionȱ toȱ Postmodernȱ Theology.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ CamȬ bridgeȱUniversityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ170Ȭ85.ȱ Stosch,ȱK.ȱvon.ȱ(2007).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheologyȱasȱanȱAlternativeȱtoȱtheȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religions.”ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ Hintersteinerȱ (ed.).ȱ Namingȱ andȱ Thinkingȱ Godȱ inȱ Europeȱ Today.ȱ Currentsȱ ofȱ Encounterȱ 32.ȱ AmsterȬ dam:ȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ507Ȭ12.ȱ Tracy,ȱD.ȱ(1987).“ComparativeȱTheology.”ȱEncyclopediaȱofȱReligion.ȱVol.ȱ 14.ȱNewȱYork:ȱMacmillan.ȱPp.ȱ446Ȭ55.ȱ Wilhem,ȱ J.E.ȱ (2004).ȱ “Herméneutiqueȱ etȱ traduction:ȱ Laȱ questionȱ deȱ ‘l’appropriation’ȱouȱleȱrapportȱduȱ‘propre’ȱàȱ‘l’étranger’.”ȱMetaȱ49:ȱ 768Ȭ76.ȱ

ConfessionalȱandȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ ȱ CounterpartsȱorȱComplements?ȱ ȱ ȱ HendrikȱRungelrathȱ ȱ Introductionȱ Theȱ doubleȱ questionȱ ofȱ howȱ toȱ assessȱ one’sȱ ownȱ religiousȱ beȬ liefsȱinȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ beliefsȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱandȱ howȱ toȱ assessȱ theȱbeliefsȱofȱotherȱreligionsȱinȱlightȱofȱone’sȱownȱ(cf.ȱSchmidtȬ Leukelȱ2007:ȱ494f.)ȱisȱ–ȱespeciallyȱgiven,ȱinȱtheȱChristianȱcontext,ȱ God’sȱuniversalȱsalvificȱwillȱ(cf.ȱNostraȱAetateȱ1)ȱ–ȱbecomingȱinȬ creasinglyȱ importantȱ inȱ aȱ timeȱ ofȱ globalizationȱ inȱ whichȱ memȬ bersȱ ofȱ differentȱ religionsȱ areȱ noȱ longerȱ geographicallyȱ separȬ atedȱfromȱoneȱanother.ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱhasȱtriedȱtoȱconȬ textualizeȱ andȱ concretizeȱ theȱ doubleȱ desideratumȱ ofȱ appreciȬ ationȱforȱotherȱreligionsȱandȱcommitmentȱtoȱone’sȱownȱwithȱmiȬ crologicalȱ comparison.ȱ Differentȱ approachesȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱdiverseȱandȱdisparateȱinȱdetail,ȱhaveȱbeenȱpresented,ȱ projectedȱfromȱdifferentȱconstellationsȱofȱproblems,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ backlogȱofȱpreviousȱmodelsȱorȱanȱallegedȱ“impasse”ȱofȱtheologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ (cf.,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Fredericksȱ 1999:ȱ 6Ȭ11;ȱ Stoschȱ 2002).ȱ Thus,ȱ comparativeȱtheologyȱisȱnotȱundertakenȱuniformlyȱbutȱlivesȱonȱ differentȱconceptsȱwithȱdifferentȱaspects,ȱforȱexample,ȱinȱregardȱ toȱtheȱrelationȱtoȱtheologyȱofȱreligions.ȱ Inȱ theȱ introductionȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ volumeȱ ofȱ hisȱ impressiveȱ tetralogyȱinȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱKeithȱWardȱarguesȱforȱaȱdiȬ chotomyȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ andȱ confessionalȱ theology.ȱ Heȱ thusȱ posesȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ designationȱ ofȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ confessionalityȱ andȱ comparisonȱ thatȱ implicitlyȱ underliesȱ manyȱ approachesȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ This,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ alsoȱ touchesȱonȱtheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱdeeplyȱtheȱcomparativeȱtheoloȬ gianȱ isȱ rootedȱ inȱ hisȱ traditionȱ andȱ ofȱ howȱ farȱ he,ȱ despiteȱ thisȱ rooting,ȱisȱreadyȱtoȱchange.ȱInȱthisȱpaperȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱtakeȱupȱ theȱquestionȱofȱthisȱdichotomyȱbetweenȱconfessionalȱandȱcomȬ parativeȱ theologyȱ andȱ discussȱ ifȱ thisȱ binaryȱ codeȱ isȱ useful.ȱ Iȱ wouldȱlikeȱtoȱaskȱifȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱhasȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱ asȱ anȱ alternativeȱ toȱ confessionalȱ theology,ȱ orȱ ifȱ itȱ can,ȱ may,ȱ orȱ


evenȱ shouldȱ beȱ confessionalȱ itself.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ discussȱ theȱ herȬ meneutical,ȱ epistemologicalȱ questionȱ thatȱ appearsȱ withȱ theȱ biȬ naryȱ code,ȱ Iȱ willȱ brieflyȱ sketchȱ someȱ basicȱ thoughtsȱ andȱ arguȬ mentsȱonȱtheȱtopicȱinȱquestionȱinȱtheȱfirstȱpartȱofȱtheȱpaperȱbutȱ willȱ focusȱ primarilyȱ onȱ Keithȱ Ward.ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ part,ȱ someȱ moreȱgeneralȱissuesȱbasedȱonȱtheȱconcreteȱquestionȱwillȱbeȱadȬ dressedȱ concerningȱ theȱ projectȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ thatȱ cameȱtoȱtheȱforeȱinȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱproblemȱatȱhand.ȱ Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ asȱ anȱ Alternativeȱ toȱ Confessionalȱ Theology?ȱ DifferentȱApproachesȱ Inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ exactȱ statusȱ ofȱ confessionȬ alityȱ alreadyȱ underliesȱ theȱ essayȱ “Comparativeȱ Theology”ȱ byȱ Davidȱ Tracyȱ inȱ theȱ Encyclopediaȱ ofȱ Religionȱ (Tracyȱ 1987).1ȱ Theȱ questionȱis,ȱindeed,ȱnotȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱarticleȱitself,ȱbutȱitȱdoesȱ seemȱtoȱlieȱatȱitsȱveryȱbasis,ȱforȱ“Theology”ȱinȱtheȱEncyclopediaȱisȱ splitȱ intoȱtwoȱ articles:ȱ theȱ firstȱ oneȱ dealingȱwithȱ “Comparativeȱ Theology”ȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ withȱ “Christianȱ Theology.”ȱ So,ȱ theȱ questionȱofȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱactuallyȱ linkedȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ religiousȱ groupȱ andȱ itsȱ practicesȱ andȱ howȱ thatȱ linkȱ isȱstructuredȱ arisesȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ bisectionȱ ofȱ theȱarȬ ticleȱ“Theology.”ȱNonetheless,ȱitȱisȱnotȱraisedȱinȱparticularȱsinceȱ noȱ theologicalȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ bisectionȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱ articleȱ isȱ given.ȱ Keithȱ Wardȱ beginsȱ theȱ firstȱ volumeȱ ofȱ hisȱ tetralogyȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Revelation,ȱ withȱ aȱ programȬ maticȱintroductionȱinȱwhichȱheȱexplicatesȱhisȱprojectȱofȱcomparȬ ativeȱ theologyȱ –ȱ “Towardsȱ aȱ Comparativeȱ Theology”ȱ (Wardȱ 1994:ȱ 3Ȭ49). 2ȱ Inȱ hisȱ analysis,ȱ Wardȱ statesȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ fundaȬ mentalȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ comparativeȱ andȱ confessionalȱ theoȬ logy.ȱ Heȱ proposesȱ toȱ “disconnectȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ theology,ȱ atȱ leastȱ inȱ part,ȱ fromȱ aȱ necessaryȱ internalȱ relationȱ toȱ aȱ particularȱ tradition”ȱ(38)ȱandȱarguesȱthatȱaȱtheologyȱthatȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱ“anȱ 1ȱCf.ȱtheȱabstractȱonȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱterminologyȱinȱTracyȱ2007:ȱ 448Ȭ51;ȱcf.ȱHintersteinerȱ2007.ȱ 2ȱ Inȱ whatȱ follows,ȱ unlessȱ otherwiseȱ indicated,ȱ quotationsȱ fromȱ thisȱworkȱwillȱbeȱindicatedȱonlyȱbyȱpageȱnumberȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱ

CONFESSIONAL AND COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ189ȱ

activityȱfromȱwithinȱtheȱbelievingȱcommunity”ȱ(38)ȱisȱrestrictiveȱ (cf.ȱ 39)ȱ sinceȱ itȱ is,ȱ dependingȱ onȱ theȱ particularȱ confessionȱ orȱ religiousȱ tradition,ȱ limitedȱ toȱ certainȱ “protectedȱ propositions”ȱ (41)ȱ thatȱ cannotȱ beȱ queriedȱ anyȱ furtherȱ andȱ areȱ “exemptȱ fromȱ questioning”ȱ (41).ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ Wardȱ himselfȱ arguesȱ forȱ aȱ “properȱintellectualȱstudyȱ…ȱwhichȱisȱnotȱasȱsuchȱcommittedȱtoȱ theȱviewsȱofȱoneȱfaithȬcommunity”ȱ(39).ȱWardȱthereforeȱdistingȬ uishesȱ betweenȱ twoȱ typesȱ ofȱ theology:ȱ oneȱ beingȱ confessionalȱ theology,ȱ “theȱ explorationȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ revelationȱ byȱ oneȱ whoȱ whollyȱacceptsȱthatȱrevelationȱandȱlivesȱbyȱit”ȱ(40),ȱandȱtheȱothȬ erȱaȱ“comparativeȱtheology”ȱthatȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱanȱapologiaȱforȱaȱ particularȱfaith,ȱbutȱ“anȱintellectualȱdiscipline”ȱ(40).ȱWardȱthusȱ proposesȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ asȱ “globalȱ theology”ȱ (cf.ȱ Wardȱ 2007)ȱ –ȱ andȱ oneȱ couldȱ thinkȱ hereȱ ofȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smith’sȱ proposalȱofȱaȱ“worldȱtheology”ȱasȱwell.ȱSubsequently,ȱhowever,ȱ heȱdemonstratesȱanȱepistemologicalȱdilemmaȱthatȱderivesȱfromȱ theȱ dichotomyȱ andȱ that,ȱ constructingȱ hisȱ argument,ȱ Wardȱ canȱ illuminateȱbutȱnotȱsolveȱ(cf.ȱ42).ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱasȱheȱputsȱit,ȱ “oneȱ cannotȱ presupposeȱ theȱ truthȱ ofȱ aȱ specificȱ allegedȱ revelaȬ tion,ȱsinceȱitsȱclaimsȱmustȱbeȱinvestigatedȱ…”ȱ(42);ȱonȱtheȱotherȱ hand,ȱ however,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ “neutralȱ vantageȬpointȱ …ȱ fromȱ whichȱ aȱ dispassionateȱ judgementȱ mightȱ beȱ made”ȱ (42)ȱ onȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ theȱ revelation.ȱ Wardȱ admits:ȱ “Itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ startȱ withȱ aȱ tabulaȱ rasaȱ andȱ chooseȱ allȱ ourȱ beliefsȱ withȱ imȬ partialȱrationality”ȱ(42).ȱTheȱdifferentiationȱWardȱclaimedȱshortȬ lyȱbeforeȱisȱthusȱnotȱeasilyȱapplicable.ȱHeȱwrites:ȱ“NeitherȱposiȬ tionȱ isȱ acceptable;ȱ butȱ isȱ thereȱ anyȱ alternative?”ȱ (42).ȱ Instead,ȱ theologyȱ seemsȱ toȱ remainȱ trappedȱ inȱ thisȱsomewhatȱ epistemoȬ logicalȱtensionȱ–ȱforȱifȱtheȱtensionȱwasȱsolvedȱwithȱaȱdispensaȬ tionȱ ofȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ truth,ȱ thisȱ theologyȱ wouldȱ beȱ religiousȱ studiesȱinstead.ȱ Inȱ aȱ recentȱ definitionȱ ofȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ termȱ “globalȱ theology”ȱ thatȱ Wardȱ considersȱ aȱ synonymȱ forȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱheȱcontrastsȱthatȱapproachȱ“withȱaȱtraditionalȱviewȱinȱ Christianȱ theology,ȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ calledȱ aȱ confessionalȱ apȬ proach”ȱ(Wardȱ2007:ȱ377). 3ȱHere,ȱconfessionalȱtheologyȱ–ȱasȱanȱ ȱInȱaddition,ȱWardȱmentionsȱ“interculturalȱtheology”ȱasȱaȱsynoȬ nymȱforȱcomparativeȱorȱglobalȱtheologyȱ–ȱitȱseemsȱworthwhile,ȱhowȬ 3


“intellectualȱ discipline”ȱ –ȱ appearsȱ asȱ “theȱ expositionȱ ofȱ ChrisȬ tianȱ doctrines”ȱ asȱ well.ȱ Butȱ Ward,ȱ asȱ inȱ hisȱaccountȱ inȱ Religionȱ andȱ Revelation,ȱ hasȱ toȱ admitȱ that,ȱ asȱ aȱ theologianȱ andȱ “practiȬ tionerȱ ofȱ aȱ specificȱ Christianȱ tradition,”ȱ heȱ isȱ “boundȱ toȱ deȬ scribe,ȱanalyze,ȱandȱcriticizeȱthingsȱinȱaȱparticularȱconfessionalȱ way.”ȱHeȱcallsȱglobalȱtheologyȱaȱ“differentȱdiscipline,ȱalthoughȱ itȱ sharesȱ manyȱ scholarlyȱ methodsȱ inȱ commonȱ withȱ Christianȱ theology,”ȱ whichȱ isȱ notȱ “inȱ competitionȱ withȱ Catholicȱ orȱ LuȬ theranȱtheology”ȱ(Wardȱ2007:ȱ379).ȱInȱhisȱReligionȱandȱRevelation,ȱ however,ȱ Wardȱ criticizesȱ confessionalȱ termsȱ likeȱ Catholic,ȱ AnȬ glican,ȱorȱChristianȱtheologyȱbecauseȱtheyȱsuggestȱ“thatȱthereȱisȱ aȱ specificȱ intellectualȱ disciplineȱ whichȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ undertakenȱ byȱCatholicsȱorȱAnglicansȱorȱChristians”ȱ(46).ȱHeȱholdsȱthat,ȱonȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ theologyȱ “canȱ beȱ undertakenȱ byȱ peopleȱ ofȱ manyȱ diverseȱ beliefs”ȱ (46).ȱ Itȱ isȱ certainlyȱ true,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ indicatȬ ingȱ aȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ asȱ theȱ frameworkȱ forȱ one’sȱ ownȱ theoȬ logy,ȱasȱWardȱdoesȱhimself,ȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱmeanȱthatȱtheȬ ologyȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱundertakenȱbyȱmembersȱofȱaȱspecificȱgroup.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ mightȱ onlyȱ provideȱ theȱ epistemologicalȱ background.ȱ Toȱ myȱ mind,ȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ wayȱ aȱ specificȱ theologyȱ isȱ disȬ posedȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱaȱrestriction.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ point,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ proposeȱ thatȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “confessionalȱ theology”ȱ inȱ Ward’sȱ essayȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ veryȱ chargedȱ conceptȱ already.ȱ Inȱ Ward’sȱ definition,ȱ oneȱ canȱ noticeȱ thatȱ heȱ immediatelyȱ triesȱ toȱ distanceȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ fromȱapologeticsȱ–ȱthisȱisȱapparentȱfromȱtheȱwordsȱthatȱheȱusesȱ inȱ thisȱ contextȱ asȱ synonymsȱ forȱ “confessionalȱ theology”:ȱ theseȱ are,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ “apologetics,”ȱ “defend,”ȱ “propagandist,”ȱ etc.ȱ (cf.ȱe.g.ȱ40),ȱwhereasȱtheȱconfessionalȱtheologianȱ–ȱasȱaȱservantȱ ofȱaȱparticularȱchurchȱ(cf.ȱWardȱ2007:ȱ377)ȱ–ȱisȱ“boundȱtoȱsubmitȱ toȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱthatȱcommunity”ȱ“whateverȱhisȱorȱherȱownȱ personalȱ opinionsȱ mayȱ be”ȱ (40).ȱ Oneȱ canȱ thereforeȱ argueȱ thatȱ Ward’sȱcriticismȱmightȱcomeȱfromȱaȱsomewhatȱexaggeratedȱorȱ overdrawnȱideaȱofȱconfessionalȱtheology.ȱOneȱshould,ȱinȱpointȱ ofȱ fact,ȱ refrainȱ fromȱ aȱ merelyȱ apologeticȱ confessionalȱ theologyȱ ever,ȱtoȱdiscussȱifȱtheȱtermsȱofȱinterculturalityȱandȱinterreligiosityȱcanȱ actuallyȱ beȱ usedȱ asȱ synonymsȱ orȱ differȱ inȱ regardȱ toȱ theirȱ formalȱ andȱ materialȱobjects.ȱ


inȱ theȱ wayȱ Wardȱ delineatesȱ itȱ here;ȱ however,ȱ oneȱ mightȱ proȬ poseȱadoptingȱtheȱtermȱ“confessional”ȱinȱaȱsomewhatȱunbiasedȱ wayȱandȱtherebyȱtalkȱaboutȱaȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱthatȱis,ȱinȬ deed,ȱdecidedlyȱconfessionallyȱbound,ȱyetȱwithoutȱrejectingȱanyȱ otherȱ religiousȱ tradition.ȱ Theȱ epistemologicalȱ aporiaȱ Wardȱ marksȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ beginningȱ ofȱ anyȱ actȱ ofȱ underȬ standing,ȱ yetȱ theȱ epistemologicalȱ frameworkȱ willȱ probablyȱ alȬ waysȱbeȱprovidedȱbyȱaȱspecificȱreligiousȱtradition.ȱThisȱspecificȱ epistemologicalȱ linkȱ mightȱ beȱ markedȱ byȱ theȱ termȱ “confesȬ sional.”ȱSo,ȱshouldȱtheȱtheologianȱinȱthatȱwayȱnotȱpositivelyȱacȬ ceptȱtheȱtraditionȱtoȱwhichȱheȱisȱbound?4ȱ FrancisȱX.ȱClooneyȱcriticizesȱWard’sȱdistinctionȱinȱhisȱHinȬ duȱGod,ȱChristianȱGod.ȱHeȱconcedesȱ“theȱmeritȱofȱdistinguishingȱ betweenȱ comparativeȱ andȱ confessionalȱ theologies”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2001:ȱ 25)ȱ butȱ doesȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ separateȱ them.ȱ Hisȱ notionȱ ofȱ comparativeȱtheologyȱcanȱexplicitlyȱincludeȱtheȱadjectiveȱ“conȬ fessional,”ȱbecause,ȱasȱheȱholds,ȱ“‘theology’ȱisȱnotȱuniqueȱtoȱanyȱ particularȱ confession”ȱ (Clooneyȱ 2001:ȱ 26,ȱ 8Ȭ11).ȱ Therefore,ȱ hisȱ modelȱofȱtheologyȱ asȱ interreligious,ȱ comparative,ȱ dialogical,ȱ andȱ confessionalȱ reintegratesȱ Ward’sȱ confessionalȱ andȱ comparativeȱ theoloȬ giesȱ intoȱ aȱ singleȱ thoughȱ complexȱ theologicalȱ practice,ȱ whichȱ mightȱ beȱ describedȱ moreȱ dynamicallyȱ asȱ movingȱ fromȱaȱconfessionalȱbaseȱthroughȱinterveningȱintellectualȱinȬ quiriesȱ toȱ aȱ renewedȱ andȱ transformedȱ reappropriationȱ ofȱ confessionalȱviews.ȱ(Clooneyȱ2001:ȱ26)ȱ

Clooneyȱcanȱthusȱexplicitlyȱgiveȱaccountȱofȱhisȱownȱperspectiveȱ andȱ hisȱ impressiveȱ workȱ showsȱ howȱ capableȱ hisȱ method,ȱ reȬ finedȱduringȱtheȱwork,ȱactuallyȱis.ȱHowever,ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱaskȱ ifȱ theȱ distinctionȱ thatȱ Clooneyȱ inȱ principleȱ admitsȱ –ȱ without,ȱ however,ȱconductingȱitȱ–ȱisȱhelpful.ȱIfȱconfessionalityȱisȱunderȬ stoodȱasȱproposedȱabove,ȱtheȱadjectiveȱ“confessional”ȱdoesȱnotȱ addȱanyȱspecificȱqualityȱtoȱtheology,ȱandȱaȱtheologyȱthatȱdeniesȱ ȱ Iȱ amȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ confessionalityȱ sketchedȱhereȱhasȱmanyȱimplicitȱassumptionsȱasȱwellȱandȱisȱnotȱunbiȬ asedȱorȱneutralȱitself.ȱItȱisȱusedȱhere,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱmarkȱtheȱepistemoȬ logicalȱrootageȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱone’sȱownȱtraditionȱandȱtheȱrelationȱtoȱ itȱthatȱIȱproposeȱtoȱdiscussȱexplicitly.ȱ 4


itsȱconfessionalityȱ mightȱnotȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱarticulateȱ implicitȱ episȬ temologicalȱ presuppositions.ȱ Inȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ Clooney’sȱ theoryȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱconfessionalȱbaseȱduringȱtheȱinquiryȱisȱinȱ aȱwayȱtheoreticallyȱunderȬdetermined.ȱItȱdoesȱnotȱbecomeȱclearȱ whatȱ statusȱ one’sȱ ownȱ traditionȱ hasȱ inȱ comparison,ȱ includingȱ theȱimplicationsȱitȱmightȱhaveȱonȱtheȱperceptionȱofȱtheȱotherȱasȱ different.ȱCanȱtheologyȱactuallyȱsomehowȱoscillateȱdynamicallyȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ polesȱ ofȱ confessionalȱ andȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logy,ȱ orȱ willȱ itȱ notȱ beȱ boundȱ toȱ theȱ traditionȱ inȱ theȱ veryȱ actȱ ofȱ comparison?ȱWithȱtheȱnotionȱofȱ“theology”ȱthatȱisȱnotȱuniqueȱtoȱ anyȱparticularȱconfession,ȱClooneyȱseemsȱtoȱconstructȱanȱoverȬ allȱ identityȱ thatȱ formsȱ theȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ hisȱ comparisons,ȱ similarȱtoȱtheȱoneȱthatȱWardȱlinkedȱtoȱhisȱnotionȱofȱcomparativeȱ theology.ȱ Inȱ Klausȱ vonȱ Stosch’sȱ approachȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ theȱquestionȱofȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱcomparativeȱandȱconfesȬ sionalȱtheologyȱisȱnotȱexplicitlyȱasked.ȱHeȱshapesȱhisȱapproachȱ byȱ firstȱ demonstratingȱ whatȱ heȱ callsȱ theȱ Grunddilemmaȱ (basicȱ dilemma)ȱ(cf.ȱStoschȱ2002:ȱ294;ȱ2006:ȱ305Ȭ13;ȱ2007)ȱofȱtheologyȱofȱ religionsȱandȱthenȱelaboratingȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱasȱanȱalterȬ nativeȱ toȱ itȱ inȱ referenceȱ toȱ Wittgenstein.ȱ Theȱ pointȱ ofȱ interestȱ hereȱ isȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ metaȬlanguageȱ gameȱ viewpointȱ thatȱ vonȱ Stoschȱ formallyȱ excludesȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ postulatedȱ inȱ theȱ traditionȱ forȱ religiousȱ –ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ spiritualȱ –ȱ reasonsȱ without,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ takingȱ it.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ problematicȱ toȱ moveȱ backȱ andȱ forthȱ betweenȱ languageȱ games,ȱ asȱ vonȱ Stoschȱ proposes,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ theologianȱ willȱ probablyȱ alwaysȱbeȱrootedȱinȱoneȱofȱthemȱ–ȱwhichȱIȱtriedȱtoȱmarkȱbyȱtheȱ termȱ “confessional.”ȱ Howȱ canȱ suchȱ aȱ “movingȱ backȱ andȱ forthȱ betweenȱ concreteȱ religiousȱ traditions”ȱ (Stoschȱ 2002:ȱ 307;ȱ myȱ translation)ȱ thatȱ wouldȱ concernȱ onlyȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ elements 5ȱ beȱatȱallȱepistemologicallyȱpossible?ȱ GeneralȱQuestionsȱaboutȱtheȱProjectȱofȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ Havingȱ workedȱ outȱ theȱ aboveȱ withȱ theȱ briefȱ sketchesȱ ofȱ apȬ proachesȱinȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱitȱisȱnowȱatȱtheȱtimeȱtoȱposeȱ ȱReferringȱtoȱtheȱterminologyȱproposedȱinȱGrünschloßȱ1999.ȱ

5


someȱ generalȱ questionsȱ aboutȱ certainȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ ofȱ comparativeȱtheology.ȱNecessarily,ȱtheseȱquestionsȱdoȱnotȱconȬ cernȱanȱunderlyingȱconceptȱ–ȱwhichȱisȱhardlyȱsurprisingȱgivenȱ howȱ recentȱ aȱ phenomenonȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ –ȱ butȱ adȬ dressȱ singleȱ facetsȱ ofȱ aȱ somehowȱ fictionalȱ conceptȱ ofȱ differentȱ approaches.ȱ Firstȱofȱall,ȱasȱWardȱadmits,ȱtheȱtheologianȱwillȱalwaysȱbeȱ boundȱ toȱ hisȱ ownȱ religiousȱ tradition.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ Wardȱ hasȱshownȱthatȱtheȱquestȱforȱanȱArchimedeanȱpointȱfromȱwhichȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ couldȱ beȱ unhingedȱ canȱ neverȱ beȱ successfulȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ epistemologicalȱ problems.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ hardlyȱ leaveȱ behindȱ one’sȱ ownȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ one’sȱ ownȱconnectionȱtoȱtheȱcontext,ȱorȱevenȱone’sȱownȱculturalȱrootsȱ –ȱ andȱ aȱ theologianȱ canȱ neverȱ argueȱ fromȱ aȱ “bird’sȱ eyeȱ view.”ȱ So,ȱitȱisȱquestionableȱifȱtheȱphenomenonȱbeingȱcomparedȱcanȱbeȱ regardedȱ andȱ appreciatedȱ apartȱ fromȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ rootage.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ itȱ isȱ questionableȱ ifȱ suchȱ aȱ “bird’sȱ eyeȱview”ȱis,ȱafterȱall,ȱdesirable.ȱIfȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱnotȱ confessionalȱand,ȱasȱsuch,ȱnotȱstronglyȱrootedȱinȱaȱparticularȱreȬ ligiousȱ tradition,ȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ whereȱ toȱ startȱ remainsȱ unanswered.ȱ One’sȱ ownȱ traditionȱ willȱ probablyȱ beȱ appropriȬ atedȱ onlyȱ throughȱ enteringȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ circleȱ inȱ aȱ conȬ fessionalȱ way.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱandȱ toȱ useȱ theȱanalogyȱ again,ȱaȱ theologyȱ thatȱ takesȱ anȱ Archimedeanȱ pointȱ wouldȱ alwaysȱ beȱ liftedȱ offȱ itsȱ ownȱ epistemologicalȱ foundations.ȱ Inȱ thatȱ sense,ȱ theologyȱhasȱtoȱbeȱconfessional,ȱotherwiseȱitȱwouldȱceaseȱtoȱbeȱ theologyȱ andȱ become,ȱ onȱ aȱ phenomenologicalȱ level,ȱ religiousȱ studies.ȱ Keithȱ Wardȱ beginsȱ hisȱ introductionȱ byȱ claimingȱ thatȱ thereȱ“isȱnoȱoneȱproperȱstartingȬpointȱinȱtheology”ȱ(Wardȱ1994:ȱ 1).ȱ Butȱ heȱ subsequentlyȱ explainsȱ thatȱ heȱ hasȱ “chosenȱ toȱ beginȱ withȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ sayȱ whatȱ sortȱ ofȱ disciplineȱ theologyȱ is”ȱ (Wardȱ1994:ȱ1),ȱthusȱapparentlyȱalludingȱtoȱtheȱstartingȱpointȱofȱ theȱ specificȱ book,ȱ notȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ argumentationȱ inȱ general.ȱ InȱthatȱwayȱtheȱquestionȱwhereȱtheologyȱstartsȱinȱitsȱargumenȬ tationȱ hasȱ faded.ȱ Shouldȱ itȱ start,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ asȱ aȱ humanȱ answerȱtoȱaȱrevelation,ȱitȱwouldȱalreadyȱbeȱrootedȱinȱaȱtraditionȱ withȱnotionsȱofȱanswerȱandȱrevelation.ȱ Thisȱ leadsȱ toȱ anotherȱ point.ȱ Whenȱ Wardȱ rejectsȱ confesȬ sionalȱtheology,ȱoneȱmightȱloseȱsightȱofȱtheȱfactȱthatȱeveryȱtheoȬ logyȱ inȱ itselfȱ isȱ culturallyȱ andȱ thereforeȱ probablyȱ alsoȱ conȬ


fessionallyȱ shaped.ȱ Ifȱ Wardȱ triesȱ toȱ developȱ aȱ “generalȱ view”ȱ (Wardȱ 1994:ȱ 37)ȱ ofȱ theȱ “natureȱ ofȱ religion”ȱ fromȱ scientificȱ reȬ sultsȱinȱwhichȱone’sȱownȱpositionȱcouldȱbeȱadequatelyȱlocated,ȱ whatȱthisȱ“natureȱ ofȱ religion”ȱmightȱ beȱ remainsȱ undisclosed.ȱIȱ believeȱthatȱtheȱfactȱthatȱnotȱonlyȱone’sȱownȱ–ȱasȱstatedȱbeforeȱ–ȱ butȱalsoȱtheȱotherȱreligionȱalwaysȱappearȱculturallyȱshapedȱandȱ contextuallyȱboundȱisȱnotȱadequatelyȱreflectedȱupon.ȱAndȱthatȱ isȱtheȱsecondȱmeaningȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“confessional”ȱcontains.ȱIf,ȱ forȱexample,ȱKlausȱvonȱStosch,ȱreferringȱtoȱWittgenstein,ȱwantsȱ toȱ alternateȱ betweenȱ differentȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ sinceȱ theirȱ beliefsȱareȱrootedȱinȱbasicȱactivity,ȱoneȱmightȱaskȱhowȱtheȱotherȱ religiousȱtraditionȱisȱunderstoodȱandȱwhetherȱaȱtheologianȱcanȱ actuallyȱ takeȱ partȱ inȱ anotherȱ traditionȱ atȱ all.ȱ He,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ willȱ probablyȱintroduceȱhisȱownȱcontextualȱbondageȱthatȱisȱimplicȬ itlyȱtheȱbasisȱforȱhisȱactȱofȱcomparison.ȱInȱthatȱway,ȱitȱmightȱbeȱ arguedȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ micrologicallyȱ takesȱ theȱ “bird’sȱ eyeȱ view”ȱ toȱ whichȱ itȱ objectsȱ inȱ theȱ dialogueȱ withȱ theȱ pluralisticȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Moreover,ȱ itȱ isȱ questionableȱ howȱ anotherȱ religion,ȱ ifȱ oneȱ canȱ focusȱ onȱ itȱ throughȱ theȱ perȬ spectiveȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ religiousȱ tradition,ȱ canȱ helpȱ oneȱ underȬ standȱhisȱownȱreligionȱitselfȱatȱallȱ(cf.ȱDanzȱ2005:ȱ233f.).ȱ Thisȱbringsȱaboutȱanotherȱissueȱor,ȱrather,ȱanȱexample:ȱTheȱ factȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“theology”ȱasȱaȱparticularlyȱChristianȱtermȱisȱ alreadyȱrootedȱinȱaȱspecificȱtraditionȱandȱdevelopedȱinȱaȱspecificȱ frameȱofȱdiscourseȱmightȱnotȱbeȱsufficientlyȱtakenȱintoȱconsiderȬ ation.ȱItȱmightȱbeȱthatȱthisȱ–ȱmethodologicalȱ–ȱtermȱhasȱimplicaȬ tionsȱ thatȱ cannotȱ beȱ displayedȱ onceȱ oneȱ worksȱ withȱ itȱ andȱ acȬ cordingȱtoȱit.ȱTheȱlimitationȱtoȱone’sȱownȱpositionȱthatȱwasȱdisȬ cussedȱaboveȱmightȱbeȱinscribedȱintoȱtheȱdiscourseȱbyȱtheȱtermȱ “theology”ȱ itself. 6ȱ Whenȱ Wardȱ statesȱ thatȱ “weȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ limitedȱbyȱetymology,ȱandȱweȱareȱfreeȱtoȱextendȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ theȱwordȱ‘theology’ȱinȱanyȱwayȱthatȱisȱuseful”ȱ(Wardȱ2007:ȱ378),ȱ ȱCf.ȱtheȱslightlyȱdifferentȱargumentȱinȱWinklerȱ2008:ȱ126.ȱReferȬ ringȱtoȱthisȱissue,ȱClooneyȱhasȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“theology”ȱisȱ toȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱheuristicȱhypothesisȱforȱtheȱpresentȱ(cf.ȱClooneyȱ 2007:ȱ 142f.,ȱ 152).ȱ Theȱ argumentȱ thatȱ theȱ advantagesȱ ofȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ willȱ balanceȱ theȱ disadvantagesȱ (Clooneyȱ 2007:ȱ 143)ȱ seemsȱ conȬ vincing.ȱ 6


Iȱagreeȱinȱtheȱmain.ȱHowever,ȱitȱmightȱbeȱthatȱtheȱtermȱitselfȱhasȱ certainȱ implicationsȱ andȱ theȱ etymologyȱ dynamicsȱ ofȱ itsȱ own.ȱ Furthermore,ȱoneȱcanȱaskȱifȱandȱinȱhowȱfarȱtheologicalȱhermenȬ euticsȱareȱimplicitlyȱorȱexplicitlyȱgearedȱtoȱtheologicalȱaxiomatȬ icsȱ(cf.ȱSchmidtȬLeukel:ȱ1998).ȱToȱavoidȱconstructingȱanȱoverallȱ identity,ȱ theȱ notionsȱ ofȱ “religion”ȱ andȱ “theology”ȱ shouldȱ beȱ cautiouslyȱreflectedȱuponȱphilosophicallyȱbeforeȱusingȱthemȱforȱ comparison.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ theȱ necessarilyȱ contingentȱ perspectiveȱ canȱimplyȱconstructionȱandȱtacitȱpremisesȱ(cf.ȱDanzȱ2005:ȱ107).ȱ Inȱ Keithȱ Ward’sȱ accountȱ onȱ globalȱ theology,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ heȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ weȱ regardȱ globalȱ theologyȱ asȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ ideasȱ ofȱ supernaturalȱ andȱ ultimateȱ realitiesȱ andȱ values,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱstudyȱofȱwaysȱofȱrelatingȱtoȱthoseȱrealitiesȱandȱvaluesȱasȱ theyȱhaveȱpersistedȱthroughoutȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱvariousȱworldȱ cultures”ȱ(Wardȱ2007:ȱ378)ȱ

Thisȱkindȱofȱtheology,ȱhowever,ȱalreadyȱreliesȱonȱtheȱnotionȱofȱ anȱ intelligibleȱ ultimateȱ realityȱ andȱ isȱ probablyȱ alreadyȱ imȬ plicitlyȱ shaped.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ hereȱ isȱ if,ȱ inȱ tryingȱ toȱ abstractȱ fromȱ generalȱ notionsȱ andȱ overallȱ identities,ȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logyȱdoesȱnotȱintroduceȱaȱlevelȱofȱidentity,ȱaȱunityȱonȱtheȱconȬ ceptualȱlevel,ȱforȱexample,ȱbetweenȱtheȱnotionsȱofȱreligionȱandȱ theology.ȱ Theseȱ questionsȱ mightȱ beȱ summedȱ upȱ inȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theȱindividuallyȱconfinedȱperspective,ȱtheȱculturalȱdependenceȱ onȱ theȱ contextȱ andȱ theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ dynamicȱ languageȱ aboutȱ ulȬ timateȱ realitiesȱ inȱ generalȱ (cf.ȱ Hoffȱ 2007b:ȱ 202).ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ problemsȱ ofȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ languageȱ analogyȱ mightȱpossiblyȱbeȱexpoundedȱagain.ȱIfȱoneȱtalksȱaboutȱlearningȱ theȱ otherȱ religionȱ likeȱ aȱ “secondȱ firstȱ language”ȱ (Hintersteinerȱ 2001:ȱ 319;ȱ cf.ȱ Duffyȱ 1999:ȱ 114),ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ askȱ ifȱ aȱ secondȱ religionȱ –ȱ orȱ aȱ secondȱ languageȱ –ȱ canȱ beȱ learnedȱ withoutȱ preȬ conditionsȱatȱall.ȱTheȱsecondȱlanguageȱwillȱprobablyȱalwaysȱbeȱ learnedȱandȱmediatedȱthroughȱtheȱfocusȱofȱtheȱfirstȱoneȱ–ȱifȱonlyȱ throughȱtheȱuseȱofȱaȱdictionaryȱ–ȱsoȱIȱdoubtȱwhetherȱaȱ“secondȱ firstȱlanguage”ȱexistsȱatȱall.ȱItȱmightȱbeȱmoreȱpragmaticȱtoȱbringȱ theȱ theologicalȱ dictionaryȱ thatȱ oneȱ involuntarilyȱ usesȱ toȱ theȱ table.ȱSecond,ȱitȱisȱunclear,ȱifȱaȱreligionȱcanȱbeȱlearnedȱatȱallȱlikeȱaȱ language.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ isȱ ifȱ thatȱ doesȱ justiceȱ toȱ theȱ termȱ “reliȬ


gion,”ȱinsofarȱasȱGodȱandȱhisȱpossibleȱorȱallegedȱrevelationsȱareȱ notȱincludedȱinȱthatȱidea.ȱ Here,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ theȱ relationȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱandȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱandȱtheȱquestionȱifȱcomȬ parativeȱ theologyȱ canȱ actuallyȱ beȱ abstractedȱ fromȱ generalȱ noȬ tionsȱ areȱ touchedȱ upon.ȱ Differentȱ modelsȱ haveȱ beenȱ usedȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ andȱ theologyȱofȱreligions.7ȱToȱstateȱallȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱsaidȱaboveȱmoreȱ precisely,ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱuseȱtheȱanalogyȱofȱtwoȱgearȱwheels:ȱifȱ oneȱisȱmoved,ȱtheȱotherȱoneȱ–ȱinvoluntarilyȱ–ȱmovesȱinȱsync.ȱToȱ giveȱanȱexample:ȱwhenȱWardȱtalksȱaboutȱaȱ“wholeȱrangeȱofȱDiȬ vineȱ manifestations”ȱ (Wardȱ 1994:ȱ 39),ȱ heȱ seemsȱ toȱ implyȱ someȱ basicȱassumptionsȱthatȱshouldȱbeȱdiscussedȱinȱtheologyȱofȱreliȬ gions;ȱ theseȱ assumptions,ȱ however,ȱ cannotȱ beȱ displayedȱ anyȱ furtherȱ inȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ Ward’sȱ theory.ȱ Inȱ thatȱ way,ȱ aȱ comȬ parativeȱ theologianȱ mayȱ actuallyȱ importȱ aȱ “undeveloped,ȱ imȬ plicitȱ backgroundȱ assumptions”ȱ thatȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ comparedȱ textsȱ orȱ beliefsȱ (cf.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 2007:ȱ 501ff.;ȱ 2005:ȱ91).ȱItȱisȱtoȱsuchȱquestionsȱthatȱKlausȱvonȱStoschȱseemsȱtoȱ beȱreferringȱasȱwellȱwhen,ȱinȱaȱfootnoteȱtoȱtheȱaccountȱofȱhisȱapȬ proachȱ toȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ thatȱ isȱ outlinedȱ asȱ anȱ alternaȬ tiveȱtoȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱorȱ“transition”ȱ(cf.ȱStoschȱ2002:ȱ294)ȱ ofȱitȱintoȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱandȱprojectedȱintoȱtheȱcontextȱofȱ theȱ dilemmaȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ heȱ warnsȱ againstȱ givingȱ upȱtheȱ“achievementsȱofȱtheȱtraditionalȱconstructionȱofȱmodelsȱ ofȱtheologyȱofȱreligions”ȱ(Stoschȱ2002:ȱn.ȱ40;ȱmyȱtranslation)ȱforȱ theȱmicrologyȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ hasȱ convincinglyȱ arguedȱ thatȱ comȬ parativeȱ theologyȱ willȱ alwaysȱ beȱ facedȱ withȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ truthȱafterȱcomparison,ȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱanswered,ȱthen,ȱinȱaȱwayȱ thatȱcorrespondsȱtoȱtheȱthreeȱmodelsȱinȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱ (cf.ȱe.g.ȱSchmidtȬLeukelȱ2005:ȱ87Ȭ95;ȱ2007).ȱIfȱcomparativeȱtheoȬ ȱCf.ȱe.g.,ȱFredericksȱ1995,ȱDuffyȱ1999,ȱRettenbacherȱ2005,ȱWinkȬ lerȱ2007.ȱFredericksȱandȱvonȱStoschȱ(2002)ȱprojectȱthemȱasȱalternatives;ȱ otherȱauthorsȱcombineȱthemȱandȱtalkȱaboutȱaȱprioriȱandȱaȱposterioriȱdiȬ mensionsȱ (Duffyȱ 1999:ȱ 106),ȱ theoryȱ andȱ praxisȱ (Rettenbacherȱ 2005:ȱ 192).ȱAȱconvincingȱanalogyȱwasȱintroducedȱbyȱWinklerȱwhoȱusedȱtheȱ modelȱofȱanȱellipseȱwithȱtwoȱfociȱ(Winklerȱ2007:ȱ137f.).ȱ 7


logyȱavoidsȱtheȱquestionsȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligions,ȱ itȱ willȱ eitherȱ ceaseȱ toȱ beȱ theologyȱ orȱ ceaseȱ toȱ beȱ comparativeȱ strictoȱsensu.ȱSchmidtȬLeukelȱthereforeȱholdsȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ wayȱ forȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ toȱ remainȱ comparativeȱ andȱ genuinelyȱ theologicalȱ andȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ toȱ avoidȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ questionsȱ discussedȱ inȱ theȱ theoȬ logyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Avoidingȱ themȱ wouldȱ meanȱ thatȱ eitherȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ losesȱ itsȱ theologicalȱ characterȱ andȱ fallsȱbackȱintoȱcomparativeȱreligion,ȱor,ȱfromȱaȱcertainȱpointȱ onwards,ȱ itȱ ceasesȱ toȱ continueȱ itsȱ comparativeȱ reflectionȱ andȱ revertsȱ toȱ theȱ reiterationȱ ofȱ confessionalȱ standpoints.ȱ (SchmidtȬLeukelȱ2007:ȱ502)ȱ

Theȱ linkȱ betweenȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ andȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gionsȱ thatȱ Iȱ wouldȱ suggestȱ drawing,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ theȱ explicitȱ questionȱ asȱ theȱ implicitȱ backgroundȱ allusionsȱ thatȱ theȱ comparativeȱ theologianȱ sharesȱ andȱ thatȱ cannotȱ beȱ avoidedȱ forȱepistemologicalȱreasons:ȱtheyȱmayȱbeȱimplicitȱinȱtheȱveryȱactȱ ofȱcomparisonȱitselfȱandȱbeȱansweredȱinȱaȱconfessionalȱway.ȱItȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ questionȱ thatȱ arisesȱ afterȱ comparingȱ elementsȱ thatȱ mightȱbeȱtheȱproblemȱbutȱratherȱanȱanswerȱthatȱisȱposedȱpriorȱ toȱtheȱquestionȱinȱtheȱactȱofȱcomparing.ȱItȱremainsȱunclearȱifȱtheȱ questionȱofȱtruthȱcanȱbeȱposedȱlegitimatelyȱinȱtheȱratherȱformalȱ wayȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ doesȱ onȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ elements.ȱ Notȱ everyȱ comparison,ȱespeciallyȱnotȱonȱaȱmicrologicalȱlevel,ȱwillȱraiseȱtheȱ questionȱ ofȱ truthȱ explicitlyȱ (cf.ȱ Bernhardtȱ 2006:ȱ 278).ȱ Iȱ agreeȱ withȱSchmidtȬLeukelȱinȱthatȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱ faceȱtheȱquestionsȱofȱtheologyȱofȱreligions,ȱbutȱIȱdoȱnotȱthinkȱitȱ hasȱtoȱanswerȱthemȱonȱtheȱlevelȱofȱelements.ȱRather,ȱitȱhasȱimȬ plicitlyȱansweredȱthemȱalreadyȱonȱanotherȱlevel.ȱIȱdoubtȱifȱtheȱ questionȱ hasȱ beenȱ posedȱ onȱ theȱ micrologicalȱ level,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ answeredȱonȱtheȱsystemȱlevel.ȱHowever,ȱaȱtheologicalȱinclusivȬ ismȱheldȱbyȱtheȱcomparativeȱtheologianȱonȱtheȱlevelȱofȱsystems,ȱ toȱgiveȱanȱexample,ȱdoesȱnotȱneedȱtoȱbeȱaȱproblemȱinȱtheȱactȱofȱ comparisonȱasȱlongȱasȱheȱgivesȱanȱaccountȱonȱit.ȱ Whereasȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ veryȱ quicklyȱ introducesȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ truthȱ andȱ tracesȱ itȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ threeȱ modelsȱ asȱ anȱ answer,ȱIȱbelieveȱthatȱinȱtheȱdefinitionȱofȱtheologyȱasȱfidesȱquaerȬ ensȱ intellectumȱ (cf.,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Clooneyȱ 2007:ȱ 142)ȱ theȱ participleȱ doesȱ deserveȱsomeȱtime.ȱMeanwhile,ȱtheȱdifferenceȱofȱtheȱforeignȱcanȱ wellȱbeȱpreservedȱasȱaȱdifference.ȱIndeed,ȱIȱseeȱnoȱproblemsȱinȱ


combiningȱtheȱmethodȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱwithȱtheȱtheoryȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ onlyȱ seeȱ “noȱ needȱ forȱ comȬ parativeȱ theologyȱ toȱ refrainȱ fromȱ collaboratingȱ withȱ theȱ theoȬ logyȱofȱreligions”ȱ(SchmidtȬLeukelȱ2007:ȱ502)ȱbutȱIȱalsoȱdoubtȱifȱ thatȱisȱepistemologicallyȱpossible.ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱneedsȱ toȱgiveȱanȱaccountȱofȱsomeȱbasicȱassumptionsȱthatȱitȱalreadyȱhasȱ andȱ wereȱ markedȱ withȱ theȱ wordȱ “confessional”ȱ inȱ aȱ differentȱ meaningȱ above.ȱ Inȱ thatȱ way,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ needsȱ aȱ moreȱ preciseȱ hermeneuticsȱ andȱ epistemology,ȱ especiallyȱ reȬ gardingȱ theȱ methodȱ andȱ structureȱ ofȱ comparisonȱ whereȱ quesȬ tionsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱoneȱifȱtheȱsingleȱelementsȱareȱtoȱbeȱunderstoodȱ asȱhistoricalȱelementsȱorȱparadigmsȱneedȱtoȱbeȱanswered.ȱ ConcludingȱRemarksȱ Inȱconclusion,ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱproposeȱunderstandingȱcomparaȬ tiveȱ theologyȱ asȱaȱ decidedlyȱ confessionalȱ theology,8ȱ toȱ pickȱ upȱ inȱaȱpositiveȱwayȱtheȱimplicitȱhermeneuticalȱorȱepistemologicalȱ assumptionsȱthatȱareȱinvoluntarilyȱpresentȱbutȱcannotȱbeȱexplicȬ itlyȱissuedȱinȱmostȱapproachesȱsinceȱtheȱepistemologicalȱframeȬ workȱ willȱ probablyȱ beȱ providedȱ byȱ one’sȱ ownȱ religiousȱ tradiȬ tion.ȱTheȱsecondȱfactȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ“confessional”ȱinȱmyȱopinionȱ marksȱisȱthatȱtraditions,ȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱotherȱbutȱalsoȱone’sȱown,ȱ areȱnotȱclosedȱorȱfixedȱidentitiesȱbutȱincludeȱsomeȱdiversity.ȱ Theȱmethodȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱcertainlyȱprovidesȱanȱ additionȱ ofȱ greatȱ valueȱ forȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ andȱ aȱ theoȬ logyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ especiallyȱ sinceȱ itȱ canȱ enrichȱ formalȱ optionsȱ withȱ aȱ preciseȱ renditionȱ ofȱ theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ encounterȱ inȱ detail.ȱ Withȱ myȱ briefȱ sketchȱ ofȱ theȱ subject,ȱ Iȱ aimedȱ atȱ raisingȱ someȱquestionsȱconcerningȱmainlyȱepistemologicalȱissuesȱinȱtheȱ wayȱtheȱcomparisonȱisȱconducted.ȱTheȱineluctableȱlinkȱtoȱone’sȱ ownȱtradition,ȱhowever,ȱmightȱmakeȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱ phenomenonȱofȱcomparingȱfromȱwithinȱone’sȱownȱtraditionȱasȱ somethingȱ different.ȱ Ifȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ acknowledgesȱ theȱ differentȱ asȱ differentȱ andȱ allowsȱ itȱ toȱ persist,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ asȱ aȱ ȱByȱusingȱtheȱtermȱ“confessional”ȱhereȱIȱnaturallyȱdoȱnotȱwishȱtoȱ limitȱtheȱprocessȱofȱcomparingȱtheologicallyȱmerelyȱtoȱanȱapologeticsȱ thatȱwouldȱbeȱboundȱtoȱanȱauthorityȱwithoutȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱappreȬ ciationȱforȱothers,ȱasȱstatedȱabove.ȱ 8


foreignȱlanguageȱ(cf.ȱHoffȱ2007a:ȱespeciallyȱ214ff.)ȱforȱone’sȱownȱ God,ȱaȱpositiveȱacceptanceȱofȱtheȱotherȱtraditionȱmightȱbeȱposȬ sibleȱevenȱinȱaȱdecidedlyȱconfessionalȱtheology.ȱIfȱtheȱdiversityȱ ofȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱisȱconceivedȱasȱaȱvoidȱorȱgapȱthatȱcanȱbeȱ namedȱmerelyȱinȱaȱnegativeȱwayȱ–ȱasȱanȱunutterableȱmomentȱofȱ theȱineffabilityȱofȱGodȱ–ȱandȱtheȱdifferenceȱisȱpreservedȱbutȱfoȬ cusedȱonȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱone’sȱownȱconfession,ȱthenȱtheȱ everȱ greaterȱ transcendenceȱ ofȱ Godȱ asȱ theȱ (inȱ Christianȱ terms)ȱ Deusȱ semperȱ maiorȱ couldȱ beȱ positivelyȱ assessedȱ andȱ notȱ onlyȱ negativelyȱimposedȱ(cf.ȱWinklerȱ2006:ȱ304ff.).ȱThenȱtheȱdiversityȱ ofȱ religionsȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ solvedȱ inȱ anȱ inclusivistȱ orȱ superiorȱ way,ȱnorȱcouldȱitȱbeȱpluralisticallyȱtranscended.ȱSo,ȱitȱmightȱbeȱ proposedȱ toȱ provideȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ withȱ aȱ logicȱ andȱ hermeneuticsȱ ofȱ difference9ȱ inȱ which,ȱ inȱ addition,ȱ otherȱ reliȬ gionsȱ andȱ theirȱ languagesȱ mightȱ beȱ perceivedȱ asȱ lociȱ alieniȱ (cf.ȱ Hoffȱ2007b:ȱ197).ȱThatȱmightȱmakeȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱperceiveȱotherȱ religionsȱ explicitlyȱ fromȱ one’sȱ ownȱ perspectiveȱ andȱ toȱ analyzeȱ theȱstructureȱofȱcomparisonȱtopologically.ȱ ComparativeȱtheologyȱcanȱactuallyȱbeȱreligiouslyȱandȱconȬ fessionallyȱ boundȱ andȱ yetȱ beȱ openȱ forȱ encounteringȱ otherȱ religionsȱ(cf.ȱWinklerȱ2006:ȱ304ff.);ȱitȱmayȱandȱperhapsȱevenȱhasȱ toȱliveȱonȱaȱpersonal,ȱconfessionalȱlevelȱtoȱstayȱtheologyȱwithinȱ theȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ aȱ religiousȱ tradition.ȱ Theȱ jointȱ ofȱ anȱ interiorȱ view,ȱwithȱreflectionȱonȱone’sȱownȱstandpoint,ȱandȱtheȱexteriorȱ viewȱ isȱ essential;ȱ theologyȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ equippedȱ withȱ aȱ deepȱ grammarȱ ofȱ anȱ interiorȱ andȱ anȱ exteriorȱ view.ȱ Thisȱ wouldȱ alsoȱ includeȱ theȱ otherȱ –ȱ confessionalȱ –ȱ autoȬinterpretationȱ thatȱ canȱ provideȱ necessaryȱ subjectivityȱ toȱ theȱ heteroȬinterpretation.ȱ Ifȱ comparativeȱandȱconfessionalȱtheologyȱareȱthusȱregarded,ȱtheyȱ willȱbeȱneitherȱcounterpartsȱnorȱcomplementsȱbutȱtwoȱperspecȬ tivesȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ discipline.ȱ Ifȱ certaintyȱ isȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ “basicȱformȱofȱactivity”ȱ(Wardȱ1994:ȱ9)ȱ–ȱasȱWardȱputsȱit,ȱreferȬ ringȱtoȱWittgensteinȱ–ȱaȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱmay,ȱwithȱregardȱ toȱ itsȱ micrologicalȱ methods,ȱ actuallyȱ beȱ linkedȱ toȱ aȱ religiousȱ groupȱ andȱ itsȱ practices.ȱ Itȱ couldȱ deriveȱ itsȱ strengthȱ fromȱ theȱ ȱAttemptsȱtoȱprovideȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱwithȱhermeneuticsȱofȱ differenceȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱbyȱChristianȱDanzȱandȱTheoȱSundermeier.ȱ Cf.ȱforȱexampleȱDanzȱ2005:ȱ221Ȭ39ȱandȱBernhardtȱ2006:ȱ280Ȭ88.ȱ 9


personalȱ confessionȱ andȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ aȱ decidedȱ confessionalȱ theologyȱ –ȱ andȱ canȱ thereforeȱ beȱ aȱ confessionalȱ theologyȱ inȱ anȱ interreligiousȱcontext.ȱ Literatureȱ Bernhardt,ȱ R.ȱ (2006).ȱ Endeȱ desȱ Dialogs?ȱ Dieȱ Begegnungȱ derȱ Religionenȱ undȱihreȱtheologischeȱReflexion.ȱZürich:ȱTVZ.ȱ Clooney,ȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ SJ.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Erklärungȱ derȱ Arbeitsgruppeȱ ‘KomȬ parativeȱTheologie’ȱderȱAmericanȱAcademyȱofȱReligionȱ(AAR)”.ȱ SalzburgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:ȱ140Ȭ52.ȱ ȱ (2001).ȱ Hinduȱ God,ȱ Christianȱ God:ȱ Howȱ Reasonȱ Helpsȱ Breakȱ Downȱ theȱBoundariesȱbetweenȱReligions.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Danz,ȱC.ȱ(2005).ȱEinführungȱinȱdieȱTheologieȱderȱReligionen.ȱVienna:ȱLITȱ Verlag.ȱ Duffy,ȱS.J.ȱ(1999).ȱ“AȱTheologyȱofȱtheȱReligionsȱand/orȱaȱComparativeȱ Theology?”ȱHorizonsȱ26:ȱ105Ȭ15.ȱ Fredericks,ȱ J.L.ȱ (1999).ȱ Faithȱ amongȱ Faiths:ȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ andȱ NonȬ ChristianȱReligions.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulȱ&ȱCo.ȱ ȱ (1995).ȱ “Aȱ Universalȱ Religiousȱ Experience?ȱ Comparativeȱ TheoȬ logyȱ asȱ anȱ Alternativeȱ toȱ aȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religions.”ȱ Horizonsȱ 22:ȱ 67Ȭ87.ȱ Grünschloß,ȱ A.ȱ (1999).ȱ Derȱ eigeneȱ undȱ derȱ fremdeȱ Glaube:ȱ Studienȱ zurȱ interreligiösenȱ Fremdwahrnehmungȱ inȱ Islam,ȱ Hinduismus,ȱ BuddhisȬ musȱundȱChristentum.ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck.ȱ Hintersteiner,ȱN.ȱ(2007).ȱ“WieȱdenȱReligionenȱderȱWeltȱbegegnen?ȱDasȱ Projektȱ derȱ Komparativenȱ Theologie.”ȱ Salzburgerȱ Theologischeȱ Zeitschriftȱ11:ȱ153Ȭ74.ȱ ȱ (2001).ȱ Traditionenȱ überschreiten:ȱ Angloamerikanischeȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ interkulturellenȱTraditionshermeneutik.ȱVienna:ȱfacultasȱwuv.ȱ Hoff,ȱG.M.ȱ(2007a).ȱ“DerȱfremdeȱOrtȱdesȱeigenenȱGottes:ȱKarlȱRahnersȱ Theorieȱ vonȱ denȱ anonymenȱ Christenȱ alsȱ Grammatikȱ theoloȬ gischerȱ Fremdsprachen.”ȱ Salzburgerȱ Theologischeȱ Zeitschriftȱ 11:ȱ 201Ȭ16.ȱ (2007b).ȱ Offenbarungenȱ Gottes?ȱ Eineȱ theologischeȱ Problemgeschichte.ȱ Regensburg:ȱVerlagȱFriedrichȱPustet.ȱ Rettenbacher,ȱ S.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Theologieȱ derȱ Religionenȱ undȱ komparativeȱ Theologieȱ –ȱ Alternativeȱ oderȱ Ergänzung?ȱ Dieȱ AuseinandersetzȬ ungȱ zwischenȱ Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ undȱ Klausȱ vonȱ Stoschȱ umȱ dieȱReligionstheologie.”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱMissionswissenshaftȱundȱReȬ ligionswissenschaftȱ2005:ȱ181Ȭ94.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱ P.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Limitsȱ andȱ Prospectsȱ ofȱ Comparativeȱ Theology.”ȱIn:ȱN.ȱHintersteinerȱ(ed.).ȱNamingȱandȱThinkingȱGodȱinȱ

CONFESSIONAL AND COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ201ȱ Europeȱ Today:ȱ Theologyȱ inȱ Globalȱ Dialogue.ȱ Currentsȱ ofȱ Encounterȱ 32.ȱAmsterdam/NewȱYork:ȱEditionsȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ493Ȭ505.ȱ ȱ (2005).ȱ Gottȱ ohneȱ Grenzen:ȱ Eineȱ christlicheȱ undȱ pluralistischeȱ TheoȬ logieȱderȱReligionen.ȱGütersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ ȱ (1998).ȱ “Dasȱ Problemȱ divergierenderȱ Wahrheitsansprücheȱ imȱ Rahmenȱ einerȱ pluralistischenȱ Religionstheologie:ȱ VoraussetzȬ ungenȱzuȱseinerȱLösung.”ȱIn:ȱH.ȬG.ȱSchwandtȱ(ed.).ȱPluralistischeȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen:ȱ Eineȱ kritischeȱ Sichtung.ȱ Frankfurtȱ a.M.:ȱ Lembeck.ȱPp.ȱ39Ȭ58.ȱ Stosch,ȱK.ȱvon.ȱ(2007).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheologyȱasȱanȱAlternativeȱtoȱtheȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religions.”ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ Hintersteinerȱ (ed.).ȱ Namingȱ andȱ Thinkingȱ Godȱ inȱ Europeȱ Today:ȱ Theologyȱ inȱ Globalȱ Dialogue.ȱ CurȬ rentsȱ ofȱ Encounterȱ 32.ȱ Amsterdam/Newȱ York:ȱ Editionsȱ Rodopi.ȱ Pp.ȱ507Ȭ12.ȱ (2006).ȱ Einführungȱ inȱ dieȱ Systematischeȱ Theologie.ȱ Paderborn:ȱ VerȬ lagȱFerdinandȱSchöningh.ȱ ȱ (2002).ȱ “Komparativeȱ Theologieȱ –ȱ einȱ Auswegȱ ausȱ demȱ GrundȬ dilemmaȱjederȱTheologieȱderȱReligionen?”ȱZKThȱ124:ȱ294Ȭ311.ȱ Tracy,ȱ D.ȱ (1987).ȱ “Comparativeȱ Theology.”ȱ In:ȱ M.ȱ Eliadeȱ (ed.),ȱ Theȱ Encyclopediaȱ ofȱ Religion.ȱ Vol.ȱ 14.ȱ London/Newȱ York:ȱ Macmillanȱ PublishingȱCompany/CollierȱMacmillanȱPublishers.ȱPp.ȱ446Ȭ55.ȱ Ward,ȱK.ȱ(2007).ȱ“TheȱIdeaȱofȱ‘God’ȱinȱGlobalȱTheology.”ȱIn:ȱN.ȱHinȬ tersteinerȱ (ed.).ȱ Namingȱ andȱ Thinkingȱ Godȱ inȱ Europeȱ Today:ȱ TheoȬ logyȱinȱ Globalȱ Dialogue.ȱ Amsterdam/Newȱ York:ȱ Editionsȱ Rodopi.ȱ Pp.ȱ377Ȭ88.ȱ ȱ (1994).ȱReligionȱ&ȱRevelation:ȱAȱTheologyȱofȱRevelationȱinȱtheȱWorld’sȱ Religions,ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Winkler,ȱ U.(2008).ȱ “Zumȱ Projektȱ einerȱ Komparativenȱ Theologie.”ȱ In:ȱ G.ȱ Ritzerȱ (ed.).ȱ “Mitȱ euchȱ binȱ ichȱ Mensch…“:ȱ Festschriftȱ anlässlichȱ desȱ 60.ȱ Geburtstagesȱ vonȱ Friedrichȱ Schleinzerȱ O.ȱ Cist.ȱ Innsbruck/ȱ Vienna:ȱTyrolia.ȱPp.ȱ114Ȭ47.ȱ ȱ (2007).ȱ“KomparativeȱTheologieȱderȱReligionen.”ȱSalzburgerȱTheoȬ logischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:ȱ137Ȭ39.ȱ ȱ (2006).ȱ “Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelsȱ christlicheȱ pluralistischeȱ ReliȬ gionstheologie.”ȱSalzburgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ10:ȱ290Ȭ318.ȱ

Guanyin,ȱQueerȱTheology,ȱ andȱSubversiveȱReligiosityȱ ȱ

AnȱExperimentȱinȱInterreligiousȱTheologyȱ ȱ ȱ PaulȱHedgesȱ

Introductionȱ Thisȱ contributionȱ exploresȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ subversiveȱ religiousȱ identityȱacrossȱtwoȱreligiousȱtraditions,ȱChristianityȱandȱ(MahaȬ yana)ȱ Buddhism.ȱ Itȱ isȱ termedȱ aȱ workȱ ofȱ “interreligiousȱ theoȬ logy”ȱ because,ȱ unlikeȱ muchȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ thatȱ simplyȱ seeksȱtoȱcompareȱtraditionsȱandȱideas,ȱthisȱpaperȱactivelyȱseeksȱ toȱengageȱinȱfirstȬorderȱtheologicalȱspeculationȱaboutȱtheȱnatureȱ ofȱreligiousȱsubversionȱwithinȱtheseȱtraditionsȱ(Iȱrecognizeȱthatȱ thereȱmayȱbeȱissuesȱinȱemployingȱtheȱtermȱ“theological”ȱinȱrelaȬ tionȱtoȱBuddhism,ȱbut,ȱlackingȱaȱbetterȱterm,ȱIȱwillȱmakeȱuseȱofȱ it).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ precariousȱ ventureȱ becauseȱ Iȱ speakȱ asȱ aȱ Christianȱ theologian,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ mustȱ ventureȱ cautiouslyȱ intoȱ claimsȱ aboutȱBuddhism,ȱbutȱasȱmyȱcoreȱmaterialȱconcernsȱanȱanalysisȱ ofȱ aȱ bodhisattvaȱ Iȱ believeȱ that,ȱ atȱ leastȱ implicitly,ȱ theologicalȱ claimsȱ areȱ madeȱ aboutȱ theȱ Buddhistȱ traditionȱ too.ȱ Inherentȱ inȱ thisȱ workȱ areȱ claimsȱ aboutȱ theȱ widerȱ significanceȱ ofȱ religiousȱ subversionȱacrossȱallȱreligions;ȱthisȱpresupposesȱthatȱ“religions”ȱ areȱrelatedȱphenomenaȱthatȱcanȱbeȱmeaningfullyȱcomparedȱandȱ discussedȱ–ȱspaceȱdoesȱnotȱpermitȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱhere,ȱbutȱIȱ haveȱelsewhereȱarguedȱforȱ“religion”ȱasȱaȱmeaningfulȱcategoryȱ (Hedgesȱ 2010a),ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ againstȱ theȱ “particularity’ȱ ofȱ eachȱ (Hedgesȱ 2008),ȱ mattersȱ Iȱ haveȱ recentlyȱ discussedȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ interreligious,ȱcomparative,ȱandȱinterculturalȱtheologiesȱ(HedgȬ esȱ 2010d).ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ seeȱ thisȱ workȱ asȱ relatedȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ otherȱ scholarsȱwhoȱhaveȱarguedȱforȱorȱengagedȱinȱsimilarȱworkȱ(e.g.,ȱ Clooneyȱ2002;ȱSchmidtȬLeukelȱ2009).ȱ ThisȱcontributionȱanalyzesȱtheȱbodhisattvaȱAvalokiteshvaraȱ inȱ“his”ȱtransformationȱintoȱhisȱmostȱcommonlyȱreveredȱform,ȱ asȱ theȱ Chineseȱ “goddess”ȱ Guanyin,ȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ queerȱ theoȬ logyȱasȱdevelopedȱandȱexpressedȱbyȱElizabethȱStuart.ȱHowever,ȱ itȱ shouldȱ beȱ stressedȱ thatȱ althoughȱ thisȱ contributionȱ isȱ conȬ


cernedȱwithȱmultiȬgenderedȱidentitiesȱandȱemploysȱqueerȱtheoȬ logyȱitȱisȱnotȱaȱdiscourseȱonȱsexualityȱorȱgender.ȱWeȱwillȱbeginȱ byȱ outliningȱ Avalokiteshvara’sȱ transformationȱ intoȱ Guanyinȱ (hisȱ Chineseȱ name).1ȱ Weȱ willȱnextȱ introduceȱ queerȱ theologyȱasȱ developedȱ byȱ Stuartȱ andȱ useȱ thisȱ toȱ createȱ aȱ profileȱ ofȱ “Queerȱ Religiousȱ Identity”ȱ (QRI),ȱ whichȱ isȱ concernedȱ notȱ withȱ sexualȬ ity/genderȱbutȱtheȱreversalȱandȱsubversionȱofȱconventionalȱdisȬ courses,ȱexpectations,ȱandȱviewpoints.ȱWeȱwillȱthenȱapplyȱthisȱ toȱGuanyinȱandȱdiscussȱsomeȱaspectsȱofȱherȱsubversiveȱnature.ȱ Weȱ willȱ concludeȱ withȱ someȱ reflectionsȱ onȱ QRIȱ asȱ aȱ broaderȱ theologicalȱconcept.ȱ WhoȱisȱAvalokiteshvara/ȱGuanyin?2ȱ TheȱBodhisattvaȱAvalokiteshvaraȱisȱaȱfigureȱofȱimmenseȱsignifiȬ canceȱ withinȱ theȱ Mahayanaȱ tradition.ȱ Heȱ appearsȱ inȱ BudȬ dhism’sȱlargestȱtradition,ȱtheȱPureȱLand,ȱasȱanȱassistantȱtoȱAmiȬ daȱBuddha,ȱwhere,ȱinȱtheȱSutraȱonȱtheȱBuddhaȱofȱInfiniteȱLife,ȱhe,ȱ alongȱ withȱ Mahasthamaprapta,ȱ isȱ describedȱ asȱ “theȱ mostȱ auȬ gustȱ andȱ bestȱ [bodhisattvas].ȱ Theirȱ majesticallyȱ divineȱ lightsȱ shineȱthroughoutȱthreeȱthousandȱmegaȬworldȬsystems”ȱ(UrakaȬ miȱ 1996:ȱ 66ȱ [ch.ȱ V,ȱ §ȱ 1]).ȱ However,ȱ asȱ timeȱ wentȱ by,ȱ AvalokiȬ teshvaraȱcameȱtoȱholdȱaȱpositionȱofȱgreaterȱsignificanceȱwithinȱ theȱ devotionalȱ lifeȱ ofȱ Eastȱ Asianȱ Buddhismȱ thanȱ evenȱ Amidaȱ himself,ȱ becomingȱ theȱ mostȱ widelyȱ reveredȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ ChiȬ neseȱculturalȱsphere;ȱtheȱdepthȱandȱspreadȱofȱhisȱcultȱisȱclearlyȱ indicatedȱ inȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ theȱ seminalȱ articleȱ onȱ him,ȱ “KuanȬyin:ȱ TheȱCultȱofȱHalfȱAsia”ȱ(Tayȱ1976).ȱExactlyȱwhenȱtheȱbalanceȱofȱ favourȱshiftedȱtoȱAvalokiteshvaraȱisȱhardȱtoȱsay,ȱandȱitȱappearsȱ 1ȱThereȱareȱaȱvarietyȱofȱdiscussionsȱonȱtheȱgenealogyȱofȱtheȱChiȬ neseȱname:ȱsee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱTayȱ1976:ȱ148ff.ȱForȱaȱmoreȱrecentȱdiscusȬ sionȱ seeȱ Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 31ff.,ȱ althoughȱ thisȱ isȱ interspersedȱ throughoutȱ aȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ scripturalȱ foundations.ȱ Itȱ shouldȱ beȱ notedȱ thatȱ Iȱ useȱ GuanyinȱasȱtheȱPinyinȱRomanizationȱsystemȱisȱnowȱbecomingȱaȱstanȬ dardȱinȱChineseȱstudies.ȱOtherȱcommonȱAnglicizationsȱincludeȱKuanȬ yin,ȱor,ȱrenderedȱfromȱJapanese,ȱKwannonȱorȱKannon.ȱ

ȱThisȱisȱjustȱaȱsketch;ȱaȱlongerȱdiscussionȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱHedgesȱ (forthcoming),ȱ whereȱ Iȱ alsoȱ developȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ Guanyinȱ asȱ aȱ subȬ versiveȱreligiousȱfigureȱinȱherȱownȱright.ȱ 2

GUANYIN,ȱQUEERȱTHEOLOGY,ȱANDȱSUBVERSIVEȱRELIGIOSITYȱȱȱȱȱȱ205ȱ

thatȱtheologicallyȱthisȱisȱoftenȱcounteredȱ(Pyeȱ1978:ȱ78Ȭ79).ȱInȱreȬ lationȱ toȱ theȱ Chineseȱ context,ȱ aȱ sayingȱ tellsȱ us:ȱ “Everybodyȱ knowsȱhowȱtoȱchantȱOȬmiȬt’oȬfoȱ[Amitabha],ȱandȱeveryȱhouseȬ holdȱ worshipsȱ KuanȬyin”ȱ (Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 1).ȱ Thisȱ indicatesȱ theȱ preȬ valenceȱofȱPureȱLandȱasȱwellȱasȱGuanyin’sȱdevotionalȱstatus:ȱinȱ Pureȱ Landȱ templesȱ Guanyin’sȱ shrineȱ receivesȱ moreȱ devotionȱ thanȱAmida’s,ȱwhileȱGuanyinȱisȱtheȱmostȱpopularȱBuddhistȱfigȬ ureȱinȱhomeȱshrines.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ closeȱ associationȱ withȱ theȱ Pureȱ Landȱ school,ȱ Avalokiteshvaraȱ isȱ prominentȱ acrossȱ theȱ Mahayanaȱ tradition,ȱ includingȱ mentionsȱ inȱ theȱ Heartȱ Sutraȱ (Tayȱ 1976:ȱ 163;ȱ Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 342Ȭ5),ȱ whileȱ heȱ isȱ significantȱ inȱ otherȱ schools,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Ch’an/ȱ Zenȱ(ReisȬHabitoȱ1993:ȱ61ȱandȱ68).ȱHowever,ȱtheȱmostȱpopularȱ literaryȱsourceȱwasȱtheȱLotusȱSutra,ȱwithȱtheȱsectionȱrelatingȱtoȱ Avalokiteshvaraȱ oftenȱ circulatingȱ asȱ aȱ separateȱ textȱ inȱ itsȱ ownȱ rightȱ(Idemaȱ2008:ȱ6).ȱAccordingȱtoȱthisȱtext,ȱhisȱremitȱwentȱfarȱ beyondȱallowingȱaccessȱtoȱtheȱPureȱLand,ȱandȱheȱwasȱpresentedȱ asȱsomeoneȱalwaysȱreadyȱtoȱhearȱaȱdevotee’sȱprayer:ȱifȱoneȱfellȱ intoȱaȱfire,ȱcallingȱonȱhimȱwouldȱpreventȱoneȱfromȱbeingȱburnt;ȱ heȱcouldȱsaveȱoneȱfromȱdrowning,ȱmakeȱoneȱimperviousȱtoȱanȱ enemy’sȱ weapons,ȱ provideȱ bravery,ȱ and,ȱ evenȱ makeȱ one’sȱ chainsȱfallȱoffȱifȱoneȱwasȱinȱprison,ȱregardlessȱofȱguiltȱorȱinnoȬ cenceȱ (Lotusȱ Sutra,ȱ inȱ Beckerleggeȱ 2002:ȱ 364Ȭ44;ȱ seeȱ Muraseȱ 1971).ȱ Heȱ was,ȱ therefore,ȱ anȱ allȬpurposeȱ protectorȱ inȱ timesȱ ofȱ needȱandȱhighlyȱpopular.ȱThisȱisȱshownȱiconographicallyȱinȱtheȱ ThousandȬEyedȱGuanyinȱwho,ȱwithȱaȱthousandȱarmsȱandȱeyes,ȱ isȱcapableȱofȱseeingȱandȱrespondingȱtoȱeveryȱneedȱofȱhisȱdevotȬ eesȱ(Tayȱ1976:ȱ171ff.;ȱYüȱ2001:ȱ93ff.);ȱor,ȱmoreȱdoctrinally,ȱHarȬ veyȱ suggests,ȱ heȱ isȱ “theȱ veryȱ embodimentȱ ofȱ compassion,ȱ theȱ drivingȱforceȱofȱallȱBodhisattvas”ȱ(Harveyȱ1990:ȱ131).ȱTheȱbeliefȱ inȱ hisȱ willingnessȱ andȱ abilityȱ toȱ helpȱ isȱ aptlyȱ capturedȱ inȱ Johnȱ Blofeld’sȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ theȱ fisherwomanȱ whoȱ comesȱ toȱ askȱ thatȱ herȱ unbornȱ childȱ beȱ male,ȱ andȱ theȱ beliefȱ thatȱ ifȱ sheȱ isȱ aȱ girlȱ itȱ mustȱbeȱbecauseȱsheȱhasȱsomeȱexceptionallyȱgoodȱdestiny,ȱforȱaȱ requestȱ wouldȱ notȱ goȱ unheededȱ withoutȱ goodȱ reasonȱ (Blofeldȱ 1977:ȱ 18Ȭ19).ȱ Thisȱ latterȱ relatesȱ toȱ aȱ particularlyȱ wellȬknownȱ Chineseȱ manifestationȱ asȱ theȱ providerȱ ofȱ children,ȱ aȱ conceptȱ foundȱinȱtheȱLotusȱSutraȱasȱoneȱofȱAvalokiteshvara’sȱpowersȱbutȱ devotionallyȱmanifestedȱinȱChinaȱasȱSongziȱGuanyin:ȱGuanyinȱ whoȱsendsȱchildrenȱ(or,ȱmoreȱliterally,ȱsons).ȱ


AȱfurtherȱtransformationȱoccursȱwithinȱChineseȱBuddhism,ȱ althoughȱsomeȱsuggestȱitȱfollowsȱaȱTibetanȱleadȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ257),ȱ withȱ Avalokiteshvaraȱ takingȱ onȱ aȱ feminineȱ representationȱ asȱ Guanyin.ȱ Itȱ isȱ farȱ fromȱ clearȱ exactlyȱ how,ȱ why,ȱ orȱ whenȱ thisȱ happened,ȱalthoughȱaȱgeneralȱpictureȱisȱavailableȱ(Idemaȱ2008:ȱ 7Ȭ8):ȱinȱtheȱTangȱDynastyȱ(approx.ȱseventhȬninthȱcenturiesȱCE)ȱ heȱbecameȱrobedȱinȱwhite,ȱthenȱfromȱaroundȱtheȱtenthȱcenturyȱ heȱ startedȱ toȱ beȱ portrayedȱ asȱ aȱ female,ȱ whichȱ becameȱ theȱ norȬ mativeȱrepresentationȱwithinȱaȱfewȱcenturies.ȱInȱthisȱguiseȱGuȬ anyinȱtookȱonȱtheȱrole,ȱasȱsheȱisȱoftenȱknownȱinȱtheȱWest,ȱasȱtheȱ “Chineseȱgoddessȱofȱmercyȱandȱcompassion”ȱ–ȱinȱthisȱmode,ȱIȱ willȱreferȱtoȱthisȱbodhisattvaȱasȱaȱ“she.”ȱ InȱrelationȱtoȱGuanyinȱasȱaȱ“Chineseȱgoddess,”ȱitȱshouldȱbeȱ stressedȱthatȱasȱaȱfigureȱofȱdevotion,ȱsheȱhasȱtakenȱonȱherȱownȱ specificȱ trajectory.ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ thisȱ weȱ seeȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ ecclesiasticalȱ controlȱ beingȱ lostȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ sheȱ apȬ pears.ȱ Blofeldȱ notesȱ anȱ interestingȱ conversationȱ withȱ aȱ monkȱ whoȱ deniesȱ thatȱ anyȱ popularȱ devotionalȱ associationȱ wouldȱ haveȱ takenȱ placeȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ Guanyin,ȱ whoseȱ orthodoxyȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ safeguardedȱ byȱ monksȱ (Blofeldȱ 1977:ȱ 21Ȭ23).ȱ However,ȱ asȱ withȱ Dizang,ȱ weȱ shouldȱ noteȱ thatȱ bothȱ theȱ soȬ calledȱ “great”ȱ andȱ “little”ȱ traditionsȱ playedȱ aȱ roleȱ inȱ shapingȱ thisȱ figure ȱ (Ngȱ 2007:ȱ 14Ȭ15).3ȱ Guanyinȱ mustȱ not,ȱ therefore,ȱ beȱ understoodȱasȱaȱfigureȱofȱscripturalȱreferencesȱandȱ“orthodox”ȱ Buddhistȱbeliefsȱdefinedȱbyȱeliteȱtraditions,ȱrather:ȱ Sheȱ isȱ notȱ primarilyȱ theȱ bodhisattvaȱ whoȱ assistsȱ AȬmiȬt’oȱ Buddhaȱ ofȱ theȱ Pureȱ Landȱ scriptures,ȱ theȱ thousandȬarmedȱ deityȱofȱtantricȱtraditions,ȱorȱevenȱtheȱsavingȱbodhisattvaȱofȱ theȱ Lotusȱ SĀtra.ȱ KuanȬyinȱ isȱ aȱ Chineseȱ femaleȱ bodhisattvaȱ knownȱ primarilyȱ throughȱ Chineseȱ legends,ȱ art,ȱ novels,ȱ plays,ȱandȱrecentȱmiracles.ȱ(Reedȱ1992:ȱ176)ȱ

SheȱisȱveryȱmuchȱaȱChineseȱgoddessȱwhoseȱoriginsȱandȱasȬ sociationsȱlieȱwithinȱindigenousȱtraditions,ȱlegends,ȱandȱfolkȱreȬ ligiosity,ȱalthoughȱsupportedȱandȱmaintainedȱthroughȱaȱsuperȬ

ȱMyȱthanksȱgoȱtoȱoneȱofȱmyȱstudentsȱforȱmakingȱtheȱconnectionȱ betweenȱtheȱBlofledȱandȱNgȱtexts.ȱ 3


structureȱofȱBuddhistȱ(asȱwellȱasȱDaoist)ȱnetworksȱ(seeȱYüȱ2001:ȱ 311Ȭ2;ȱHedgesȱ2010b).ȱ Miaoshanȱ Itȱ willȱ beȱ usefulȱ atȱ thisȱ stageȱ toȱ outlineȱ brieflyȱ someȱ mainȱ feaȬ turesȱofȱtheȱlegendȱofȱMiaoshan,ȱwhichȱmarkedȱoneȱimportantȱ stageȱofȱGuanyin’sȱindigenizationȱasȱaȱChineseȱfigure,ȱwithȱtheȱ bodhisattvaȱ becomingȱ identifiedȱ withȱ theȱ centralȱ figureȱ ofȱ thisȱ tale.ȱ Weȱ canȱ dateȱ theȱ firstȱ recordedȱ storyȱ toȱ theȱ earlyȱ yearsȱ ofȱ theȱtwelfthȱcentury,ȱbutȱitȱwasȱperformedȱandȱrepeatedȱinȱotherȱ variationsȱ (Dudbridgeȱ 2004;ȱ Idemaȱ 2008).ȱ Whatȱ followsȱ isȱ anȱ abbreviatedȱversionȱofȱtheȱmainȱfeaturesȱofȱtheȱstory.4ȱ Accordingȱtoȱtheȱlegends,ȱMiaoshanȱwasȱtheȱthirdȱdaughȬ terȱofȱaȱking,ȱwhoseȱbirthȱwasȱaccompaniedȱbyȱsignsȱofȱherȱspeȬ cialȱ status,ȱ while,ȱ asȱ aȱ youngȱ girlȱ “sheȱ alwaysȱ woreȱ soiledȱ clothesȱ andȱ usedȱ noȱ adornments,ȱ sheȱ ateȱ onlyȱ onceȱ aȱ dayȱ andȱ neverȱ ateȱ stronglyȱ flavouredȱ food”ȱ (Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ 25).ȱ Herȱ fatherȱ reprimandsȱ herȱ forȱ thisȱ andȱ herȱ Buddhistȱ interests,ȱ esȬ peciallyȱ herȱ refusalȱ ofȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ marriage.ȱ Sentȱ intoȱ isolationȱ forȱthisȱlatterȱrefusal,ȱtheȱpleasȱofȱherȱmotherȱandȱsistersȱwereȱofȱ noȱavail,ȱevenȱwhenȱsomeȱnunsȱsuggestȱsheȱobeyȱherȱfatherȱsheȱ rejectsȱ theirȱ adviceȱ (Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ 28).ȱ Unableȱ toȱ refuteȱ herȱ argumentsȱsheȱisȱallowedȱintoȱaȱconvent,ȱtheȱintentionȱbeingȱtoȱ showȱthatȱaȱnun’sȱlifeȱisȱhard.ȱHowever,ȱsheȱisȱhelpedȱbyȱaȱdraȬ gonȱspiritȱthatȱconvincedȱtheȱnunsȱ“thatȱthisȱ[was]ȱnoȱordinaryȱ mortalȱ….ȱSoȱnowȱsheȱ[theȱabbess]ȱannouncedȱtheȱmatterȱtoȱtheȱ king”ȱ (Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ 29).ȱ Enraged,ȱ theȱ kingȱ sendsȱ someoneȱ

ȱ Itȱ shouldȱ beȱ notedȱ that,ȱ asȱ withȱ manyȱ popularȱ folkȱ tales,ȱ theȱ storyȱ existsȱ inȱ manyȱ forms.ȱ However,ȱ aȱ centralȱ coreȱ ofȱ commonȱ feaȬ turesȱrunsȱthroughȱmostȱofȱthem.ȱȱForȱaccountsȱofȱthisȱIȱrelyȱtoȱaȱgreatȱ extentȱonȱDudbridgeȱ(2004)ȱasȱtheȱcentralȱauthorityȱonȱtheseȱtales,ȱandȱ theȱaccountȱthatȱfollowsȱsummarisesȱhisȱaccountȱofȱoneȱthatȱdatesȱtoȱatȱ leastȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱ12thȱcenturyȱ(21Ȭ35).ȱInȱlaterȱversionsȱmanyȱ additionsȱ appearȱ includingȱ cosmicȱ battlesȱ betweenȱ celestialȱ armiesȱ (Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ 62).ȱ Onȱ theȱ stagesȱ ofȱ developmentȱ seeȱ Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ99Ȭ101.ȱ 4


toȱ killȱ Miaoshan,ȱ butȱ theȱ dragonȱ spiritȱ savesȱ her,5ȱ afterȱ whichȱ theȱkingȱordersȱtheȱconventȱburntȱandȱtheȱnunsȱkilled.6ȱSheȱthenȱ livesȱinȱtheȱmountainsȱcultivatingȱtheȱdharma,ȱwhileȱherȱfatherȱ suffersȱfromȱk¬mal¬ȱ(jaundice)ȱ“onȱaccountȱofȱthatȱsinfulȱkarma”ȱ (Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ 30).ȱ Heȱ growsȱ sickerȱ andȱ noȱ cureȱ couldȱ beȱ foundȱuntilȱoneȱdayȱaȱmonkȱarrives,ȱandȱitȱisȱworthȱquotingȱatȱ lengthȱtheȱaccountȱgiven:ȱ Theȱ monkȱ said:ȱ “Iȱ haveȱ aȱ prescriptionȱ whichȱ requiresȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ twoȱ majorȱ ingredients.”ȱ Theȱ kingȱ askedȱ what,ȱ andȱ theȱ monkȱ replied:ȱ “Thisȱ medicineȱ canȱ beȱ madeȱ usingȱ theȱ handsȱ andȱeyesȱofȱ oneȱwithoutȱanger.”ȱTheȱ kingȱ said:ȱ“Doȱ notȱ speakȱ soȱ frivolously.ȱ Ifȱ Iȱ takeȱ someone’sȱ handsȱ andȱ eyes,ȱmustȱtheyȱnotȱbeȱangry?”ȱTheȱmonkȱsaid:ȱ“Suchȱaȱoneȱ doesȱ existȱ inȱ yourȱ land….ȱ Inȱ theȱ southȬwestȱ ofȱ yourȱ dominionȱ isȱ aȱ mountainȱ namedȱ Fragrantȱ Mountain.ȱ Onȱ itsȱ summitȱisȱaȱhermitȱpracticingȱreligiousȱcultivationȱwithȱsigȬ nalȱmerit,ȱthoughȱnoneȱknowsȱofȱit.ȱThisȱpersonȱhasȱnoȱanȬ ger….ȱByȱobtainingȱtheȱhandsȱandȱeyesȱofȱthisȱperson,ȱthisȱ sicknessȱ ofȱ yoursȱ canȱ beȱ curedȱ instantly,ȱ withoutȱ anyȱ doubt.”ȱ(Dudbridgeȱ2004:ȱ31)ȱ

Anȱenvoyȱisȱsentȱtoȱrequestȱthis,ȱand,ȱofȱcourse,ȱunknownȱ toȱ anyone,ȱ thisȱ devoutȱ hermitȱ isȱ Miaoshan.ȱ Sheȱ repliesȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ theȱ king’sȱ refusalȱ ofȱ theȱ Buddhaȱ Dharmaȱ thatȱ causedȱ thisȱ butȱagreesȱtoȱgiveȱtheȱcureȱwithȱtheȱprovisoȱthatȱtheȱkingȱturnȱ hisȱ mindȱ toȱ enlightenment.ȱ Then:ȱ “Withȱ theseȱ wordsȱ sheȱ gougedȱ outȱ herȱ twoȱ eyesȱ withȱ aȱ knife,ȱ thenȱ toldȱ theȱ envoyȱ toȱ severȱherȱtwoȱhands” (Dudbridgeȱ2004:ȱ32).7ȱTheȱkingȱtakesȱtheȱ 5ȱ Inȱ otherȱ versionsȱ theȱ swordȱ justȱ breaksȱ andȱ aȱ tigerȱ carriesȱ herȱ awayȱ(Dudbridgeȱ2004:ȱ45).ȱItȱmayȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱinȱbeingȱsavedȱbyȱaȱ tigerȱandȱalsoȱbeingȱhappyȱtoȱliveȱaloneȱinȱtheȱmountains,ȱsheȱneatlyȱ fitsȱaȱcommonȱitemȱofȱChineseȱholyȱpeople,ȱwhichȱisȱtheirȱcommunionȱ withȱtheȱnaturalȱworldȱandȱlackȱofȱfearȱofȱitȱ(Cahillȱ2006).ȱ 6ȱ Inȱ otherȱ accountsȱ theȱ kingȱ burnsȱ theȱ conventȱ whileȱ Miaoshanȱ andȱ theȱ nunsȱ areȱ allȱ stillȱ inside,ȱ butȱ sheȱ cannotȱ beȱ burntȱ (Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ44),ȱwhileȱinȱothersȱherȱprayersȱsaveȱtheȱconventȱfromȱburningȱ (Dudbridgeȱ2004:ȱ54). 7ȱInȱotherȱaccountsȱsheȱbothȱgougesȱoutȱherȱeyesȱandȱcutsȱoffȱherȱ ownȱhandsȱ(Dudbridgeȱ2004:ȱ25).ȱ


medicineȱmadeȱwithȱthese,ȱrecovers,ȱandȱwithȱhisȱcourtȱgoesȱtoȱ payȱ homageȱ toȱ theȱ hermitȱ whoȱ isȱ recognizedȱ byȱ herȱ mother.ȱ Miaoshanȱ confirmsȱ this:ȱ “Iȱ amȱ she.ȱ Whenȱ myȱ fatherȱ theȱ kingȱ sufferedȱ theȱ foulȱ diseaseȱ yourȱ childȱ offeredȱ upȱ herȱ handsȱ andȱ eyesȱ toȱ repayȱ theȱ king’sȱ love”ȱ (Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ 32).ȱ Deeplyȱ touched,ȱtheȱkingȱdeclares,ȱ Ourȱevilȱwaysȱhaveȱcausedȱmyȱdaughterȱtoȱloseȱherȱhandsȱ andȱ eyesȱ andȱ endureȱ thisȱ suffering.ȱ Iȱ amȱ goingȱ toȱ lickȱ myȱ child’sȱ twoȱ eyesȱ withȱ myȱ tongueȱ andȱ joinȱ herȱ twoȱ hands,ȱ andȱdesireȱtheȱgodsȱandȱspiritsȱofȱheavenȱandȱearthȱtoȱmakeȱ myȱ child’sȱ witheredȱ eyesȱ growȱ again,ȱ herȱ severedȱ armsȱ onceȱmoreȱtoȱbeȱwhole!ȱ(Dudbridgeȱ2004:ȱ33)ȱ

However,ȱ beforeȱ heȱ canȱ doȱ so,ȱ Miaoshanȱ disappearsȱ toȱ beȱ reȬ placedȱ byȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ thousandȬarmedȱ andȱ eyedȱ Guanyin.ȱ TheȱkingȱvowsȱtoȱfollowȱtheȱBuddhistȱpath,ȱandȱMiaoshanȱreapȬ pearsȱandȱdies.ȱTheȱkingȱrestoresȱmanyȱtemples,ȱbuildsȱaȱstupaȱ inȱherȱhonourȱandȱfollowsȱtheȱBuddhaȱDharma.8ȱ ThisȱtransformationȱintoȱMiaoshanȱisȱimportantȱbecause,ȱasȱ Yüȱ carefullyȱ argues,ȱ theȱ specificȱ incarnationȱ helpedȱ indigenizeȱ GuanyinȱintoȱtheȱChineseȱcontextȱinȱthreeȱways:ȱgivingȱherȱtheȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ aȱ humanȱ life,9ȱ makingȱ herȱ native,ȱ and,ȱ alsoȱ groundingȱ herȱ intoȱ aȱ physicalȱ instantiationȱ (Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 293ff.).ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ storyȱ isȱ alsoȱ radicalȱ becauseȱ Miaoshanȱ isȱ notȱ evenȱaȱnun;ȱtheȱconventȱsheȱentersȱisȱburntȱdownȱbyȱherȱfather,ȱ andȱsoȱsheȱisȱneverȱordainedȱandȱappearsȱasȱaȱdevoutȱlayȱBudȬ dhistȱ (Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 310Ȭ11).ȱ Weȱ willȱ developȱ suchȱ themesȱ inȱ dueȱ course.ȱ MaleȱorȱFemale?ȱ ForȱmuchȱofȱtheȱBuddhistȱtradition,ȱtheȱappearanceȱofȱGuanyinȱ asȱ bothȱ maleȱ andȱ femaleȱ mayȱ beȱ consideredȱ insignificant;ȱ asȱ Sponbergȱ claimsȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ earlyȱ textualȱ tradition,ȱ butȱIȱsuggest,ȱwithȱaȱwiderȱapplication:ȱinȱBuddhism,ȱitȱisȱ“notȱ thatȱsexȱandȱgenderȱdifferencesȱdoȱnotȱexist,ȱbutȱratherȱtheyȱareȱ 8ȱDudbridgeȱnotesȱsomeȱpointsȱofȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱLotusȱSutraȱinȱ thisȱbasicȱstoryȱ(2004:ȱ93Ȭ95).ȱ 9ȱTypicalȱofȱChineseȱdeities,ȱseeȱHedgesȱ2010b.


soteriologicallyȱinsignificant,ȱthatȱtheyȱconstituteȱatȱmostȱaȱdisȬ tractionȱfromȱtheȱtrueȱgoalȱofȱliberation”( Sponbergȱ1992:ȱ9).ȱInȬ deed,ȱ whenȱ Iȱ raisedȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ Guanyin’sȱ genderȱ withȱ Pureȱ Landȱ nunsȱ andȱ devoteesȱ inȱ China,ȱ Iȱ wasȱ metȱ withȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ incomprehensionȱ thatȱ thisȱ wasȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ interest.ȱ Forȱ them,ȱ althoughȱ mostȱ commonlyȱ portrayedȱ asȱ female,ȱ theȱ bodhisattvaȱwas,ȱinȱfact,ȱaȱ“he,”ȱwhile,ȱasȱaȱbodhisattva,ȱwasȱactuȬ allyȱ without,ȱ orȱ beyond,ȱ gender.10ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ simplyȱ allȱ thatȱ couldȱbeȱsaid,ȱitȱwasȱanȱirrelevance,ȱandȱIȱsuspectȱthereȱwasȱanȱ agendaȱ behindȱ theȱ answerȱ that,ȱ inȱ askingȱ thisȱ question,ȱ Iȱ hadȱ ratherȱ missedȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ itȱ all.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ Iȱ willȱ continueȱ withȱmyȱwilfulȱignoranceȱbyȱpursuingȱthisȱquestionȱhere.ȱ Theȱ pathȱ ofȱ theȱ iconographicȱ transformationȱ ofȱ theȱ maleȱ Avalokiteshvaraȱ toȱ theȱ femaleȬguiseȱ Guanyinȱ isȱ aȱ fascinatingȱ andȱ onlyȱ partiallyȱ understoodȱ taleȱ butȱ notȱ entirelyȱ relevantȱ toȱ ourȱpurposes.ȱRather,ȱIȱwishȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱgenȬ der.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱnoted,ȱdespiteȱGuanyin’sȱappearanceȱasȱfemale,ȱ sheȱisȱstillȱregardedȱasȱaȱ“he,”ȱandȱthisȱisȱentirelyȱscriptural.ȱTheȱ Lotusȱ Sutra,ȱ whichȱ dedicatesȱ aȱ wholeȱ chapterȱ toȱ AvalokiteshȬ vara,ȱnotesȱthirtyȬthreeȱtransformationsȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ45).11ȱOfȱtheseȱ variousȱ appearances,ȱ sevenȱ areȱ female,ȱ andȱ thusȱ itȱ isȱ acceptedȱ thatȱ thisȱ “male”ȱ bodhisattvaȱ couldȱ appearȱ inȱ femaleȱ form,ȱ preȬ sumablyȱasȱaȱmanifestationȱofȱup¬yaȱorȱskilfulȱmeansȱ(seeȱOverȬ meyerȱ 2002:ȱ 419).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ certainlyȱ theȱ wayȱ Michaelȱ Pyeȱ andȱ othersȱunderstandȱthisȱability,ȱandȱheȱcitesȱaȱstoryȱnarratedȱbyȱ Matsunagaȱ showingȱ howȱ Guanyinȱ manifestedȱ asȱ aȱ beautifulȱ girlȱ toȱ attractȱ aȱ largeȱ numberȱ ofȱ suitors,ȱ allȱ ofȱ whomȱ wereȱ reȬ quiredȱtoȱlearn,ȱbyȱheart,ȱtheȱGuanyinȱchapterȱofȱtheȱLotusȱSuȬ tra,ȱthenȱtheȱDiamondȱSutra,ȱandȱfinallyȱtheȱwholeȱLotusȱSutraȱtoȱ 10ȱTechnicallyȱheȱisȱneither,ȱbutȱinȱtheȱviewȱofȱtheȱfactȱthatȱBudȬ dhism,ȱ certainlyȱ inȱ itsȱ traditionalȱ Chineseȱ form,ȱ feltȱ thatȱ onlyȱ menȱ couldȱachieveȱenlightenmentȱmeansȱthatȱitȱis,ȱinȱcertainȱways,ȱcorrectȱ toȱseeȱtheȱbodhisattvaȱasȱ“male.”ȱȱItȱisȱcertainlyȱtrueȱthatȱtheȱBuddhaȱinȬ dicates,ȱ inȱ earlyȱ scriptures,ȱ thatȱ womenȱ couldȱ becomeȱ arhants,ȱ butȱ “scripturalȱcorrectness”ȱhasȱnotȱalwaysȱbeenȱtheȱhallmarkȱofȱ“trueȱbeȬ lief”ȱwithinȱanyȱreligiousȱtradition.ȱ 11ȱOtherȱsourcesȱspeakȱofȱdifferentȱnumbers,ȱwhichȱinȱsomeȱcasesȱ areȱmanyȱmoreȱthanȱthisȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ46ff;ȱTayȱ1976:ȱ155ff).ȱ


beȱeligibleȱforȱmarriage,ȱalthoughȱtheȱgirlȱdied,ȱorȱappearedȱtoȱ die,ȱ theȱ dayȱ beforeȱ theȱ weddingȱ (Pyeȱ 1978:ȱ 78).ȱ Thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ storiesȱ ofȱ Guanyinȱ asȱ aȱ looseȱ womanȱ willingȱ toȱ giveȱ herselfȱ toȱ menȱifȱitȱwillȱpromoteȱtheȱdharma,ȱwhichȱprovideȱaȱratherȱdifȬ ferent,ȱ andȱ “lessȱ orthodox”ȱ (althoughȱ thisȱ methodȱ isȱ taughtȱ inȱ theȱ Vimalakirtiȱ Nirdesaȱ Sutra12),ȱ versionȱ ofȱ thisȱ taleȱ (seeȱ Idemaȱ 2008:ȱ 8;ȱ Faureȱ 1998:ȱ 118ff.),ȱ whileȱ someȱ evenȱ seeȱ homosexualȱ desireȱ satedȱ byȱ theȱ bodhisattvaȱ ifȱ theȱ needȱ arisesȱ (Faureȱ 1998:ȱ 120).ȱTheȱstoryȱPyeȱnotes,ȱhowever,ȱgivesȱusȱwhatȱweȱmayȱcallȱ anȱ orthodoxȱ orȱ mainstreamȱ readingȱ toȱ accountȱ forȱ Guanyinȱ asȱ female.ȱ Beyondȱ this,ȱ herȱ associationȱ with,ȱ andȱ indigenizationȱ through,ȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ Princessȱ Miaoshan,ȱ whoseȱ legendȱ weȱ exȬ ploredȱ above,ȱ isȱseenȱasȱ anȱimportantȱ stageȱ inȱ theȱportrayalȱ ofȱ Guanyinȱ asȱ aȱ femaleȱ figure.ȱ Thisȱ legend,ȱ andȱ itsȱ associationȱ withȱ Guanyin,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ seenȱ asȱ aȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ femalesȱ wereȱ empoweredȱ toȱ findȱ aȱ religiousȱ andȱ subversiveȱ roleȱ forȱ themȬ selvesȱinȱaȱhighlyȱpatriarchalȱsociety,ȱwhichȱsawȱfemaleȱcelibacyȱ asȱ somethingȱ ofȱ anȱ abominationȱ (seeȱ Dudbridgeȱ 2004:ȱ 102ff.;ȱ Reedȱ 1992),ȱ throughȱ itsȱ motifȱ ofȱ marriageȱ resistanceȱ (Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 333Ȭ38)ȱ –ȱ whichȱ isȱ inȱ turnȱ linkedȱ toȱ aȱ wholeȱ rangeȱ ofȱ Chineseȱ Buddhistȱ literatureȱ onȱ filialȱ piety. 13ȱ Weȱ willȱ returnȱ toȱ theseȱ themesȱlater.ȱ Inȱrelationȱtoȱgender,ȱhowever,ȱoneȱpointȱisȱworthyȱofȱparȬ ticularȱnote.ȱWhile,ȱtechnically,ȱAvalokiteshvaraȱwasȱcapableȱofȱ becomingȱmanifestedȱinȱaȱvarietyȱofȱways,ȱasȱeitherȱmaleȱorȱfeȬ male,ȱandȱgivenȱthatȱinȱmuchȱiconographyȱhisȱappearanceȱwasȱ quiteȱandrogynous,ȱitȱisȱasȱMiaoshanȱandȱGuanyinȱthat,ȱforȱtheȱ firstȱtime,ȱaȱfemaleȱformȱhadȱbeenȱtaken,ȱwithȱallȱpreviousȱmanȬ 12ȱThisȱreads:ȱ“Theyȱintentionallyȱbecomeȱcourtesans/ȱInȱorderȱtoȱ winȱ menȱ over,/ȱ And,ȱ havingȱ caughtȱ themȱ withȱ theȱ hookȱ ofȱ desire,/ȱ Theyȱ establishȱ themȱ inȱ theȱ buddhaȬgnosis”ȱ (8.32,ȱ inȱ Thurmanȱ 1976).ȱ Myȱ thanksȱ goȱ toȱ Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ forȱ bringingȱ thisȱ verseȱ toȱ myȱ attention.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ relationȱ toȱ Buddhistȱ attemptsȱ toȱ claimȱ theȱ monasticȱ lifeȱ asȱ theȱultimateȱactȱofȱfilialȱpietyȱseeȱCh’enȱ1973:ȱ14Ȭ50,ȱwhereȱheȱdiscussȬ esȱ theȱ legendȱ ofȱ theȱ monkȱ Mulianȱ whoȱ hasȱ toȱ saveȱ hisȱ motherȱ fromȱ hell.ȱThisȱstoryȱisȱoftenȱcomparedȱtoȱtheȱMiaoshanȱlegendȱ(seeȱIdemaȱ 2008:ȱ23Ȭ24,ȱ198,ȱn.ȱ76).ȱ 13


ifestationsȱbeingȱasȱaȱmonkȱYüȱ2001:ȱ301).ȱWeȱmustȱthereforeȱreȬ cognizeȱinȱthisȱmanifestationȱsomethingȱuniqueȱandȱspecial,ȱinȱ factȱweȱmayȱsay,ȱthatȱasȱAvalokiteshvaraȱheȱwasȱaȱreligious,ȱasȱ Guanyinȱsheȱwasȱaȱlayperson.ȱ QueerȱTheologyȱ Queerȱ theologyȱ isȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ thinkers,ȱ but,ȱ perhapsȱ mostȱ notablyȱ Elizabethȱ Stuart.ȱ Developingȱ fromȱ theȱ workȱofȱsuchȱfiguresȱasȱCarterȱHeywardȱ(lesbianȱtheology),ȱMiȬ chelȱ Foucaultȱ (theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ sexuality),ȱ andȱ Judithȱ Butlerȱ (genderȱ construction),ȱ Stuartȱ arguesȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ placeȱ forȱ aȱ queerȱ theologyȱ thatȱ seeksȱ toȱ subvertȱ conventionalȱ thinkingȱ onȱ gender,ȱsexualityȱandȱembodiment.ȱHowever,ȱimportantly,ȱherȱ theory,ȱinȱcontradistinctionȱtoȱmuchȱwithinȱtheȱbroadȱspectrumȱ ofȱgay,ȱlesbian,ȱfeminist,ȱandȱgenderȱtheoryȱandȱtheology,ȱisȱnotȱ primarilyȱ aȱ discourseȱ ofȱ orȱ aboutȱ sexualityȱ andȱ genderȱ (Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ102.).ȱInstead,ȱitȱseeksȱtoȱfindȱaȱwayȱtoȱliberateȱallȱpeopleȱ fromȱ theirȱ notionsȱ ofȱ embodiment,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ toȱ seekȱ rightsȱ andȱaȱplaceȱforȱsomeȱsectionȱofȱpeopleȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ89).ȱWeȱmayȱ sayȱthatȱitȱseeksȱtoȱliberateȱusȱfromȱtheȱbondsȱofȱsexualizedȱdisȬ course,ȱ andȱ isȱ describedȱ byȱ Stuartȱ asȱ “anȱ antiȬidentityȱ theoloȬ gy,”ȱ basedȱ onȱ anȱ “unnaturalȱ development”ȱ fromȱ “theȱ fissuresȱ withinȱ gayȱ andȱ lesbianȱ theology”ȱ (Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ 89).ȱ Forȱ her,ȱ whileȱgayȱandȱlesbianȱ–ȱandȱweȱmayȱaddȱfeministȱ–ȱtheologiesȱ interrogatedȱtheologyȱthroughȱtheoriesȱofȱgenderȱandȱsexuality,ȱ queerȱtheologyȱreturnsȱtoȱbeingȱtheologyȱbyȱinterrogatingȱtheseȱ conceptsȱ fromȱ theȱ lensȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ traditionȱ (Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ 102),ȱ where,ȱ inȱ particular,ȱ theȱ newȱ identityȱ foundȱ inȱ baptismȱ questionsȱallȱofȱourȱpreviousȱassumptionsȱofȱwhoȱweȱareȱ(Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ108).ȱTheȱdynamicsȱofȱthisȱlieȱveryȱmuchȱwithinȱtheȱinterȬ nalȱmakeupȱofȱtheȱChristianȱtraditionȱandȱneedȱnotȱconcernȱusȱ hereȱ(seeȱStuartȱ2003:ȱ96,ȱ106Ȭ07).ȱ AȱkeyȱaspectȱofȱStuart’sȱtheologyȱisȱtheȱconceptȱofȱhospitalȬ ityȱ (Stuartȱ andȱ Isherwoodȱ 1998:ȱ 57Ȭ62),ȱ whichȱ sheȱ believesȱ isȱ centralȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ traditionȱ andȱ queerȱ theology.ȱ DiscusȬ singȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Eugeneȱ F.ȱ Rogers,ȱ Jr.,ȱ sheȱ assertsȱ that:ȱ “Bothȱ marriageȱandȱmonasticismȱbuildȱupȱtheȱbodyȱofȱChristȱbyȱpracȬ tisingȱhospitalityȱtoȱtheȱstrangerȱ(usuallyȱaȱchildȱinȱheterosexualȱ marriage),”ȱ whileȱ “theȱ celibateȱ savesȱ Christianityȱ fromȱ theȱ graveȱ mistakeȱ ofȱ believingȱ thatȱ sexualȱ loveȱ reachesȱ itsȱ end,ȱ itsȱ


fulfilmentȱ inȱ sexualȱ pleasureȱ orȱ procreationȱ ratherȱ thanȱ God”ȱ (Stuartȱ2003:ȱ97;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱ113).ȱArguingȱthat,ȱ“Sex’sȱprimaryȱpurȬ poseȱisȱsanctification”ȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ97)ȱsheȱsuggestsȱthatȱsexualȬ ity,ȱ theologicallyȱ speaking,ȱ isȱ primarilyȱ orientatedȱ towardsȱ “opennessȱ andȱ warmthȱ toȱ strangers”ȱ (Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ 95).ȱ Thisȱ doesȱnotȱmeanȱweȱextendȱsexȱtoȱallȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ95),ȱbutȱweȱcan,ȱ perhaps,ȱ sayȱ that,ȱ forȱ Stuart,ȱ embodimentȱ givesȱ theȱ environȬ mentȱwhereinȱtheȱtheologicallyȱnecessitatedȱprofferingȱofȱhospiȬ talityȱbecomesȱactualized.ȱ AnotherȱimportantȱaspectȱofȱStuart’sȱthoughtȱisȱtheȱwayȱreȬ ligiousȱthought,ȱinȱherȱcaseȱtheȱChristianȱtradition,ȱallowsȱnorȬ malȱidentitiesȱtoȱbeȱblurredȱorȱtransgressed,ȱthatȱis,ȱasȱsheȱputsȱ it:ȱ Christianityȱ isȱ “essentiallyȱ queerȱ inȱ itsȱ attitudeȱ toȱ identity”ȱ (Stuartȱ2003:ȱ101).ȱWithȱreferenceȱtoȱVirginiaȱRameyȱMollenkott,ȱ andȱ others,ȱ sheȱ citesȱ severalȱ examples,ȱ including:ȱ inȱ Genesisȱ 2:21Ȭ24ȱ theȱ originalȱ Adamȱ wasȱ nonȬgendered;ȱ Churchȱ asȱ theȱ bodyȱ ofȱ Christȱ isȱ omnigendered;ȱ theȱ examplesȱ ofȱ canonizedȱ saintsȱ includeȱ suchȱ figuresȱ asȱ Pelagia,ȱ Marina,ȱ Eugenia,ȱ AnasȬ tasiaȱandȱJoanȱofȱArcȱwhoȱhaveȱdefiedȱgenderȱroles,ȱsometimesȱ byȱ growingȱ beardsȱ (Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ 101);ȱ theȱ earlyȱ churchȱ taughtȱ thatȱwomenȱcouldȱbecomeȱ“manly”ȱthroughȱvirtueȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ 109);ȱwhileȱitȱvalorizedȱsameȱsexȱdesireȱinȱtheȱliturgyȱandȱdevoȬ tionȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ3);ȱinȱEphesiansȱ5ȱtheȱmaleȱChristȱhasȱaȱfemaleȱ bodyȱ (Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ 111).ȱ Indeed,ȱ forȱ Stuart,ȱ thisȱ transgressionȱ thatȱ isȱ importantȱ forȱ rethinkingȱ ourȱ identity,ȱ isȱ builtȱ intoȱ aȱ Christianȱ worldview,ȱ suchȱ that:ȱ “Onlyȱ Christianityȱ canȱ makeȱ queerȱ theoryȱ aȱ viableȱ strategyȱ forȱ onlyȱ Christiansȱ areȱ calledȱ toȱ imitateȱtheirȱGodȱinȱactingȱparaȱphusin,ȱinȱexcessȱofȱnature”ȱ(StuȬ artȱ 2003:ȱ 106).ȱ Weȱ mayȱ noteȱ aȱ certainȱ similarityȱ ofȱ argumentaȬ tionȱ toȱ RadicalȱOrthodoxyȱ here,ȱ inȱ thatȱ Stuartȱ assumesȱ thatȱ byȱ lookingȱonlyȱatȱoneȱtraditionȱandȱitsȱanswers,ȱitȱshowsȱthatȱonlyȱ thisȱ traditionȱ canȱ giveȱ theseȱ answers. 14ȱ Iȱ willȱ suggestȱ thatȱ herȱ notionȱofȱbeingȱQueer15ȱextendsȱbeyondȱChristianity.ȱ ȱ Seeȱ Hedges,ȱ 2010c.ȱ Whetherȱ Stuartȱ shouldȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ withinȱ theȱfoldsȱofȱtheȱRadicalȱOrthodoxyȱgrouping/movement/dispositionȱisȱ openȱtoȱdebate.ȱSheȱisȱoftenȱidentifiedȱbyȱothersȱinȱthisȱway,ȱbutȱdoesȱ notȱseeȱherselfȱasȱaȱpartȱofȱit,ȱalthoughȱsheȱhasȱexpressedȱaȱsympathyȱ forȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Johnȱ Milbank,ȱ but,ȱ moreȱ especially,ȱ forȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ 14


AnotherȱimportantȱtheologianȱsheȱemploysȱisȱMarcellaȱAlȬ thausȬReidȱwhoseȱmethodȱofȱȈindecentȱtheology”ȱseeksȱtoȱcounȬ terȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ ethosȱ ofȱ liberationȱ theologyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ itsȱ continuationȱofȱgenderȱroles.ȱFromȱAlthausȬReid’sȱwork,ȱStuartȱ citesȱ theȱ referencesȱ toȱ Santaȱ Librada,ȱ aȱ figureȱ whoȱ fusesȱ Jesusȱ andȱ Maryȱ andȱ hasȱ ambiguousȱ gender,ȱ whoȱ bothȱ representsȱ aȱ “transvestiteȱ epistemology”ȱ andȱ isȱ theȱ patronȱ ofȱ thoseȱ onȱ theȱ runȱfromȱtheȱpoliceȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ102),ȱmakingȱhim/herȱaȱratherȱ unusualȱ“saint.”ȱHowever,ȱforȱqueerȱtheology,ȱitȱisȱperhapsȱbeȬ causeȱofȱthisȱbreakingȱofȱboundariesȱthatȱSantaȱLibradaȱcanȱtruȬ lyȱbecomeȱaȱmanifestationȱofȱtheȱsacred.ȱ Havingȱconsideredȱsomeȱofȱtheȱaspectsȱofȱqueerȱtheology,ȱ weȱ canȱ considerȱ whatȱ Stuartȱ seesȱ asȱ itsȱ threeȱ principleȱ characȬ teristics:ȱ first,ȱ“itȱ rejectsȱ aȱmetaphysicsȱofȱ substance,”ȱ thereȱ areȱ noȱidentitiesȱbasedȱinȱhardȱobjectivity;ȱsecond,ȱitȱseesȱChristianȬ ityȱ asȱ engagingȱ inȱ queerȱ theoryȱ longȱ beforeȱ thereȱ wasȱ suchȱ aȱ thing,ȱforȱinstance,ȱGregoryȱofȱNyssaȱisȱcitedȱasȱanȱexampleȱforȱ whomȱweȱwereȱunsexedȱinȱtheȱpreȬlapsarianȱworld,ȱandȱthisȱisȱ theȱstateȱtoȱwhichȱweȱshallȱreturnȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ110),ȱsoȱitȱhasȱalȬ waysȱ subvertedȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ discourseȱ ofȱ selfȱ andȱ genderȱ andȱ identity;ȱ third,ȱ mostȱ queerȱ theologyȱ hasȱ soughtȱ toȱ reȬenȬ chantȱtheȱworldȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ102).ȱWeȱmayȱsayȱthatȱqueerȱtheoȬ logyȱisȱaȱwayȱtoȱseeȱreligiousȱidentityȱasȱsomethingȱthatȱtransȬ cendsȱtheȱboundariesȱofȱourȱconventionalȱwaysȱofȱseeing,ȱtoȱgoȱ beyondȱ theȱ outerȱ signsȱ ofȱ bodiesȱ andȱ gender.ȱ Butȱ itȱ isȱ not,ȱ inȱ anyȱ Gnosticȱ way,ȱ toȱ rejectȱ embodimentȱ butȱ ratherȱ toȱ seeȱ thisȱ embodimentȱ asȱ aȱ wayȱ toȱ presentȱ aȱ radicalȱ newȱ understandingȱ ofȱ ourȱ surroundingsȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ rewrittenȱ fromȱ aȱ spiritualȱ raȬ

Grahamȱ Wardȱ whoȱ representsȱ aȱ moreȱ moderateȱ versionȱ ofȱ Radicalȱ Orthodoxyȱ(Hedgesȱ2010c),ȱandȱsoȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱsomethingȱofȱaȱ dispositionȱ towardsȱ theȱ movementȱ (informationȱ onȱ Stuart’sȱ opinionsȱ andȱ attitudesȱ towardsȱ Radicalȱ Orthodoxyȱ areȱ gatheredȱ inȱ largeȱ partȱ fromȱconversationsȱandȱemailȱcontactȱwithȱher,ȱasȱwellȱasȱhavingȱhadȱ theȱopportunityȱtoȱsitȱinȱonȱherȱrelevantȱteachingȱsessions).ȱ ȱ Iȱ willȱ employȱ “Queer”ȱ (withȱ aȱ capital)ȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ theȱ radicalȱ identityȱ transgressingȱ religiousȱ usageȱ ofȱ thisȱ termȱ thatȱ isȱ discussedȱ herein.ȱ 15


therȱ thanȱ aȱ materialȱ perspective.ȱ Forȱ Stuart,ȱ thisȱ isȱ foundȱ inȱ aȱ newȱidentityȱgraftedȱontoȱusȱinȱbaptismȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ106Ȭ07).ȱ Supposingȱaȱtraditionȱwhereȱweȱreceiveȱaȱnewȱidentityȱthatȱ erasesȱ otherȱ identities,ȱ sheȱ suggestȱ that:ȱ “Christiansȱ areȱ thenȱ calledȱtoȱliveȱoutȱtheirȱculturallyȱnegotiatedȱidentitiesȱinȱsuchȱaȱ wayȱ asȱ toȱ exposeȱ theirȱ nonȬultimacy”ȱ (Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ 108).ȱ Sheȱ seesȱ theȱ Christianȱ traditionȱ asȱ parodyingȱ conventionalȱ disȬ courseȱinȱvariousȱways:ȱtheȱmarriedȱlifeȱbeingȱparodiedȱbyȱnotȱ beingȱ centredȱ onȱ theȱ coupleȱ butȱ havingȱ itsȱ telosȱ inȱ God,ȱ theȱ eroticȱ gazeȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ bodyȱ beingȱ transferredȱ inȱ imagesȱ ofȱ theȱ crucifiedȱ Jesusȱ awayȱ fromȱ theȱ genitalsȱ toȱ hisȱ wounds,ȱ theȱ celibateȱ parodyingȱ singleȱ life,ȱ becauseȱ heȱ isȱ actuallyȱ unitedȱ throughȱtheȱChurchȱtoȱall,ȱand,ȱtheȱreligiousȱparodyingȱtheȱfamȬ ilyȱbyȱnewȱconstructionsȱofȱtheȱtermsȱ”father,”ȱ“mother,”ȱ“broȬ ther,”ȱandȱ“sister”( Stuartȱ2003:ȱ108Ȭ09).ȱIndeed,ȱStuartȱhasȱelseȬ whereȱarguedȱthatȱlaughterȱisȱintegralȱtoȱChristianȱtheologyȱandȱ theȱwholeȱChristianȱtraditionȱ(Stuartȱnoȱdate).ȱSomeȱofȱherȱbioȬ graphyȱperhapsȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱsourcesȱofȱherȱthought:ȱ GrowingȱupȱsurroundedȱbyȱmenȱwearingȱclothesȱsocietyȱlaȬ belledȱfeminineȱwhomȱIȱhadȱtoȱrelateȱtoȱasȱ“father,”ȱtaughtȱ byȱwomenȱwhoȱwereȱmyȱ“sisters”ȱorȱ“mothers”ȱwithȱnamesȱ suchȱasȱAugustineȱandȱBernardȱJosephȱtaughtȱmeȱthatȱsocieȬ talȱ categoriesȱ wereȱ notȱ fixed,ȱ thatȱ theyȱ couldȱ beȱ playedȱ aroundȱwithȱandȱthatȱtheȱChurchȱwasȱaȱplaceȱinȱwhichȱgenȬ derȱshifted.ȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ109)ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ sheȱ believes,ȱ thatȱ standardȱ genderȱ termsȱ canȱ helpȱbreakȱdownȱboundaries,ȱfor:ȱ Culturallyȱ constructedȱ formsȱ ofȱ identityȱ cannotȱholdȱmuchȱ powerȱoverȱthoseȱwomenȱwhoȱareȱusedȱtoȱbeingȱaddressedȱ asȱ “brothers”ȱ orȱ menȱ whoȱ areȱ forcedȱ toȱ understandȱ themȬ selvesȱasȱbridesȱofȱChrist.ȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ112)ȱ

Inȱ distinctlyȱ theologicalȱ terms,ȱ Stuartȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ weȱ recogȬ nizeȱ theȱ holyȱ whenȱ “whatȱ Johnȱ Milbankȱ hasȱ calledȱ theȱ ‘heavyȱ pressureȱ ofȱ theȱ divineȱ onȱ finiteȱ reality’”ȱ becomesȱ apparentȱ inȱ someȱ particularȱ instanceȱ (Stuartȱ 2003:ȱ 113).ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ sheȱ isȱ sugȬ gestingȱ hereȱ thatȱ inȱ religiousȱ institutionsȱ andȱ placesȱ weȱ seeȱ aȱ blurringȱofȱgenderednessȱandȱconventionalȱidentityȱasȱtheseȱareȱ thingsȱofȱtheȱtemporalȱorderȱratherȱthanȱtheȱspiritualȱorderȱbeȬ causeȱ whenȱ weȱ areȱ “[s]tandingȱ onȱ theȱ edgeȱ ofȱ heavenȱ genderȱ


differencesȱdissolve”ȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ112).ȱAnȱideaȱthatȱreturnsȱusȱ toȱ ourȱ discussionȱ ofȱ Santaȱ Librada,ȱ and,ȱ moreȱ generally,ȱ aȱ wholeȱ traditionȱ ofȱ religiousȱ behaviourȱ asȱ scandalousȱ toȱ theȱ worldȱ (Jesus’ȱ teachingȱ givesȱ manyȱ instancesȱ whereȱ whatȱ heȱ doesȱ orȱ saysȱ seemsȱ scandalous,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Matthewȱ 12:1Ȭ14,ȱ Markȱ 12:13Ȭ17,ȱLukeȱ7:33Ȭ50,ȱetc.)ȱ(seeȱalsoȱFeuersteinȱ1992).ȱ TheȱNatureȱofȱQueerȱReligiousȱIdentityȱ IȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱsumȱupȱwhatȱIȱseeȱasȱtheȱmainȱthemesȱofȱStuart’sȱ notionsȱofȱqueerȱtheology,ȱasȱtheyȱareȱrelevantȱtoȱus,ȱinȱtheȱcreaȬ tionȱofȱtenȱaspectsȱofȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱtermedȱQRI,ȱandȱIȱwillȱthenȱ suggestȱ inȱ whatȱ waysȱ Guanyinȱ mayȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ aȱ Queerȱ figureȱ andȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱthis.ȱFirst,ȱitȱsubvertsȱourȱconventionalȱ notionsȱofȱgender.ȱSecondȱitȱsubvertsȱourȱconventionalȱnotionsȱ ofȱidentity.ȱThird,ȱwhileȱlookingȱatȱandȱsubvertingȱgenderȱidenȬ tity,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱhighlightȱbutȱratherȱdeȬemphasizesȱgenderȱandȱ sexuality.ȱ Fourth,ȱ itȱ findsȱ anȱ importantȱ spaceȱ forȱ embodiment.ȱ Fifth,ȱ theȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ embodimentȱ andȱ genderȱ becomeȱ mediȬ umsȱforȱhospitality,ȱunderstoodȱinȱaȱbroadȱsense.ȱSixth,ȱitȱproȬ videsȱ aȱ routeȱ toȱ reȬenchantȱ (orȱ enchant)ȱ theȱ world,ȱ forȱ itȱ takesȱ physicalityȱseriouslyȱwhileȱreȬpresentingȱit.ȱSeventh,ȱitȱparodiesȱ conventionalȱ identitiesȱ andȱ understandings.ȱ Eighth,ȱ itȱ allowsȱ devoteesȱaȱwayȱtoȱescapeȱandȱrepositionȱthemselvesȱinȱrelationȱ toȱtheȱworld.ȱNinth,ȱitȱmakesȱgenderȱandȱidentityȱsubversionȱaȱ placeȱofȱholinessȱthroughȱallowingȱfissuresȱtoȱbeȱopenedȱupȱinȱ conventionalȱ understandingsȱ toȱ letȱ visionsȱ ofȱ theȱ holy/divine/ȱ sacredȱ becomeȱ apparent;ȱ and,ȱ tenth,ȱ itȱ makesȱ connectionsȱ beȬ tweenȱtheȱscandalousȱandȱtheȱsacred.ȱ GuanyinȱasȱaȱQueerȱGoddessȱ Iȱ willȱ argueȱ thatȱ Guanyinȱ meetsȱ allȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ Queernessȱ foundȱ inȱ Stuart’sȱ Queerȱ Theologyȱ asȱ mediatedȱ throughȱtheȱtenȱaspectsȱofȱQRI.ȱFirst,ȱsheȱsubvertsȱourȱusualȱunȬ derstandingsȱ ofȱ gender.ȱ Asȱ theȱ Avalokiteshvaraȱ ofȱ theȱ scripȬ tures,ȱ heȱ isȱ capableȱ ofȱ takingȱ onȱ variousȱ forms,ȱ bothȱ maleȱ andȱ female,ȱ andȱ soȱ someȱ limitedȱ degreeȱ isȱ foundȱ here.ȱ However,ȱ moreȱradically,ȱasȱGuanyin,ȱsheȱbecomesȱaȱfigureȱwhoseȱessenȬ tialȱ manifestationȱ isȱ female,ȱ thoughȱ understoodȱ asȱ male,ȱ butȱ lacking,ȱ inȱ actuality,ȱ anyȱ genderedȱ identity.ȱ Moreover,ȱ itȱ mayȱ


beȱ saidȱ thatȱ byȱ takingȱ aȱ roleȱ ofȱ religiousȱ leadershipȱ andȱ guidȬ anceȱ sheȱ isȱ takingȱ onȱ whatȱ isȱ conventionallyȱ aȱ maleȱ role.ȱ InȬ deed,ȱ asȱ aȱ religiousȱ exemplarȱ sheȱ takesȱ onȱ aȱ roleȱ normallyȱ reȬ servedȱforȱtheȱmaleȱmonasticȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ293Ȭ94,ȱ312Ȭ17).ȱSecond,ȱ thisȱextendsȱintoȱherȱgeneralȱsubversionȱofȱidentity.ȱSheȱrefusesȱ aȱnormalȱfemaleȱidentityȱbyȱrefusingȱtoȱmarry,ȱwhile,ȱasȱnoted,ȱ sheȱappearsȱasȱaȱlaypersonȱandȱevenȱcriticizesȱtheȱnunsȱsheȱenȬ counters.ȱHowever,ȱasȱaȱcelibateȱasceticȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱtakeȱmonȬ asticȱ vowsȱ andȱ shaveȱ herȱ head,ȱ sheȱ becomesȱ somethingȱ ofȱ anȱ anomalyȱ–ȱalthoughȱYüȱdoesȱshowȱhowȱtheȱemergingȱstoryȱfitsȱ intoȱpatternsȱofȱdevelopingȱlayȱreligiousȱgroupsȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ305Ȭ 10).ȱ Moreover,ȱ inȱ movingȱ betweenȱ identitiesȱ itȱ isȱ hardȱ toȱ pinȱ Guanyinȱdown,ȱBlofeldȱnotesȱthatȱheȱwasȱledȱbyȱencountersȱtoȱ seeȱherȱasȱaȱgoddessȱofȱcompassion,ȱbutȱwasȱcriticizedȱforȱthisȱ becauseȱsheȱisȱinȱfactȱaȱcelestialȱBodhisattvaȱandȱnotȱaȱgoddessȱ (Blofeldȱ1977:ȱ21ff.).ȱSheȱisȱalsoȱanȱattendantȱtoȱAmidaȱBuddha,ȱ yetȱ worshippedȱ inȱ herȱ ownȱ rightȱ andȱ inȱ varietyȱ ofȱ manifestaȬ tionsȱ (seeȱ Blofledȱ 1977:ȱ 25ff.;ȱ Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 93ff.,ȱ 407ff;ȱ Palmerȱ etȱ al.ȱ 1995),ȱ evenȱ asȱ theȱ creatorȱ andȱ rulerȱ ofȱ theȱ universe.(Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 443ff.).ȱ Sangrenȱ seesȱ herȱ asȱ refusingȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ daughterȱ andȱ wife,ȱ but,ȱ thereby,ȱ paradoxicallyȱ takingȱ onȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ motherȱ (Sangrenȱ1983:ȱ11).ȱ Third,ȱdespiteȱbecomingȱmanifestedȱinȱfemaleȱformȱinȱmostȱ Chineseȱrepresentations,ȱtheseȱdoȱnotȱactualityȱhighlightȱgenderȱ orȱsexuality.ȱSheȱisȱthusȱaȱQueerȱfigure,ȱbecauseȱalthoughȱgenȬ derȱ isȱ essentialȱ toȱ herȱ identity,ȱ theȱ genderȱ isȱ subsumedȱ withinȱ thisȱ asȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ secondaryȱ importance.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beȱ suggestedȱ thatȱhereinȱliesȱaȱcriticismȱofȱreligionȱinȱgeneral,ȱthatȱitȱtendsȱtoȱ denyȱorȱdownplayȱourȱembodiedȱnatureȱandȱtoȱcreateȱaȱsenseȱofȱ shameȱ aroundȱ sexuality,ȱ yetȱ thisȱ isȱ onlyȱ oneȱ wayȱ toȱ readȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ Guanyin. 16ȱ Thisȱ debateȱ isȱ tooȱ vastȱ toȱ beȱ enteredȱ intoȱ here,ȱhowever,ȱinȱasȱfarȱasȱGuanyinȱprovidesȱaȱwayȱforȱwomenȱ toȱ overcomeȱ whatȱ isȱ seenȱ asȱ theȱ shameȱ andȱ pollutionȱ ofȱ theirȱ ȱ Itȱ hasȱ beenȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ Confucianȱ taboosȱ onȱ sexualityȱ meantȱ thatȱ whereasȱ theȱ Christianȱ Virginȱ Maryȱ couldȱ beȱ seenȱ toȱ giveȱ lifeȬgivingȱ milkȱ throughȱ herȱ breasts,ȱ Guanyinȱ couldȱ onlyȱ doȱ thisȱ throughȱherȱfingersȱ(ReisȬHabitoȱ1993:ȱ66).ȱButȱitȱmayȱbeȱaȱquestionȱofȱ differentȱculturalȱnormsȱwhichȱneedsȱconsideration.ȱ 16


sexuality,ȱ forȱ someȱ Chineseȱ traditionsȱ believedȱ thatȱ menstrualȱ bloodȱandȱtheȱactȱofȱchildbirthȱwouldȱsendȱaȱwomanȱtoȱhell,ȱsheȱ canȱbeȱseenȱasȱliberatingȱandȱempoweringȱinȱtermsȱofȱembodiȬ mentȱ andȱ sexuality,ȱ asȱ aȱ iconȱ ofȱ femaleȱ religiousȱ purityȱ (Reedȱ 1992:ȱ 164Ȭ66.);ȱ thisȱ mustȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ aȱ discourseȱ thatȱ categorizedȱfemaleȱsexualityȱasȱ“inherentlyȱsinful”ȱ(Idemaȱ2008:ȱ 24),17ȱreinforcedȱbyȱaȱBuddhistȱscripturalȱbasisȱforȱtheȱbeliefȱthatȱ womenȱ wereȱ sentȱ toȱ hellȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ menstrualȱ bloodȱ foundȱinȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱBloodȬBowlȱSutraȱ(XuepenȱJing),ȱaȱworkȱofȱ medievalȱChineseȱoriginȱ(seeȱColeȱ1998:ȱ197Ȭ217;ȱFaureȱ2003:ȱ73Ȭ 78.).ȱ Also,ȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ Guanyinȱ asȱ aȱ feminineȱ character,ȱYüȱhasȱarguedȱthatȱcharacterizationsȱthatȱshowȱherȱasȱ essentiallyȱ feminineȱ orȱ “possessed”ȱ byȱ womenȱ failȱ toȱ considerȱ theȱmanyȱfacetsȱandȱhistoryȱofȱherȱdevelopmentȱandȱthatȱsheȱ“isȱ worshippedȱbyȱallȱclassesȱandȱbyȱbothȱgenders.ȱSheȱisȱgraciousȱ toȱ allȱ and,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ possessedȱ byȱ none”(Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 418).ȱ Thisȱ deȬ genderednessȱ perhapsȱ helpsȱ inȱ theȱ fifthȱ aspect,ȱ hospitality,ȱ forȱ sheȱbecomesȱmoreȱopenȱthroughȱbeingȱembodiedȱbutȱdeȬsexed.ȱ Fourth,ȱasȱreferredȱtoȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱpoint,ȱtheȱphysicalityȱ ofȱherȱembodimentȱisȱimportant;ȱindeed,ȱrecognizingȱtheȱsignifȬ icanceȱ ofȱ aȱ physicalȱ andȱ bodilyȱ formȱ accordsȱ withȱ anotherȱ asȬ pectȱofȱStuart’sȱwork,ȱfor,ȱasȱwellȱasȱbeingȱaȱfoundingȱfigureȱinȱ queerȱtheology,ȱsheȱisȱalsoȱanȱimportantȱspokespersonȱforȱbodyȱ theologyȱ(StuartȱandȱIsherwoodȱ1998).ȱThereȱisȱaȱfocusȱonȱactivȬ ityȱ inȱ thisȱ world,ȱ inȱ anȱ embodiedȱ form,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ simplyȱ anȱ otherworldlyȱ focus.ȱ Avalokiteshvaraȱ isȱ seenȱ asȱ offeringȱ immeȬ diateȱ andȱ physicalȱ helps,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ moreȱ immaterialȱ andȱ transcendentalȱ rebirthȱ intoȱ theȱ Pureȱ Landȱ offeredȱ byȱ Amida,ȱ perhapsȱoneȱreasonȱforȱthisȱfigure’sȱgreaterȱpopularity,ȱofferingȱ aȱcloserȱandȱmoreȱimmediateȱconnection.ȱThisȱphysicalityȱisȱinȬ tensifiedȱ inȱ theȱ legendȱ ofȱ Miaoshan.ȱ Notȱ only,ȱ asȱ noted,ȱ doesȱ thisȱphysicalȱinstantiationȱassistȱGuanyin’sȱindigenization,ȱbut,ȱ moreȱ dramatically,ȱ sheȱ offersȱ herȱ handsȱ andȱ eyesȱ asȱ aȱ gift,ȱ anȱ intenselyȱphysicalȱandȱimmediateȱformȱofȱoffering.ȱThisȱact,ȱinȱ theȱcontextȱofȱtheȱlegend,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱworldȱandȱembodiȬ ȱForȱmoreȱonȱwomen’sȱsexualityȱasȱsinful,ȱseeȱColeȱ1998;ȱonȱtheȱ pollutionȱofȱwomen’sȱbloodȱseeȱAhernȱ1975;ȱonȱbloodȱandȱitsȱpowerȱinȱ ChinaȱseeȱIdemaȱ2008:ȱ18Ȭ19,ȱ198,ȱn.ȱ68.ȱ 17


mentȱisȱimportant,ȱforȱthisȱisȱofferedȱforȱtheȱhealthȱofȱherȱfather,ȱ connectingȱbothȱtoȱhisȱphysicalȱwellȬbeingȱasȱwellȱasȱconstruingȱ herȱasȱaȱfilialȱdaughter,ȱfulfillingȱherȱfamilialȱobligationsȱ(DudȬ bridgeȱ2004:ȱ107Ȭ10).ȱTheȱfifthȱpointȱextendsȱfromȱthis:ȱembodiȬ mentȱandȱphysicalityȱextendȱtoȱhospitality.ȱInȱofferingȱherȱlimbsȱ toȱherȱfatherȱthereȱisȱaȱsupremeȱactȱofȱcharityȱandȱgivingȱexemȬ plified.ȱ Indeed,ȱ mostȱ Chineseȱ explanationsȱ forȱ Guanyin’sȱ feȬ maleȱ formȱ suggestȱ thatȱ compassionȱ isȱ aȱ feminineȱ quality,ȱ emȬ phasizingȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ herȱ hospitalityȱ asȱ aȱ caringȱ motherȱ figȬ ure.ȱ Yü,ȱ however,ȱ hasȱ arguedȱ thatȱ thisȱ goesȱ againstȱ theȱ BudȬ dhistȱtraditionȱofȱembodyingȱcompassionȱinȱtheȱmaleȱformȱandȱ wisdomȱ inȱ theȱ femaleȱ (Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 414Ȭ17),ȱ whileȱ Guanyinȱ isȱ inȬ vokedȱasȱaȱmaleȱfigure,ȱ“compassionateȱfather”ȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ417).ȱ Genderȱ isȱ hereȱ playedȱ withȱ andȱ representedȱ inȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ ways.ȱ Moreover,ȱ asȱ Yüȱ notes,ȱ withȱ referenceȱ toȱ Sangren’sȱ reȬ search,ȱ Guanyinȱ isȱ worshippedȱ byȱ olderȱ women,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ “prostitutes,ȱ socialȱ outcastsȱ andȱ otherȱ marginalizedȱ groupsȱ [particularlyȱ ethnicȱ minorities]ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ herȱ inclusivity”ȱ (Yüȱ 2001:ȱ 414;ȱ seeȱ Sangrenȱ 1983:ȱ 15Ȭ22),ȱ andȱ isȱ theȱ “motherȱ figureȱ parȱexcellence”ȱasȱsheȱwelcomesȱallȱandȱdemandsȱnothingȱinȱreȬ turn.ȱ Sixth,ȱwhileȱmostȱdiscourseȱonȱreȬenchantmentȱfocusesȱonȱ theȱcontextȱofȱWesternȱmodernityȱandȱpostmodernityȱ(see,ȱe.g.,ȱ Brownȱ2006;ȱLeeȱandȱAckermanȱ2002;ȱPartridgeȱ2005),ȱparallelsȱ withȱtheȱChineseȱsituationȱcanȱbeȱmade.ȱAsȱanȱofficiallyȱatheistȱ regime,ȱallȱmembersȱofȱtheȱCommunistȱPartyȱinȱChinaȱmustȱbeȱ atheists,ȱneverthelessȱquiteȱaȱnumber,ȱlikeȱmanyȱotherȱChinese,ȱ haveȱ homeȱ shrinesȱ toȱ Guanyin.ȱ Chinaȱ hasȱ alsoȱ seenȱ aȱ resurȬ genceȱofȱpilgrimageȱtoȱsitesȱsuchȱasȱPutuoȱShanȱassociatedȱwithȱ Guanyinȱ(seeȱKaretzkyȱ2004:ȱ74Ȭ75).ȱSheȱmayȱthen,ȱperhaps,ȱbeȱ seenȱasȱaȱsymbolȱofȱreȬenchantmentȱwithinȱaȱChineseȱcontext.ȱInȱ termsȱofȱgeneralȱenchantment,ȱbyȱprovidingȱaȱroleȱmodelȱforȱfeȬ maleȱ celibacyȱ andȱ layȱ vocation,ȱ sheȱ allowsȱ women’sȱ religiousȱ rolesȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ legitimate,ȱ andȱ givesȱ aȱ pathȱ toȱ followȱ theȱ dharmaȱ outsideȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ cloister,ȱ thusȱ openingȱ upȱ anȱ


“enchanted”ȱorȱ“sacred”ȱspaceȱwithinȱwhatȱmay,ȱalthoughȱnotȱ adequately,ȱbeȱtermedȱtheȱ“secular”ȱworld.18ȱ Seventh,ȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ parodyȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ thatȱ Guanyinȱ showsȱ theȱ nonȬultimateȱ natureȱ ofȱ whatȱ areȱ convenȬ tionallyȱ seenȱ asȱ society’sȱ norms.ȱ Throughȱ beingȱ theȱ idealȱ motherȱ whileȱ rejectingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ wife,ȱ sheȱ offersȱ aȱ parodyȱ ofȱ thisȱ socialȱ role;ȱ inȱ particularȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Marjorieȱ Topleyȱ onȱ marriageȱresistanceȱcanȱbeȱnotedȱinȱthis,ȱwhereȱtheȱcultȱofȱGuȬ anyinȱ offeredȱ womenȱ theȱ chanceȱ toȱ leaveȱ theirȱ normalȱ roles,ȱ even,ȱ onȱ occasion,ȱ onȱ aȱ permanentȱ basis,ȱ allowingȱ theirȱ husȬ bandsȱtoȱtakeȱconcubines,ȱalthoughȱtheȱwifeȱwouldȱbeȱrecognizȬ edȱ asȱ theȱ motherȱ ofȱ anyȱ resultingȱ offspringȱ (Topleyȱ 1975;ȱ seeȱ Sangrenȱ 1983:ȱ 12Ȭ13).ȱ Theȱ storyȱ relatedȱ above,ȱ whereȱ Guanyinȱ offersȱmarriageȱtoȱanyȱmanȱwhoȱlearnsȱvariousȱsutras,ȱcouldȱalȬ soȱbeȱseenȱasȱcomicȱparodyȱofȱstrivingȱforȱaȱpartner,ȱwithȱironicȱ results.ȱAlso,ȱinȱthisȱregard,ȱifȱStuartȱseesȱtheȱwoundsȱofȱChristȱ asȱparodyingȱobsessionȱwithȱtheȱbody,ȱthenȱweȱcouldȱreadȱtheȱ woundsȱ ofȱ Guanyin/Miaoshan,ȱ whenȱ sheȱ cutsȱ offȱ herȱ handsȱ andȱplucksȱoutȱherȱeyes,ȱinȱaȱsimilarȱway.ȱ Eighth,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ hereȱ takeȱ issueȱ withȱ Stuart’sȱ claimȱ thatȱ “OnlyȱChristianityȱcanȱmakeȱqueerȱtheoryȱaȱviableȱstrategyȱforȱ onlyȱ Christiansȱ areȱ calledȱ toȱ imitateȱ theirȱ Godȱ inȱ actingȱ paraȱ phusin,ȱinȱexcessȱofȱnature”ȱ(Stuartȱ2003:ȱ106).ȱAsȱnoted,ȱthereȱisȱ aȱ Radicalȱ OrthodoxȬlikeȱ qualityȱ toȱ thisȱ claim,ȱ for,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱandȱnoted,ȱtheȱexampleȱofȱGuanyinȱcallsȱwomenȱ(inȱparticȬ ular)ȱoutȱfromȱtheirȱ“natural”ȱrolesȱandȱintoȱnewȱrolesȱandȱrelaȬ tionships.ȱ Moreover,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ inȱ asȱ farȱ asȱ Chineseȱ Buddhismȱ seesȱBuddhaȬNatureȱinȱallȱpeople,ȱandȱthusȱpotentialȱbodhisattȬ vaȬhoodȱinȱallȱofȱus,ȱweȱareȱallȱcalledȱbyȱitȱbeyondȱourȱcurrentȱ limitedȱstateȱwithinȱtheȱbondsȱofȱsamsaraȱ(Mitchellȱ2008:ȱ201Ȭ02).ȱ Indeed,ȱbyȱbeingȱaȱfemaleȱfigure,ȱasȱSangrenȱsuggests,ȱGuanyinȱ canȱoperateȱbeyondȱtheȱlimitedȱhierarchicalȱboundsȱofȱtheȱmaleȱ ȱ Inȱ connectionȱ withȱ thisȱ seeȱ Huangȱ andȱ Wellerȱ (1998),ȱ whereȱ herȱroleȱandȱinspirationȱforȱCijiȱGongdehuiȱisȱdiscussed.ȱItȱisȱproblemȬ aticȱ toȱ applyȱ theȱ Westernȱ termsȱ “secular”ȱ andȱ “sacred”ȱ toȱ China,ȱ whichȱ areȱ notȱ withoutȱ theirȱ ownȱ problemsȱ inȱ aȱ Westernȱ contextȱ (forȱ relatedȱ discussions,ȱ seeȱ Fitzgeraldȱ 2007ȱ andȱ Finagaretteȱ 1998),ȱ butȱ hopefullyȱtheȱbroadȱthrustȱofȱmyȱpointȱwillȱbeȱallowed.ȱ 18


deityȱ (Sangrenȱ 1992:ȱ 5Ȭ6),ȱ andȱ sheȱ isȱ worshippedȱ byȱ bothȱ menȱ andȱ womenȱ andȱ wasȱ calledȱ uponȱ equallyȱ byȱ prostitutes,ȱ moȬ thers,ȱgamblers,ȱofficials,ȱandȱmerchantsȱasȱaȱdeityȱwhoȱwouldȱ hearȱtheirȱcalls.ȱSheȱcanȱthereforeȱcallȱall.ȱ Weȱshouldȱseeȱtheȱninthȱandȱtenthȱpointsȱasȱdeeplyȱrelated.ȱ Asȱ weȱ haveȱ seen,ȱ inȱ theȱ Chineseȱ context,ȱ thatȱ Miaoshanȱ wasȱ deeplyȱ implicatedȱ inȱ whatȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ seenȱ asȱ immoralȱ behaviour,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ didȱ sheȱ disobeyȱ herȱ father’sȱ commandȱ toȱ marriageȱandȱwasȱthusȱunfilial,ȱbutȱalso,ȱbyȱnotȱgettingȱmarried,ȱ sheȱfailedȱtoȱsecureȱtheȱfamilyȱline.ȱThisȱwasȱaȱfurtherȱactȱofȱunȬ filialȱbehaviourȱinȱrelationȱnotȱjustȱtoȱherȱfatherȱbutȱtoȱtheȱwholeȱ ancestralȱlineȱ(Hsiehȱ1986:ȱ176Ȭ81).ȱYetȱitȱisȱinȱtheseȱacts,ȱwhereȱ sheȱsubvertsȱherȱidentity,ȱasȱwellȱasȱactingȱinȱscandalousȱways,ȱ thatȱ sheȱ opensȱ upȱ theȱ possibilityȱ toȱ becomeȱ aȱ “sacred”ȱ figure,ȱ theȱperfectȱascetic,ȱasȱwellȱasȱrevealingȱherȱtrueȱnature,ȱasȱGuanȬ yin.ȱAsȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱthisȱinȱturnȱopensȱupȱandȱlegitimatesȱparȬ ticularȱreligiousȱpathwaysȱwithinȱtheȱChineseȱsocioȬculturoȬreliȬ gioȱ matrix.ȱ Herȱ actȱ ofȱ selfȬmutilation,ȱ weȱ mayȱ observe,ȱ alsoȱ runsȱ counterȱ toȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ Confucianȱ positionȱ onȱ treatȬ mentȱofȱtheȱbodyȱ(XiaoȱJingȱI,ȱinȱGenqingȱ1998:ȱ3)ȱbutȱdoesȱfeedȱ intoȱ anotherȱ traditionȱ ofȱ cuttingȱ theȱ fleshȱ forȱ theȱ benefitȱ andȱ healthȱofȱone’sȱparentsȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ334Ȭ47).ȱAccordingȱtoȱYüȱthisȱ drasticȱactionȱisȱneededȱtoȱrectifyȱtheȱillȱsheȱhasȱdone:ȱ Byȱrefusingȱtoȱgetȱmarriedȱandȱproduceȱanȱheir,ȱMiaoȬshanȱ committedȱtheȱmostȱunfilialȱactionȱimaginableȱinȱConfucianȱ society.ȱ Theȱ breachȱ inȱ familialȱ andȱ cosmicȱ harmonyȱ couldȱ onlyȱ beȱ mendedȱ byȱ havingȱ herselfȱ reincorporatedȱ byȱ herȱ fatherȱthroughȱtheȱlatter’sȱeatingȱherȱflesh.( Yüȱ2001:ȱ341)ȱ

Asȱsuch,ȱYüȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱMiaoshanȱstoryȱfinallyȱfailsȱtoȱ challengeȱ theȱ Confucianȱ traditionȱ butȱ actuallyȱ supportsȱ it.ȱ Whileȱweȱmustȱagreeȱthatȱinȱoneȱsenseȱthisȱisȱso,ȱindeed,ȱforȱtheȱ storyȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ successfulȱ andȱ toȱ haveȱ spreadȱ asȱ itȱ didȱ inȱ China,ȱ itȱ mustȱ haveȱ resonatedȱ withȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ existingȱ culȬ turalȱnorms.ȱYetȱIȱthinkȱthisȱfailsȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱradicalȱcounterȬ narrativeȱ itȱ alsoȱ offers.ȱ Atȱ theȱ conclusionȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ theȱ kingȱ andȱhisȱfamilyȱconvertȱtoȱBuddhism,ȱwhich,ȱafterȱtheȱgreatȱsupȬ pressionȱofȱ845ȱCEȱwasȱneverȱagain,ȱexceptȱsporadically,ȱtoȱbeȱaȱ sociallyȱdominantȱreligionȱ(seeȱCh’enȱ1973:ȱ390ff;ȱMitchellȱ2008:ȱ


231Ȭ32),19ȱandȱwasȱoftenȱcriticizedȱbyȱtheȱdominantȱNeoȬConfuȬ cianȱdiscourseȱ(Ch’enȱ1973:ȱ394ff.;ȱYaoȱ2000:ȱ233ff.),ȱandȱthusȱitȱ runsȱcounterȱtoȱcertainȱexpectations.ȱAlso,ȱtheȱformȱofȱtheȱreinȬ tegrationȱ throughȱ eatingȱ humanȱ fleshȱ isȱ againȱ somethingȱ thatȱ runsȱagainstȱmainstreamȱConfucianȱideologyȱandȱthusȱmarksȱaȱ reintegrationȱtoȱtheȱmainstreamȱnarrativeȱbyȱaȱrejectionȱofȱit.ȱAsȱ Yüȱnotes,ȱitȱisȱthisȱstoryȱthatȱhelpsȱgiveȱsomeȱlegitimacyȱtoȱsuchȱ storiesȱandȱpractices.20ȱHerȱactȱofȱreintegration,ȱwhileȱaffirmingȱ herȱ asȱ aȱ filialȱ daughter,ȱ actuallyȱ involvesȱ bringingȱ herȱ fatherȱ aroundȱ toȱ seeingȱ thingsȱ fromȱ herȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ andȱ thus,ȱ sheȱ becomes,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ noted,ȱ theȱ motherȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ family,ȱ theȱ spiritualȱhead,ȱwithȱherȱfatherȱasȱaȱspiritualȱson.ȱThis,ȱfarȱfromȱ beingȱaȱcapitulation,ȱisȱaȱradicalȱrevisionȱofȱtheȱnormalȱConfuȬ cianȱsocialȱorder.21ȱ Finally,ȱweȱmayȱconsiderȱGuanyinȱasȱaȱsubversiveȱmother.ȱ Itȱ hasȱ beenȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ inȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ Guanyinȱ holdingȱ aȱ baby,ȱasȱuniversalȱmother,ȱweȱseeȱ“theȱuniversalizingȱvaluesȱofȱ Buddhistȱsalvationȱfinallyȱatȱpeaceȱwithȱtheȱparticularistȱvaluesȱ ofȱ filialȱpietyȱandȱ motherhood”ȱ (Huangȱ andȱ Wellerȱ1998:ȱ386),ȱ inȱwhich,ȱasȱwell,ȱGuanyinȱbecomesȱrelatedȱtoȱindigenousȱconȬ cernsȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ127Ȭ28).ȱYetȱthisȱonlyȱoccursȱinȱaȱveryȱunorthoȬ doxȱ formȱ ofȱ “motherhood,”ȱ withȱ Guanyinȱ beingȱ “aȱ fertilityȱ goddessȱ whoȱ neverthelessȱ isȱ devoidȱ ofȱ sexuality.22ȱ Sheȱ givesȱ childrenȱtoȱothers,ȱbutȱsheȱisȱneverȱaȱmother”ȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ257).ȱInȱ thisȱregard,ȱweȱmayȱnoteȱthatȱitȱcanȱbeȱarguedȱthatȱGuanyinȱisȱ subversiveȱinȱbecomingȱaȱsupremeȱfeminineȱbeing,ȱwhoȱplaces,ȱ therefore,ȱ yinȱ overȱ yangȱ inȱ theȱ cosmicȱ hierarchy,ȱ although,ȱ atȱ ȱ Arguably,ȱ theȱ Vajrayanaȱ traditionȱ achievedȱ thisȱ inȱ theȱ Yuanȱ andȱ Qingȱ Dynastiesȱ (seeȱ Ch’enȱ 1973:ȱ 449ff.),ȱ butȱ inȱ bothȱ casesȱ asȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ aȱ foreignȱ imperialȱ regimeȱ distancedȱ fromȱ theȱ Confucianȱ literati.ȱ 19

ȱOnȱfleshȱeatingȱseeȱOhnumaȱ1998.ȱ

20

21ȱForȱmoreȱonȱthisȱstoryȱasȱfemaleȱcountersȱtoȱtheȱpatriline,ȱseeȱ Idemaȱ 2008:ȱ 21ȱ andȱ 25:ȱ onȱ theȱ latterȱ page,ȱ itȱ isȱ shownȱ thatȱ onlyȱ theȱ femaleȱ canȱ provideȱ aȱ solutionȱ toȱ theȱ father’sȱ sin.ȱ Butȱ doesȱ doingȱ soȱ makeȱtheȱfemaleȱmoreȱpowerful?ȱ 22ȱOvermeyerȱdisputesȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱfertilityȱgoddessȱ(2002:ȱ 422).ȱ


theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ workingȱ toȱ “mysticallyȱ combineȱ orderȱ andȱ disȬ order,ȱ yinȱ andȱ yang”ȱ yetȱ alsoȱ “denyingȱ theȱ differentiation”ȱ byȱ beingȱanȱandrogynousȱfigureȱ(Sangrenȱ1987:ȱ79Ȭ80).ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ thereforeȱ suggestȱ thatȱ weȱ canȱ seeȱ Guanyinȱ asȱ aȱ figureȱofȱQRI.ȱ Guanyinȱasȱaȱ(NonȬ)SubversiveȱFigureȱ Iȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ imageryȱ andȱ representationȱ ofȱ Guanyinȱ isȱ aȱ particularlyȱ potentȱ sourceȱ ofȱ Queerȱ religiousȱ subversionȱ (seeȱ Hedgesȱforthcoming).ȱByȱcrossingȱboundaries,ȱandȱespeciallyȱinȱ theȱlegendȱofȱMiaoshanȱwhereȱintegrationȱintoȱtheȱmainstreamȱ comesȱ byȱ challenging,ȱ evenȱ reversing,ȱ manyȱ societalȱ norms,ȱ Guanyinȱisȱsuggestiveȱofȱareasȱwhereȱanȱalternativeȱvisionȱmayȱ beȱthoughtȱorȱencountered.ȱItȱmustȱbeȱacknowledged,ȱhowever,ȱ thatȱtheȱimageryȱandȱiconographyȱofȱthisȱfigureȱcanȱbeȱreadȱinȱ conventionalȱ andȱ nonȬsubversive,ȱ evenȱ oppressive,ȱ ways.ȱ Thisȱ mayȱincludeȱaccommodatingȱwomenȱtoȱtheirȱconventionalȱsociȬ etalȱ roles,ȱ perhapsȱ viaȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ simplyȱ copingȱ (Reedȱ 1992:ȱ 159,ȱ169Ȭ70).ȱMoreover,ȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱthatȱGuanyinȱhasȱalwaysȱ providedȱaȱroleȱmodelȱforȱfemaleȱpowerȱinȱreligiousȱtraditions,ȱ withȱ strongȱ femaleȱ religiousȱ imagesȱ oftenȱ notȱ providingȱ anyȬ thingȱconcreteȱforȱwomenȱinȱsocietyȱ(Yüȱ2001:ȱ413Ȭ19;ȱCabezonȱ 1992:ȱ188). 23ȱIndeed,ȱevenȱwhereȱweȱseeȱGuanyinȱofferingȱanȱalȬ ternativeȱ forȱ women,ȱ asȱ notedȱ inȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ escapingȱ marriageȱviaȱherȱexemplarȱasȱanȱasceticȱlayȱroleȱmodel,ȱcertainȱ issuesȱarise.ȱInȱsuchȱsituations,ȱaȱconcubineȱcouldȱbeȱtakenȱwithȱ anyȱchildrenȱbeingȱregardedȱasȱthoseȱofȱtheȱwife.ȱYet,ȱweȱmustȱ ask,ȱwhatȱofȱtheȱconcubine?ȱHowȱdoesȱsheȱplayȱintoȱtheȱsituaȬ tionȱ ofȱ another,ȱ moreȱ privileged,ȱ womanȱ becomingȱ releasedȱ Seeȱ Hedgesȱ (forthcoming)ȱ forȱ anȱ extendedȱ discussionȱ onȱ this.ȱ Also,ȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ itsȱ conventionalȱ aspects,ȱ Idemaȱ comparesȱ tropesȱ inȱ theȱ legendȱ ofȱ Miaoshanȱ toȱ storiesȱ ofȱ Christianȱ virginȱ saints,ȱ i.e.ȱ theyȱ tendȱtoȱbeȱbeautiful,ȱaristocratic,ȱoftenȱfromȱdistantȱlandsȱorȱtimes,ȱenȬ forcedȱunrobingȱtakesȱplace,ȱpossibleȱincestuousȱlongingsȱareȱimpliedȱ (2008:ȱ 14ff.,ȱ 19,ȱ 20Ȭ21).ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ true,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ thatȱ idealizedȱ femaleȱ roleȱ modelsȱ mayȱ beȱ oppressiveȱ ofȱ actualȱ womenȱ (seeȱ Bokenkampȱ 2007:ȱ148ff.),ȱanȱargumentȱalsoȱappliedȱinȱtheȱChristianȱtradition,ȱespeȬ ciallyȱinȱrelationȱtoȱMary.ȱ 23ȱ


fromȱ whatȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ anȱ oppressiveȱ situation?ȱ Certainly,ȱ byȱneedingȱtoȱsacrificeȱrightsȱtoȱtheȱchild,ȱaȱclearȱcaseȱofȱdomȬ inationȱwithinȱtheȱboundsȱofȱaȱmainlyȱpatriarchalȱlineageȱcanȱbeȱ seenȱ (theȱ childrenȱ becomeȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ husband’sȱ familyȱ lineȱ forȱ purposesȱ ofȱ ancestralȱ sacrifice).ȱ However,ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱsuchȱaȱpositionȱwouldȱprovideȱsomeȱincreasedȱstatusȱand,ȱ withȱ it,ȱ economicȱ assistanceȱ bothȱ forȱ theȱ concubineȱ andȱ herȱ family.ȱTheȱquestionȱofȱpowerȱrelationsȱandȱoppressionȱisȱneverȱ clearlyȱoneȬsided.ȱInȱrelationȱtoȱGuanyinȱasȱaȱrepresentationȱofȱ QRI,ȱhowever,ȱsuchȱambivalenceȱisȱimportantȱsinceȱitȱisȱclearlyȱ theȱcaseȱthatȱinterpretationȱdeterminesȱhowȱweȱviewȱher;ȱthereȱ isȱneverȱanyȱ monolithicȱ readingȱofȱ religiousȱdoctrines,ȱimages,ȱ orȱ figures.ȱ Itȱ isȱ important,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ weȱ canȱ findȱ manyȱ placesȱ whereȱ fissuresȱ withinȱ conventionalȱ societyȱ andȱ normsȱ areȱ eitherȱ actuallyȱ orȱ potentiallyȱ subvertedȱ byȱ her.ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ someȱ ways,ȱ itȱ isȱ becauseȱ sheȱ canȱ beȱ bothȱ aȱ moreȱ mainstream/ȱ conventionalȱcharacterȱasȱwellȱasȱaȱsubversive/Queerȱcharacterȱ thatȱsheȱisȱsoȱpotent;ȱifȱsheȱwereȱonlyȱaȱfigureȱofȱtheȱmarginsȱsheȱ wouldȱ notȱ provideȱ aȱ challengeȱ toȱ theȱ controllingȱ narrativeȱ inȱ suchȱaȱcompellingȱway.ȱTheȱtheologicalȱchallenge,ȱthen,ȱisȱtoȱinȬ terpretȱ andȱ inhabitȱ theȱ rupturesȱ andȱ fissuresȱ thatȱ sheȱ makesȱ possible.ȱ Conclusionsȱ Iȱ wouldȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ analysisȱ offeredȱ ofȱ Guanyinȱ suggestsȱ thatȱtheȱnotionȱofȱQRIȱdevelopedȱhereȱprovidesȱaȱusefulȱcrossȬ traditionȱcategory,ȱshowingȱthatȱvariousȱfaithȱtraditionsȱ(atȱleastȱ Buddhistȱ andȱ Christian)ȱ constructȱ religiousȱ identitiesȱ and/orȱ envisageȱ theirȱ deitiesȱ inȱ waysȱ thatȱ subvertȱ theȱ usualȱ socialȱ normsȱ inȱ someȱ similarȱ ways,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ inȱ breakingȱ downȱ genderȱ roles,ȱ promotingȱ hospitality,ȱ andȱ promotingȱ formsȱ ofȱ “sacredness”ȱ thatȱ transgressȱ orȱ defyȱ societalȱ norms.ȱ Stuartȱ arȬ guesȱthatȱreturningȱto,ȱorȱfinding,ȱsuchȱaȱviewȱreconnectsȱtoȱtheȱ rootsȱ ofȱ herȱ traditionȱ andȱ thatȱ Christianityȱ wasȱ Queerȱ beforeȱ queerȱ theoryȱ everȱ began.ȱ Iȱ suggestȱ theȱ sameȱ mayȱ beȱ saidȱ ofȱ Guanyin.ȱ Arguably,ȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ QRIȱ asȱ portrayedȱ hereȱ isȱ atȱ homeȱinȱaȱreligiousȱrealmȱbecauseȱweȱfindȱinȱitȱpatternsȱofȱbeȬ ingȱ andȱ behaviourȱ thatȱ disruptȱ orȱ destabilizeȱ worldlyȱ rulesȱ orȱ regulationsȱ (although,ȱ asȱ suggestedȱ above,ȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ alsoȱconstituteȱorȱlayȱdownȱtheȱboundariesȱandȱregulationsȱthatȱ


areȱdisrupted;ȱthisȱmayȱbeȱseenȱasȱrepresentingȱtwoȱpolarȱoppoȬ sitesȱofȱreligiousȱbehaviourȱandȱactivity).ȱIȱwouldȱthereforeȱsugȬ gestȱthatȱQRIȱrepresentsȱaȱ“typical”ȱ(understoodȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱ typos)ȱformȱofȱreligiousȱbeing.ȱMoreover,ȱIȱmayȱsuggestȱthatȱreȬ ligionȱisȱtheȱonlyȱandȱtrulyȱmostȱproperlyȱQueerȱspace.ȱByȱthis,ȱ Iȱ meanȱ thatȱ onlyȱ inȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ doȱ weȱ findȱ aȱ narrativeȱ thatȱ supportȱ itselfȱ byȱ referenceȱ toȱ aȱ “higherȱ (transcendent)ȱ orȬ der”ȱ thatȱ allowsȱ aȱ completeȱ reversalȱ ofȱ allȱ conventionalȱ formsȱ andȱstandardsȱandȱisȱnotȱinherentlyȱboundȱupȱwithȱphysicalityȱ orȱsexuality.ȱThisȱisȱsoȱitȱisȱpositedȱuponȱaȱfoundationȱthatȱlinksȱ theȱearthlyȱandȱspiritualȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱgivesȱimportanceȱtoȱboth,ȱ withoutȱprioritizingȱtheȱwayȱweȱfindȱtheȱformer,ȱnorȱyet,ȱinȱitsȱ Queerȱmanifestations,ȱgivingȱwayȱtoȱaȱGnosticismȱthatȱemptiesȱ theȱformerȱinȱfavourȱofȱtheȱlatter.ȱAsȱsuch,ȱIȱwouldȱsuggestȱthatȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ QRIȱ providesȱ aȱ powerfulȱ theologicalȱ tool.ȱ Itȱ reȬ mainsȱaȱmatterȱofȱfutureȱinvestigation,ȱhowever,ȱifȱsuchȱidentityȱ canȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱfiguresȱwithinȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ Toȱ conclude,ȱ weȱ turnȱ backȱ toȱ Guanyin.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beȱ askedȱ whatȱ theȱ nunsȱ toȱ whomȱ Iȱ referredȱ earlierȱ wouldȱ makeȱ ofȱ myȱ categorizationȱofȱGuanyinȱasȱaȱfigureȱofȱQRI?ȱIȱsuspect,ȱifȱonlyȱ forȱ theȱ terminologyȱ andȱ itsȱ implications,ȱ thatȱ theyȱ wouldȱ beȱ deeplyȱ shocked,ȱ butȱ aȱ subversiveȱ andȱ scandalousȱ Guanyinȱ shouldȱnotȱbe,ȱIȱbelieve,ȱaȱsurprise.ȱIfȱsheȱtrulyȱhasȱmanyȱtransȬ formationsȱ thenȱ aȱ Queerȱ Guanyinȱ surelyȱ hasȱ aȱ placeȱ amongstȱ them.ȱ Literatureȱ Ahern,ȱ E.W.ȱ (1975).ȱ “Theȱ Powerȱ andȱ Pollutionȱ ofȱ Chineseȱ Women.”ȱ In:ȱ M.ȱ Wolfȱ andȱ R.ȱ Witkeȱ (eds.).ȱ Womenȱ inȱ Chineseȱ Society.ȱ StanȬ ford:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ193Ȭ214.ȱ Beckerlegge,ȱG.ȱ(ed.).ȱ(2002).ȱTheȱWorldȱReligionsȱReader.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱLonȬ don:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Blofeld,ȱJ.ȱ(1977).ȱCompassionȱYoga:ȱTheȱMysticalȱCultȱofȱKuanȱYin.ȱLonȬ don:ȱMandalaȱBooks.ȱ Bokenkamp,ȱ S.ȱ (2007).ȱ Ancestorsȱ andȱ Anxiety:ȱ Daoismȱ andȱ theȱ Birthȱ ofȱ RebirthȱinȱChina.ȱBerkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress.ȱ Brown,ȱD.ȱ(2006).ȱGodȱandȱtheȱEnchantmentȱofȱPlace:ȱReclaimingȱHumanȱ Experience.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ

226ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Cabezón,ȱ J.I.ȱ (1992).ȱ “Motherȱ Wisdom,ȱ Fatherȱ Love:ȱ GenderȬBasedȱ ImageryȱinȱMah¬y¬naȱBuddhistȱThought.”ȱIn:ȱJ.I.ȱCabezónȱ(ed.).ȱ Buddhism,ȱSexualityȱandȱGender.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱ YorkȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ181Ȭ99.ȱ Cahill,ȱS.ȱ(2006).ȱDivineȱTracesȱofȱtheȱDaoistȱSisterhood.ȱMagdalena,ȱMN:ȱ ThreeȱPinesȱPress.ȱ Ch’en,ȱK.K.S.ȱ(1973).ȱBuddhismȱinȱChina:ȱAȱHistoricalȱSurvey.ȱPrinceton:ȱ PrincetonȱUniversityȱPress.ȱFirstȱpublishedȱinȱ1964.ȱ Clooney,ȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ SJ.ȱ (2002).ȱ Hinduȱ God,ȱ Christianȱ God:ȱ Howȱ Reasonȱ Helpsȱ Breakȱ Downȱ theȱ Boundariesȱ Betweenȱ Religions.ȱ Oxford:ȱ OxȬ fordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Cole,ȱA.ȱ(1998).ȱMothersȱandȱSonsȱinȱChineseȱBuddhism.ȱStanford:ȱStanȬ fordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Dudbridge,ȱG.ȱ(2004).ȱTheȱLegendȱofȱMiaoshan.ȱRev.ȱed.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱ UniversityȱPress.ȱ Faure,ȱ B.ȱ (2003).ȱ Theȱ Powerȱ ofȱ Denial:ȱ Buddhism,ȱ Purityȱ andȱ Gender.ȱ Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (1998).ȱTheȱRedȱThread:ȱBuddhistȱApproachesȱtoȱSexuality.ȱPrinceton:ȱ PrincetonȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Feuerstein,ȱ G.ȱ (1992).ȱ Holyȱ Madness.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Arkana.ȱ Firstȱ pubȬ lishedȱinȱ1991.ȱ Finagarette,ȱ H.ȱ (1998).ȱ Confucius:ȱ Theȱ Secularȱ asȱ Sacred.ȱ Longrove:ȱ WavelandȱPress.ȱFirstȱpublishedȱinȱ1972.ȱ Genqing,ȱF.ȱ(1998).ȱTheȱClassicȱofȱFilialȱPiety/ᆍ㏃.ȱTransl.ȱR.ȱLiuȱandȱZ.ȱ Lin.ȱ Bilingualȱ edition.ȱ Shandong:ȱ Shandongȱ Friendshipȱ Press.ȱ Firstȱpublishedȱinȱ1993.ȱ Harvey,ȱP.ȱ(2000).ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱBuddhistȱEthics.ȱCambridge:ȱCamȬ bridgeȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (1990).ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Buddhism.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress.ȱ Hedges,ȱ P.ȱ (Forthcoming).ȱ “Theȱ Identityȱ ofȱ Guanyin:ȱ Religion,ȱ ConȬ ventionȱ andȱ Subversion.”ȱ Commissionedȱ forȱ publicationȱ projectȱ ofȱselectedȱpapersȱfromȱ“Religion,ȱArtȱandȱIdentityȱSymposium”ȱ ofȱ Glasgow,ȱ 2008,ȱ currentlyȱ plannedȱ asȱ aȱ specialȱ editionȱ ofȱ Theȱ JournalȱofȱVisualȱCulture.ȱ (2010a).ȱ “Canȱ Weȱ Stillȱ Teachȱ ‘Religions’?:ȱ Towardsȱ anȱ UnderȬ standingȱ ofȱ Religionȱ asȱ Cultureȱ andȱ Orientationȱ inȱ ContemporȬ aryȱ Pedagogyȱ andȱ Metatheory.”ȱ In:ȱ G.ȱ Durka,ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.).ȱ InterȬ

GUANYIN,ȱQUEERȱTHEOLOGY,ȱANDȱSUBVERSIVEȱRELIGIOSITYȱȱȱȱȱȱ227ȱ nationalȱHandbookȱforȱInterȬReligiousȱEducation.ȱDordrecht/London:ȱ SpringerȱAcademicȱPublishers.ȱ (2010b).ȱ “Chineseȱ Religion.”ȱ In:ȱ R.D.ȱ Hechtȱ andȱ V.F.ȱ Biondoȱ (eds.).ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Everydayȱ Lifeȱ andȱ Culture.ȱ Vol.ȱ I:ȱ Religionȱ inȱ theȱ Practiceȱ ofȱ Dailyȱ Lifeȱ inȱ Worldȱ History.ȱ Westport:ȱ GreenȬ wood/Praeger.ȱ (2010c).ȱ“IsȱJohnȱMilbank’sȱRadicalȱOrthodoxyȱaȱFormȱofȱLiberalȱ Theology?ȱAȱRhetoricalȱCounter.”ȱTheȱHeythropȱJournal 51/5:ȱ795Ȭ 818.ȱ (2010d).ȱControversiesȱinȱInterreligiousȱDialogueȱandȱtheȱTheologyȱofȱ Religions.ȱLondon:ȱSCM.ȱ (2008).ȱ“Particularities.”ȱIn:ȱP.ȱ HedgesȱandȱA.ȱRaceȱ(eds.).ȱChrisȬ tianȱApproachesȱtoȱOtherȱFaiths.ȱLondon:ȱSCM.ȱPp.ȱ112Ȭ35.ȱ Hsieh,ȱ Y.ȱ (1973).ȱ “Filialȱ Pietyȱ andȱ Chineseȱ Society.”ȱ In:ȱ C.A.ȱ Mooreȱ (ed.).ȱ Theȱ Chineseȱ Mind:ȱ Essentialsȱ ofȱ Chineseȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ CulȬ ture.ȱHonolulu:ȱUniversityȱofȱHawaiiȱPress.ȱFirstȱpublishedȱ1967.ȱ Pp.ȱ167Ȭ87.ȱ Huang,ȱ C.J.,ȱ andȱ R.P.ȱ Weller.ȱ (1998).ȱ “Meritȱ andȱ Mothering:ȱ Womenȱ andȱSocialȱWelfareȱinȱTaiwaneseȱBuddhism.”ȱTheȱJournalȱofȱAsianȱ Studiesȱ57:ȱ379Ȭ396.ȱ Idema,ȱ W.L.ȱ (transl.ȱ andȱ introduction).ȱ (2008).ȱ Personȱ Salvationȱ andȱ FilialȱPiety:ȱTwoȱPreciousȱScrollȱNarrativesȱofȱGuanyinȱandȱHerȱAcoȬ lytes.ȱHonolulu:ȱUniversityȱofȱHawaiiȱPress.ȱ Karetzky,ȱP.E.ȱ(2004).ȱGuanyin.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Lee,ȱ R.L.M.,ȱ andȱ S.E.ȱ Ackerman.ȱ (2002).ȱ Theȱ Challengeȱ ofȱ Religionȱ afterȱ Modernity:ȱBeyondȱDisenchantment.ȱAldershot:ȱAshgate.ȱ Mitchell,ȱ D.W.ȱ (2008).ȱ Buddhism:ȱ Introducingȱ theȱ Buddhistȱ Experience.ȱ 2ndȱed.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Murase,ȱ M.ȱ (1971).ȱ “KuanȬyinȱ asȱ Saviorȱ ofȱ Men:ȱ Illustrationsȱ ofȱ theȱ TwentyȬfifthȱ Chapterȱ ofȱ theȱ Lotusȱ Sutraȱ inȱ Chineseȱ Painting.”ȱ ArtibusȱAsiaeȱ33:ȱ39Ȭ73.ȱ Ng,ȱ Z.ȱ (2007).ȱ Theȱ Makingȱ ofȱ aȱ Saviorȱ Bodhisattva:ȱ Dizangȱ inȱ Medievalȱ China.ȱHonolulu:ȱUniversityȱofȱHawaiiȱPress.ȱ Ohnuma,ȱ R.ȱ (1998).ȱ “Theȱ Giftȱ ofȱ theȱ Bodyȱ andȱ theȱ Giftȱ ofȱ theȱ Dharma.”ȱHistoryȱofȱReligionsȱ37:ȱ321Ȭ359.ȱ Overmeyer,ȱ D.L.ȱ (2002).ȱ “Review:ȱ KuanȬyin:ȱ Theȱ Developmentȱ andȱ TransformationȱofȱaȱChineseȱGoddess.”ȱTheȱJournalȱofȱReligionȱ82:ȱ 418Ȭ23.ȱ

228ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Palmer,ȱM.,ȱJ.ȱRamsay,ȱandȱM.ȬH.ȱKwok.ȱ(1995).ȱKuanȱYin:ȱMythsȱandȱ PropheciesȱofȱtheȱChineseȱGoddessȱofȱCompassion.ȱLondon:ȱThorsons.ȱ Partridge,ȱC.ȱ(2005).ȱTheȱReȬenchantmentȱofȱtheȱWest:ȱAlternativeȱSpirituȬ alities,ȱSacralization,ȱPopularȱCulture,ȱandȱOcculture.ȱLondon:ȱConȬ tinuum.ȱ Pye,ȱ M.ȱ (1978).ȱ Skilfulȱ Means:ȱ Aȱ Conceptȱ inȱ Mahayanaȱ Buddhism.ȱ LonȬ don:ȱDuckworth.ȱ Reed,ȱB.E.ȱ(1992).ȱ“TheȱGenderȱSymbolismȱofȱKuanȬyinȱBodhisattva.”ȱ In:ȱ J.I.ȱ Cabezónȱ (ed.).ȱ Buddhism,ȱ Sexualityȱ andȱ Gender.ȱ Albany:ȱ StateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ159Ȭ80.ȱ ReisȬHabito,ȱ M.ȱ (1993).ȱ “Theȱ Bodhisattvaȱ Guanyinȱ andȱ theȱ Virginȱ Mary.”ȱBuddhistȬChristianȱStudiesȱ13:ȱ61Ȭ69.ȱ Sangren,ȱ P.S.ȱ (1983).ȱ “Femaleȱ Genderȱ inȱ Chineseȱ Religiousȱ Symbols:ȱ KuanȱYin,ȱMaȱTsu,ȱandȱtheȱ‘EternalȱMother’.”ȱSignsȱ9:ȱ4Ȭ25.ȱ Sangren,ȱ P.S.ȱ (1987).ȱ “Orthodoxy,ȱ Heterodoxy,ȱ andȱ theȱ Structureȱ ofȱ ValueȱinȱChineseȱRituals.”ȱModernȱChinaȱ13:ȱ63Ȭ89.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱP.ȱ(2009).ȱTransformationȱbyȱIntegration:ȱHowȱInterȬfaithȱ EncounterȱChangesȱChristianity.ȱLondon:ȱSCM.ȱ Sponberg,ȱ A.ȱ (1992).ȱ “Attitudesȱ towardȱ Womenȱ andȱ theȱ Feminineȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Buddhism.”ȱ In:ȱ J.I.ȱ Cabezónȱ (ed.).ȱ Buddhism,ȱ Sexualityȱ andȱ Gender.ȱ Albany,ȱ NY:ȱ Stateȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Press.ȱ Pp.ȱ 3Ȭ 36.ȱ Stuart,ȱ E.,ȱ andȱ Isherwood,ȱ L.ȱ (1998).ȱ Introducingȱ Bodyȱ Theology.ȱ LonȬ don:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ Stuart,ȱE.ȱ(2003).ȱGayȱandȱLesbianȱTheologies:ȱRepetitionsȱwithȱCriticalȱDifȬ ference.ȱAldershot:ȱAshgate.ȱ (Noȱdate).ȱ“RadicalȱOrthodoxy.”ȱUnpublishedȱmanuscript.ȱ Tay,ȱ C.N.ȱ (1976).ȱ “KuanȬyin:ȱ Theȱ Cultȱ ofȱ Halfȱ Asia.”ȱ Historyȱ ofȱ ReliȬ gionsȱ16:ȱ147Ȭ77.ȱ Thurman,ȱR.A.F.ȱ(transl.).ȱ(1976).ȱVimalakirtiȱNirdesaȱSutra,ȱavailableȱat:ȱ http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Vi malakirti.htmȱ(Accessedȱ20ȱMayȱ2009).ȱ Topley,ȱM.ȱ(1975).ȱ“MarriageȱResistanceȱinȱRuralȱKwangtung.”ȱIn:ȱM.ȱ Wolfȱ andȱ R.ȱ Witkeȱ (eds.).ȱ Womenȱ inȱ Chineseȱ Society.ȱ Stanford:ȱ StanfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ67Ȭ88.ȱ Urakami,ȱK.S.ȱ(transl.).ȱ(1996).ȱAmidaȱBuddhaȱandȱHisȱPureȱLand:ȱThreeȱ SĀtrasȱandȱOneȱTreatise.ȱHonolulu:ȱPureȱLandȱInstitute.ȱ

GUANYIN,ȱQUEERȱTHEOLOGY,ȱANDȱSUBVERSIVEȱRELIGIOSITYȱȱȱȱȱȱ229ȱ Wang,ȱZ.ȱ(2003).ȱ“Gender,ȱEmploymentȱandȱWomen’sȱResistance.”ȱIn:ȱ E.J.ȱ Perryȱ andȱ M.ȱ Seldenȱ (eds.).ȱ Chineseȱ Society:ȱ Changeȱ Conflictȱ andȱResistance.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱLondon:ȱRoutledgeCurzon.ȱPp.ȱ158Ȭ82.ȱ Wu,ȱ J.C.H.ȱ (1976).ȱ “Theȱ Individualȱ inȱ Politicalȱ andȱ Legalȱ Thinking.”ȱ In:ȱC.A.ȱMooreȱ(ed.).ȱTheȱChineseȱMind:ȱEssentialsȱofȱChineseȱPhiloȬ sophyȱandȱCulture.ȱHonolulu:ȱUniversityȱofȱHawaiiȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ340Ȭ 64.ȱ Yao,ȱX.ȱ(2000).ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱConfucianism.ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress.ȱ Yü,ȱCȬF.ȱ(2001).ȱKuanȬyin:ȱTheȱChineseȱTransformationȱofȱAvalokiteïhvara.ȱ NewȱYork:ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ

WhatȱisȱComparativeȱTheology?ȱ ȱ ȱ UlrichȱWinkler1

…ȱthatȱtheyȱthemselvesȱmayȱlearnȱbyȱsincereȱandȱpatientȱdialogueȱ whatȱtreasuresȱaȱgenerousȱGodȱhasȱdistributedȱ ȱamongȱtheȱnationsȱofȱtheȱearth.ȱ (VaticanȱII,ȱAdȱGentesȱ11)ȱ

ReflectionȱandȱExperienceȱ Bringingȱ reflectionȱ andȱ experienceȱ togetherȱ isȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ cenȬ tralȱ importanceȱ forȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brück.ȱ Inȱ myȱ introductionȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ useȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ hisȱ 60thȱ birthdayȱ toȱ discussȱ brieflyȱthisȱtheologian,ȱreligiousȱscholar,ȱandȱBuddhismȱexpert,ȱ wellȱ knownȱ beyondȱ theȱ bordersȱ ofȱ GermanȬspeakingȱ areas,ȱ sinceȱhisȱworkȱopensȱupȱaȱperspectiveȱforȱaȱprogressiveȱcomparaȬ tiveȱtheologyȱthatȱIȱwillȱprofileȱinȱthisȱpresentation.ȱAtȱ26ȱyearsȱ old,ȱ vonȱ Brückȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ begunȱ toȱ developȱ hisȱ modelȱ ofȱ aȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ inȱ hisȱ dissertationȱ (1975;ȱ seeȱ vonȱ Brückȱ 1979),ȱ puttingȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ testȱ inȱ hisȱ lifeȬlong,ȱ personalȱ journeyȱ withinȱtheȱencounterȱofȱreligions.ȱ VonȱBrückȱdidȱnotȱadoptȱtheȱneutral,ȱobservingȱpositionȱofȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱ norȱ didȱ heȱ becomeȱ aȱ Buddhist.ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ broughtȱ bothȱ discoursesȱ ontoȱ theȱ solidȱ groundȱ ofȱ Christianȱ theologyȱrightȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱhisȱLutheranȱchurch.ȱThisȱwasȱtheȱ caseȱ fromȱ theȱ veryȱ beginning,ȱ asȱ hisȱ dissertationȱ shows,ȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ attemptsȱ toȱ showȱ aȱ complementaryȱ connectionȱ beȬ tweenȱ Karlȱ Barth’sȱ andȱ Rudolfȱ Otto’sȱ viewsȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Karlȱ Barthȱisȱusuallyȱconsideredȱtheȱantithesisȱofȱtheȱappreciationȱofȱ religions.ȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brück,ȱ however,ȱ couldȱ makeȱ hisȱ apȬ proachȱfruitfulȱforȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱbyȱplacingȱhisȱconȬ cernsȱinȱaȱnewȱcontextȱandȱthroughȱdialecticȱextrapolation.ȱTheȱ ȱTranslatedȱintoȱEnglishȱbyȱLaurieȱJohnsonȱandȱChristianȱHackȬ barthȬJohnson.ȱ 1


developmentsȱinȱBarth’sȱnotionȱofȱtheȱWordȱofȱGodȱandȱofȱreliȬ gionȱofferedȱstartingȱpointsȱforȱtheȱquestionȱofȱexperiencingȱtheȱ WordȱofȱGodȱasȱbeingȱgovernedȱbyȱtheȱTotallyȱOther,ȱwhichȱheȱ developsȱfurtherȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱRudolfȱOtto.ȱ Onȱ thisȱ solidȱ groundȱ ofȱ hisȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ vonȱ BrückȱsetȱoffȱonȱtheȱpathȱofȱexperienceȱinȱJapanȱandȱIndiaȱwithȱ theȱ aidȱ ofȱ hisȱ teachersȱ Hugoȱ M.ȱ EnomiyaȬLassalleȱ andȱ Bedeȱ Griffithsȱandȱbecameȱinvolvedȱinȱdialogue,ȱnotȱonlyȱonȱanȱintelȬ lectualȱ levelȱ butȱ alsoȱ onȱ aȱ personalȱ one.ȱ Heȱ neverȱ placedȱ hisȱ betsȱonȱtheȱbasicȱgroundȱofȱaȱmysticalȱunityȱofȱallȱreligiousȱexȬ perienceȱbutȱinsteadȱalwaysȱemphasizedȱthatȱallȱunderstandingȱ ofȱ experienceȱ isȱ culturallyȱ conditioned.ȱ Heȱ didȱ notȱ followȱ theȱ enlightenedȱ spiritualistsȱ foundȱ inȱ certainȱ spiritualȱ groupsȱ whoȱ ridiculeȱtheologyȱandȱtheȱinstitutionalizedȱshapeȱofȱreligion.ȱInȬ stead,ȱheȱheldȱonȱtoȱtheȱirredeemableȱmultidimensionalityȱofȱreȬ ligions.ȱInstitutions,ȱethics,ȱmysticism,ȱandȱtheologyȱallȱofferȱreȬ sourcesȱ forȱ anȱ understandingȱ betweenȱ religions.ȱ Theȱ unityȱ ofȱ realityȱ (Brückȱ 1986,ȱ 1991)ȱ hasȱ itsȱ religiousȱ theologicalȱ basisȱ inȱ trustingȱ theȱ goodnessȱ ofȱ creation,ȱ whichȱ entailsȱ reverenceȱ forȱ theȱ pluriformityȱ ofȱ allȱ historyȱ andȱ theȱ overallȱ salvificȱ presenceȱ withinȱit.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ thusȱ substantiatesȱ andȱ accountsȱ forȱ approachingȱ otherȱ religions,ȱ includingȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ personalȱ experience.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ asȱ aȱ compleȬ mentaryȱ force,ȱ theȱ mysticȱ dimensionȱ offersȱ anȱ incentiveȱ forȱ theologyȱ toȱ moveȱ forwardȱ inȱ thisȱ process.ȱ Vonȱ Brückȱ derivesȱ encouragementȱfromȱhisȱexperiencesȱandȱhisȱtheology; 2ȱcourageȱ isȱ desperatelyȱ neededȱ inȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ challengesȱ facingȱ ChrisȬ tianityȱandȱotherȱreligionsȱinȱourȱworld.ȱ Reflectionȱandȱexperienceȱareȱnotȱjustȱtheȱequipmentȱforȱanȱ individualȱadventureȱbutȱalsoȱforȱtheologyȱandȱtheȱChurch.ȱTheȱ referentialȱ frameworkȱ forȱ theȱ Church’sȱ claimȱ toȱ truthȱ hasȱ beȬ comeȱradicallyȱpluralistic.ȱTheseȱchanges,ȱhowever,ȱareȱnothingȱ newȱ forȱ livingȱ religion.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ aȱ religion’sȱ coreȱ operationsȱ inȬ ȱConcerningȱtheseȱstatementsȱseeȱthisȱsmallȱsampleȱofȱhisȱbiblioȬ graphy:ȱ Brückȱ 1994b;ȱ 1994a;ȱ 1996a;ȱ 1996b;ȱ 1999;ȱ 2002;ȱ 2006;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ BrückȱandȱWerbickȱ1994;ȱBrückȱandȱLaiȱ2001.ȱ 2

WHATȱISȱCOMPARATIVEȱTHEOLOGY?ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ233ȱ

cludeȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ assimilateȱ andȱ dissimilate,ȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ rigidȱideologiesȱthatȱrefuseȱtoȱacceptȱreality.ȱReligionsȱcanȱcriticȬ allyȱaccommodateȱvariousȱculturalȱcontexts.ȱTheȱviabilityȱofȱreȬ ligionsȱisȱsecuredȱthroughȱongoingȱtransformationalȱprocesses.ȱ Today,ȱ tepidnessȱ andȱ chaoticȱ amalgamationȱ areȱ notȱ theȱ necesȬ saryȱ consequences.ȱ Theȱ assertionȱ ofȱ identityȱ underȱ pluralisticȱ conditionsȱshowsȱcourage.ȱ Eachȱ understandingȱ isȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ aȱ changeȱ inȱ one’sȱ ownȱ position.ȱ Thusȱ theȱ unavoidableȱ encounterȱ ofȱ religionsȱ furtherȱ propelsȱ theȱ continuousȱ processȱ ofȱ transformation.ȱ Theȱ pluralizationȱofȱtheȱframesȱofȱreferenceȱandȱtheȱoverallȱpresenceȱ ofȱ otherȱ religiousȱ claimsȱ toȱ truthȱ withinȱ theseȱ framesȱ severelyȱ challengeȱreligionsȱandȱmakeȱreturningȱtoȱidentityȱconstructionȱ throughȱ violenceȱ andȱ exclusionȱ insteadȱ ofȱ delineationȱ oftenȱ seemȱattractiveȱtoȱtheȱvariousȱformsȱofȱfundamentalism.ȱAtȱtheȱ sameȱtime,ȱunderstandingȱandȱencounterȱcanȱalsoȱproveȱthemȬ selvesȱtoȱbeȱspirituallyȱexploitative,ȱasȱpostcolonialȱstudiesȱ(seeȱ Nehringȱ2003a,ȱ2003b)ȱlikeȱthoseȱE.W.ȱSaidȱshowedȱ(Saidȱ1978).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whyȱ vonȱ Brückȱ arguesȱ forȱ aȱ partnershipȱ ofȱ identity:ȱ deȬ lineationȱ withȱ equalȱ status,ȱ identityȱ underȱ theȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ pluralism,ȱ mutualȱ selfȬinterpretationȱ throughȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ theȱ other,ȱrelationalȱdifferentiationȱandȱnotȱamalgamation,ȱetc.ȱOthȬ erȱreligionsȱareȱpartȱofȱone’sȱownȱframeȱofȱreference;ȱtheȱothersȱ doȱnotȱbecomeȱstrangersȱorȱadversaries.ȱDifferentiatingȱandȱreȬ spectfulȱrelationshipsȱwithȱotherȱbeliefsȱformȱone’sȱownȱidentityȱ (Winklerȱ2005).ȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brückȱ hasȱ workedȱ forȱ preciselyȱ thisȱ inȱ hisȱ churchȱ andȱ beyond.ȱ Theologyȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reȬ ligionsȱgaveȱhimȱaȱstartingȱbasisȱforȱhisȱacademicȱcareerȱasȱwellȱ asȱforȱhisȱargumentation.ȱHisȱconfidenceȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱinterȬ religiousȱ encounterȱ isȱ basedȱ mainlyȱ onȱ insightsȱ inȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱheȱconfrontsȱtheologyȱwithȱaȱsharpȬ enedȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ relativityȱ –ȱ notȱ arbitrarinessȱ –ȱ andȱ theȱ proȬ visionalȱnatureȱofȱitsȱstatements.ȱHeȱhasȱaȱclearȱviewȱofȱtheȱculȬ turalȱ andȱ temporalȱ conditionalityȱ ofȱ everyȱ dogmaticȱ andȱ instiȬ tutionalȱ conceptualizationȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Falseȱ attachmentȱ toȱ exȬ clusiveȱ teachingsȱ mustȱ beȱ checkedȱ forȱ idolatry.ȱ Beyondȱ that,ȱ dogmaticsȱitselfȱisȱ–ȱthisȱisȱmyȱtheoryȱ–ȱaȱformȱofȱdiscourseȱthatȱ canȱandȱmustȱestablishȱaȱpartnershipȱofȱidentity.ȱTheologyȱmustȱ notȱ onlyȱ accompanyȱ thisȱ processȱ ofȱ encounterȱ butȱ canȱ alsoȱ reȬ


sultȱfromȱit.ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱsetsȱtheȱstageȱforȱtheȱrehearsalsȱ (Winklerȱ 2007d)ȱ forȱ thisȱ challengingȱ processȱ ofȱ transformationȱ forȱChristianityȱinȱwhichȱdoctrinalȱtheologyȱplaysȱaȱcentralȱrole.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ newȱ variationȱ ofȱ anȱ academicȱ theologicalȱ fieldȱ withȱ newȱ materialsȱ fromȱ otherȱ religionsȱ butȱ presupposesȱ bothȱ theologicalȱ reflectionȱ andȱ religiousȱ experiȬ enceȱ –ȱ inȱ one’sȱ ownȱ andȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ intellectualȱ discourse,ȱandȱexistentialȱencounterȱor,ȱasȱvonȱBrückȱoftenȱdeȬ scribedȱ hisȱ ownȱ existenceȱ ofȱ combiningȱ religions,ȱ descendingȱ intoȱaȱmineȱshaftȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱtwoȱopposingȱwalls.ȱ TheȱHistoricalȱRootsȱofȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ Toȱanswerȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱoriginsȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱ oneȱ mustȱ firstȱ understandȱ whatȱ isȱ meantȱ byȱ theȱ termȱ “comȬ parativeȱ theology.”ȱ Whatȱ canȱ beȱ consideredȱ theȱ root?ȱ Doȱ weȱ understandȱ “comparativeȱ theology”ȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ newlyȱ emergingȱ disciplineȱ inȱ theologyȱ comprisingȱ recognizedȱ protagonistsȱ andȱ works?ȱ Orȱ shouldȱ aȱ similarȱ methodȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ history?ȱ Thisȱ questionȱcomesȱtooȱearlyȱforȱaȱcomprehensiveȱanswer,ȱandȱonlyȱ theȱ beginningsȱ ofȱ historicalȱ contoursȱ canȱ beȱ drawn.ȱ Iȱ distingȬ uishȱbetweenȱthreeȱhistoricalȱapproaches:ȱ1)ȱinterculturalȱtheoȬ logy,ȱ2)ȱolderȱandȱ3)ȱmoreȱrecentȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ AllȱofȱreligiousȱhistoryȱcanȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱaȱhistoryȱofȱdifȬ ferenceȱ andȱ interactionȱ betweenȱ religionsȱ andȱ cultures,ȱ andȱ Christianityȱisȱnoȱexception.ȱBasedȱonȱaȱcomprehensiveȱconceptȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ Iȱ callȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ developedȱ inȱ communicationȱ withȱoutsideȱreferencesȱinterculturalȱtheology.ȱ Comparativeȱtheologyȱisȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱaȱfieldȱofȱtheologyȱasȱ anȱattributeȱofȱtheologyȱand,ȱthus,ȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱChristianity,ȱasȱ oldȱ asȱ Christianȱ theologyȱ itself.ȱ Patrologyȱ establishedȱ theȱ termȱ apologistȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ representativesȱ ofȱ thisȱ theology.ȱ Theȱ inȬ ventionȱofȱheresyȱasȱanȱinternalȱsafeguardȱofȱdogmaticsȱagainstȱ infusionsȱfromȱoutsideȱdiscourses 3ȱbecameȱformativeȱforȱtheȱenȬ tireȱ historyȱ ofȱ theology.ȱ Apologeticsȱ becomeȱ constitutiveȱ forȱ ȱSeeȱIrenaeusȱofȱLyon’sȱtwoȬpartȱmainȱwork:ȱfirstȱtheȱpolemicalȱ writingsȱ Adversusȱ Haeresesȱ andȱ thenȱ theȱ dogmaticȱ elaborationȱ EpiȬ deixis.ȱSeeȱAltanerȱandȱStuiberȱ1980:ȱ110Ȭ17;ȱDrobnerȱ2004:ȱ154Ȭ58.ȱ 3


Christianȱtheologyȱandȱdevelopedȱanȱimpressiveȱsystematicȱupȱ untilȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Neoscholasticism.ȱ Theȱ tractȱ ofȱ demonstatioȱ reliȬ giosaȱwasȱdevelopedȱwithȱatheisticȱworldviewsȱinȱmind,ȱtheȱdeȬ monstratioȱ christianaȱ withȱ otherȱ religionsȱ inȱ mind,ȱ andȱ theȱ deȬ monstratioȱ catholicaȱ orȱ ecclesiaeȱ withȱ otherȱ churchesȱ andȱ deȬ nominationsȱinȱmind.ȱThisȱtypeȱofȱtheologyȱwasȱalsoȱdesignedȱ comparativelyȱ andȱ interculturally,ȱ asȱ itȱ were,ȱ howeverȱ shapedȱ itȱmightȱbeȱbyȱanȱinevitableȱcomparisonȱfromȱtheȱstandpointȱofȱ one’sȱownȱsuperiorȱpositionȱandȱthereforeȱbyȱstrategicȱinterest.ȱ Itȱwasȱclearȱthatȱone’sȱownȱtruthȱwasȱgreater;ȱtheȱoutsideȱworldȱ heldȱ noȱ relevantȱ answersȱ orȱ evenȱ bothersomeȱ questionsȱ inȱ store.ȱThisȱepochȱofȱCatholicȱtheologyȱsankȱinȱisolation,ȱrobbedȱ ofȱ theȱ possibilityȱ toȱ learn,ȱ andȱ becameȱ selfȬcontainedȱ behindȱ thickȱwallsȱuntilȱJohnȱXXIIIȱopenedȱtheȱwindowsȱwithȱtheȱSecȬ ondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱandȱsecuredȱaȱnewȱpermeability.ȱ Aȱ comparativeȱ natureȱ canȱ thereforeȱ beȱ foundȱ forȱ theȱ larȬ gestȱ spectrumȱ ofȱ outsideȱ discourses.ȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brückȱ notȱ onlyȱ developedȱ aȱ schemeȱ or,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ aȱ rationaleȱ forȱ anȱ interȬ culturalȱtheologyȱinȱcollaborationȱwithȱreligiousȱstudiesȱinȱaȱmoreȱ specificȱwayȱinȱhisȱ1991ȱMunichȱinauguralȱlectureȱ(Brückȱ1992);ȱ heȱalsoȱintroducedȱaȱpreludeȱtoȱaȱtheologicalȱmasteryȱofȱreligiousȱ pluralityȱ thatȱ isȱ currentlyȱ enjoyingȱ increasedȱ awareness.ȱ Heȱ analysesȱ theȱ basicȱ patternsȱ ofȱ theseȱ interactionsȱ substantiatedȱ byȱfourȱexamplesȱofȱtheȱencounterȱbetweenȱreligionsȱacrossȱtheȱ historyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Forȱ him,ȱ itȱ allȱ comesȱ downȱ toȱ theȱ basicȱ patternȱ ofȱ cooperationȱ afterȱ isolation,ȱ confrontation,ȱ andȱ tolerȬ ance.ȱ Formsȱ ofȱ cooperationȱ startȱ muchȱ moreȱ concretelyȱ inȱ specificȱ historyȱ andȱ theȱ theologicalȱ comprehensionȱ ofȱ differȬ ences,ȱpreparedȱby,ȱandȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱEnȬ lightenment’sȱattemptsȱatȱtoleranceȱandȱtheȱnineteenthȱcentury,ȱ whichȱ hadȱ theȱ humanumȱ orȱ essentialistȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ unityȱ inȱ mind.ȱThisȱisȱwhyȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱguiltȱwillȱbecomeȱaȱtopicȱinȱtheȱ encountersȱandȱclaimsȱtoȱtruthȱandȱtheȱassertionȱofȱidentityȱbyȱ differentȱtraditionsȱofȱbeliefȱwillȱbeȱ–ȱnotȱdissolvedȱ–ȱbutȱrewritȬ ten.ȱ Consensusȱ cannotȱ beȱ achievedȱ easilyȱ butȱ mustȱ beȱ foundȱ throughȱaȱcommonȱprocess.ȱTheȱChristologicalȱprincipleȱofȱtheȱ


relativeȱ Absolute4ȱ andȱ thusȱ theȱ absoluteȱ Relativeȱ leadsȱ vonȱ Brückȱ toȱexpressȱtheȱcategoricalȱclaimȱofȱtheȱabsoluteȱinȱconcreteȱandȱ relativeȱ form.ȱ Theologyȱ isȱ alreadyȱ deniedȱ mereȱ selfȬreferenȬ tialityȱthroughȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱreligiousȱstudies.5ȱTodayȱmoreȱ thanȱever,ȱtheologyȱcanȱshowȱitsȱlegitimacyȱonlyȱ“inȱcommunȬ icationȱ andȱ communionȱ withȱ otherȱ modernȱ livingȱ religions”ȱ (Brückȱ1992:ȱ246).ȱBasedȱonȱthis,ȱreligionsȱareȱonȱtheȱthresholdȱ ofȱ renewingȱ theirȱ religiousȱ values.ȱ Withȱ itsȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ conȬ crete,ȱtheȱexistentialȱanchoring,ȱtheologicalȱdiscursivity,ȱandȱtheȱ enrichmentȱ throughȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱ vonȱ Brück’sȱ designȱ ofȱ “interculturalȱ theologyȱ asȱ aȱ Christianȱ theoryȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue”ȱ(vonȱBrückȱ1992:ȱ258)ȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱjustifyȬ cationȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱevenȱifȱheȱdoesȱnotȱuseȱtheȱtermȱ himself.ȱ Davidȱ Tracyȱ (1987a)ȱ setsȱ upȱ aȱ similarlyȱ fundamentalȱ apȬ proach.ȱHeȱpresents,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱaȱmethodȱofȱcomparingȱ theologyȱ withinȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ and,ȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ aȱ theologicalȱ discourseȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱmanyȱbeliefȱtraditions.ȱOtherȱhistoricalȱ approachesȱareȱmoreȱinterestedȱinȱtheȱnotionȱorȱaȱdistinguishaȬ bleȱ methodȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ andȱ unearthȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ whatȱweȱhereȱcallȱanȱolderȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ Theȱ current,ȱ perhapsȱ mostȱ prominentȱ representativeȱ ofȱ comparativeȱtheology,ȱFrancisȱX.ȱClooney,ȱshowsȱaȱvitalȱinterestȱ inȱnotȱallowingȱhisȱfieldȱandȱtheologicalȱaccomplishmentsȱtoȱbeȱ viewedȱasȱaȱmeddlesomeȱinnovationȱofȱtheologyȱbutȱtoȱplaceȱitȱ inȱ aȱ traditionȱ ofȱ research,ȱ showingȱ terminologicalȱ continuity.ȱ Thus,ȱ inȱ hisȱ 2007ȱ articleȱ inȱ Theȱ Oxfordȱ Handbookȱ ofȱ Systematicȱ Theologyȱ (Clooneyȱ 2007a:ȱ 654ff.),ȱ heȱ listsȱ aȱ widerȱ rangeȱ ofȱ auȬ thorsȱ whoȱ haveȱ explicitlyȱ usedȱ theȱ termȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ sinceȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ century.ȱ Aȱ wideȱ fieldȱ ofȱ researchȱ isȱ waiting,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ overviewȱ leadsȱ oneȱ toȱ suspectȱ thatȱ theseȱ terminologyȱ findsȱ byȱ noȱ meansȱ constituteȱ anȱ excavationȱ ofȱ reȬ

ȱ Seeȱ theȱ Christologicalȱ principleȱ ofȱ theȱ universaleȱ concretumȱ inȱ Balthasarȱ1960:ȱ183.ȱ 4

ȱ Seeȱ theȱ comprehensiveȱ exemplaryȱ studyȱ inȱ vonȱ Brückȱ andȱ Laiȱ

5

2001.ȱ


searchȱhistory.ȱTheȱbordersȱbetweenȱmissiologicalȱliteratureȱandȱ religiousȱstudiesȱapproachesȱareȱfluid.ȱ Thus,ȱ Clooneyȱ attemptsȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ intentionsȱ andȱ methodsȱ ofȱ theseȱ approaches.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ enlighteningȱ studyȱ soȱ farȱ wasȱ submittedȱ byȱ Norbertȱ Hintersteinerȱ (Hintersteinerȱ 2007a;ȱcf.ȱHintersteinerȱ2003:ȱ845ff;ȱ2001:ȱ316ff.),ȱwho,ȱdespiteȱallȱ reservations,ȱidentifiesȱdistinctȱcriteriaȱforȱclassificationȱinȱolderȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ surroundingȱ theȱ Worldȱ Parliamentȱ ofȱ ReȬ ligionsȱheldȱinȱChicagoȱinȱ1893.ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱitȱisȱcommittedȱ toȱ aȱ theologicalȱ standpointȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ dealsȱ withȱ otherȱ religionsȱcomparatively.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱtheseȱworksȱwereȱsubjectȱtoȱ aȱWesternȱcolonialȱdiscourseȱofȱdominance,ȱsoȱthatȱtheirȱresultsȱ wereȱ notȱ dissimilarȱ toȱ thoseȱ inȱ aȱ denominationalȬapologeticȱ vein.ȱ Onlyȱ Christianityȱ couldȱ fillȱ theȱ criterionȱ ofȱ universalȱ significanceȱ ofȱ aȱ soȬcalledȱ worldȱ religionȱ andȱ accordinglyȱ beȬ cameȱtheȱmeasureȱofȱaȱworldȱreligion.ȱ Theȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ theseȱ venturesȱ reachȱ asȱ farȱ backȱ asȱ GerȬ manȱ philosophyȱ ofȱ religionȱ andȱ evokeȱ Hegel’sȱ Christianityȱ asȱ theȱ absoluteȱ religion.ȱ Thusȱ Keithȱ Ward,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ influȬ entialȱ pioneersȱ ofȱ recentȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ localizesȱ FriedȬ richȱSchleiermacherȱasȱtheȱoriginȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱwithinȱ theȱhistoryȱofȱtheologyȱ(Wardȱ1994:ȱ46f.),ȱ sinceȱhe,ȱwithȱtheȱaidȱ ofȱhisȱnotionȱofȱreligion,ȱdistinguishedȱitȱfromȱaȱpurelyȱconfesȬ sionalȱ theologyȱ andȱ wantedȱ toȱ accountȱ forȱ hisȱ ownȱ tradition’sȱ doctrineȱ ofȱ faithȱ withinȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ religion.6ȱ Heȱcalledȱforȱaȱshiftȱtowardȱtheȱpositiveȱreligionsȱandȱrefrainedȱ fromȱecclesiasticalȱignoranceȱandȱpurelyȱsubjectiveȱpietyȱasȱwellȱ asȱ fromȱ abstract,ȱ rationalȱ speculationȱ onȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ religionȱ withȱaȱclaimȱonȱobjectivity.ȱ Theȱreferenceȱtoȱbothȱtheology’sȱinterculturalȱmethodologyȱ andȱolderȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱexhibitsȱconsiderableȱproblemsȱ inȱ viewȱ ofȱ aȱ genealogicalȱ definitionȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ TheȱpointsȱofȱreferenceȱareȱeitherȱtooȱgeneralȱorȱtooȱcloselyȱreȬ latedȱ toȱ theȱ traditionalȱ formsȱ ofȱ apologetics.ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ newerȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱhasȱdevelopedȱaȱratherȱuniformȱproȬ fileȱdespiteȱtheȱformidableȱdiversityȱofȱopinions.ȱ ȱOnȱWard’sȱreceptionȱofȱSchleiermacherȱseeȱWinklerȱ2009a.ȱ

6


IȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱhighlightȱtheȱworkȱofȱOxfordȱemeritusȱandȱ Anglicanȱ Keithȱ Wardȱ (Wardȱ 1987,ȱ 1994a,ȱ 1998,ȱ 2000).7ȱ Hisȱ priȬ maryȱ comparativeȱ theologicalȱ frontlineȱ positionȱ isȱ aimedȱ againstȱ thoseȱ confessionalȱ theologiesȱ thatȱ areȱ nothingȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ mouthpieceȱ forȱ theȱ magisterium,ȱ doȱ notȱ proveȱ themȬ selvesȱ inȱ theȱ courtȱ ofȱ reason,ȱ onlyȱ impartȱ theirȱ ownȱ tradition,ȱ andȱ onlyȱ acceptȱ theirȱ ownȱ truth.ȱ Forȱ Ward,ȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logyȱisȱaboveȱallȱaȱcounterȬprogrammeȱtoȱdenominationalȱapolȬ ogetics.ȱInȱcontrast,ȱheȱwantsȱtheologyȱtoȱbeȱheldȱaccountableȱinȱ theȱfaceȱofȱtheȱentireȱhistoryȱofȱreligions.ȱItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱhimȱ thatȱ otherȱ religionsȱ beȱ portrayedȱ asȱ fairlyȱ asȱ possible,ȱ thusȱ showingȱ anȱ affinityȱ withȱ theȱ methodologyȱ ofȱ phenomenology.ȱ Hisȱstudiesȱareȱguidedȱbyȱtheȱoverallȱthemes.ȱThus,ȱhisȱcomparȬ ativeȱ theologyȱ resultsȱ inȱ anȱ ideaȬhistoricalȱ comparison.ȱ Outȱ ofȱ respectȱ forȱ otherȱ religionsȱ heȱ classifiesȱ hisȱ ownȱ traditionȱ inȱ aȱ universalȱ contextȱ ofȱ salvationȱ historyȱ andȱ looksȱ forȱ aȱ deeperȱ understandingȱofȱbothȱhisȱownȱandȱotherȱanswers.ȱHavingȱsaidȱ this,ȱWardȱstillȱunderstandsȱhisȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱasȱbeingȱ denominationalȱandȱlinkedȱtoȱaȱcertainȱperspective:ȱtheȱstudiesȱ byȱ Ninianȱ Smartȱ andȱ Stevenȱ Konstantineȱ (1991)ȱ andȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smithȱ (1993), 8ȱ andȱ theȱ historicallyȱ orientedȱ worksȱ ofȱ

ȱ Onȱ methodologyȱ seeȱ Wardȱ 1994:ȱ 3Ȭ49,ȱ andȱ forȱ biographicalȱ notesȱ seeȱ Wardȱ 2003.ȱ Forȱ theȱ discussionȱ seeȱ Wardȱ 2003ȱ andȱ Vroomȱ 2001.ȱ Inȱ Novemberȱ 2008ȱ Wardȱ tookȱ upȱ aȱ quiteȱ criticalȱ discussionȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ inȱ theȱ GermanȬspeakingȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ world;ȱ seeȱ myȱ reȬ sponseȱtoȱKeithȱWard:ȱWinklerȱ2009a.ȱ 7

Thisȱ Islamȱ scholarȱ andȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ foundersȱ ofȱ theȱ pluralisticȱ theologyȱofȱreligionȱdevelopedȱhisȱownȱprogramȱforȱaȱworldȱtheologyȱ comparableȱ toȱ thisȱ generationȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Asȱ earlyȱ asȱ theȱ 1950sȱ heȱ madeȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ Muslimsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ studyingȱ toȬ getherȱ atȱ whatȱ wasȱ thenȱ hisȱ McGillȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ Islamicȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Montreal,ȱ Canada,ȱ justȱ asȱ heȱ setȱ itȱ upȱ laterȱ asȱ directorȱ ofȱ theȱ interȬ religiousȱ discussionȱ forumȱ ofȱ theȱ Harvardȱ Centerȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Worldȱ Religions.ȱ Anȱ importantȱ prerequisiteȱ forȱ himȱ wasȱ notȱ justȱ knowledgeȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱreligiousȱstudies,ȱbutȱalsoȱexchangeȱbetweenȱ theȱ participants.ȱ Seeȱ Smithȱ 1989.ȱ Forȱ aȱ criticalȱ appraisalȱ seeȱ Nehringȱ 2005.ȱ 8


Universityȱ ofȱ Notreȱ Dameȱ emeritusȱ Davidȱ B.ȱ Burrellȱ (Burrellȱ 1986,ȱ1993)ȱhaveȱaȱcomparableȱapproach.ȱ Asȱ aȱ secondȱ example,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ citeȱ theȱ probablyȱ mostȱ interestingȱ collaboration,ȱ theȱ Crossȱ Culturalȱ Comparativeȱ Religiousȱ Ideasȱ Project,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ conductedȱ atȱ Bostonȱ UniȬ versityȱfromȱ1995ȱuntilȱ1999.ȱThisȱcollaborationȱbetweenȱscholȬ arsȱfromȱfiveȱdifferentȱworldȱreligionsȱandȱworldviewsȱresultedȱ inȱaȱtrilogyȱ(seeȱNevilleȱ2001a,ȱ2001b,ȱ2001c).ȱTheȱprojectȱleaderȱ wasȱ Robertȱ C.ȱ Neville,ȱ who,ȱ alongȱ withȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ Clooney,ȱ isȱ probablyȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱandȱleadingȱtheoreticiansȱofȱ comparativeȱtheologyȱandȱhasȱcontributedȱdecisivelyȱtoȱtheȱdeȬ velopmentȱ ofȱ theȱ fieldȱ andȱ presentedȱ anȱ extremelyȱ differentȬ iatedȱ conceptȱ ofȱ methodologyȱ (Nevilleȱ 1991,ȱ 2006,ȱ 2008;ȱ Yongȱ andȱHeltzelȱ2004).ȱNevilleȱisȱaȱMethodistȱandȱaȱqualifiedȱandȱreȬ nownedȱ expertȱ onȱ Confucianism.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ observeȱ theȱ develȬ opmentsȱofȱtheȱprojectȱandȱtheȱparticipantsȱinȱtheȱthreeȱvolumesȱ ofȱtheȱBostonȱprojectȱ–ȱespeciallyȱinȱNeville’sȱclosingȱwordsȱandȱ WesleyȱJ.ȱWildman’sȱprojectȱjournal.ȱTheȱmethodologyȱ(Nevilleȱ 2000a),ȱ theȱselectionȱ ofȱ scholars,ȱ theȱ projectȱsetting,ȱeverythingȱ wasȱ–ȱnotȱunlikeȱWard’sȱconcernȱ–ȱdesignedȱtoȱbeȱobjectiveȱandȱ authenticȱ portrayalsȱ ofȱ otherȱ beliefȱ traditionsȱ asȱ freeȱ ofȱ prejuȬ diceȱ asȱ possibleȱ (Nevilleȱ 2000b)ȱ andȱ alsoȱ toȱ reachȱ comparisonsȱ betweenȱthemȱprogressively.ȱTheȱprojectȱisȱoneȱofȱaȱkindȱsoȱfar,ȱ distinguishedȱ byȱ theȱ concentrationȱ andȱ disciplineȱ ofȱ theȱ scholȬ arlyȱandȱpersonalȱdiscourseȱandȱbyȱaȱhighȱdegreeȱofȱmethodicalȱ reflexivity.ȱ Considerationsȱ onȱ methodologyȱ alreadyȱ madeȱ itȱ clearȱthatȱjustȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱtopicsȱandȱappraisalȱofȱtheirȱrepreȬ sentativeȱrelevanceȱbringȱnormativeȱcomponentsȱintoȱtheȱequaȬ tion.ȱTheȱnormativeȱandȱthereforeȱconsequentialȱtheologicalȱnaȬ tureȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱneedsȱfurtherȱreflection. 9ȱ Theȱ newestȱ initiativeȱ goesȱ backȱ toȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ Clooney,ȱ aȱ Jesuitȱ andȱ expertȱ onȱ Tamilȱ Hinduism.ȱ Inȱ 2006ȱ heȱ foundedȱ theȱ Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ Groupȱ atȱ theȱ Americanȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Religionȱ (Clooneyȱ 2007b;ȱ Winklerȱ 2008c:ȱ 132ff.),ȱ whichȱ hasȱ sinceȱ beenȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ discussionȱ forumȱ worldwide.ȱ Theȱ groupȱ isȱ aȱ muchȱ ȱSeeȱNeville’sȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱBaselȱConferenceȱ2008ȱandȱmyȱ responseȱinȱWinklerȱ2009a.ȱ 9


looserȱ unitȱ thanȱ theȱ Bostonȱ projectȱ butȱ offersȱ theȱ spaceȱ necesȬ saryȱforȱanȱopenȱandȱcreativeȱprocessȱwhichȱisȱthusȱexposedȱtoȱaȱ discerningȱ audience.ȱ Aboutȱ aȱ hundredȱ scholarsȱ worldwideȱ haveȱ participatedȱ inȱ thisȱ processȱ ofȱ researchȱ andȱ exchangeȱ inȱ theȱlastȱthreeȱyears.ȱTheȱchairȱandȱmentor,ȱFrancisȱClooney,ȱcanȱ personallyȱ lookȱ backȱ onȱ anȱ enormouslyȱ productiveȱ creativeȱ phaseȱinȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱdecades10ȱandȱisȱnowȱconsideredȱtheȱmostȱ importantȱspokespersonȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱClooneyȱhasȱ aȱ wellȬthoughtȬoutȱ methodologyȱ thatȱ heȱ continuouslyȱ refinedȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ monographs.ȱ Inȱ comparisonȱ toȱ Smith,ȱ Ward,ȱNeville,ȱandȱothers,ȱClooney’sȱcentralȱapproachȱhasȱlessȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ freeingȱ one’sȱ ownȱ faithȱ fromȱ theȱ narrownessȱ ofȱ apologeticsȱ andȱ lessȱ withȱ theȱ objectiveȱ andȱ fairȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ otherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱthanȱitȱdoesȱwithȱtheȱcreativeȱprocessȱ ofȱ theȱ interactionȱ ofȱ textsȱ fromȱ theȱ participants’ȱ perspectives.11ȱ Clooney’sȱ handȱ willȱ beȱ recognizableȱ againȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ systematicȱ sectionȱ ofȱ thisȱ paper.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ representȬ tativesȱandȱgroupsȱmentionedȱthereȱis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱaȱwholeȱrangeȱ ofȱindividualȱstudiesȱandȱauthorsȱwhoȱhaveȱrenderedȱoutstandȬ ingȱservicesȱtoȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ ParametersȱofȱaȱSystematicȱDescriptionȱ Itȱ hasȱ becomeȱ apparentȱ throughȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ surveyȱ thatȱ Iȱ placeȱ theȱ veryȱ differentȱ formsȱ ofȱ theȱ approachesȱ mentionedȱinȱrelationshipȱwithȱoneȱanotherȱandȱallowȱaȱspecificȱ conceptȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱtoȱguideȱme.ȱThisȱconceptȱwillȱ beȱsystematicallyȱexemplifiedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱthirdȱsection.ȱByȱ thisȱIȱunderstandȱtheȱdefiningȱcharacteristicsȱbothȱdescriptively,ȱ inȱ thatȱ theyȱ includeȱ theȱ widestȱ possibleȱ profileȱ ofȱ finishedȱ works,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ normatively,ȱ inȱ thatȱ Iȱ alsoȱ wantȱ toȱ chartȱ theȱ contoursȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱresearch.ȱ ȱ ȱ Seeȱ hisȱ mostȱ importantȱ studies,ȱ beginningȱ withȱ hisȱ dissertaȬ tion:ȱClooneyȱ1990,ȱ1993,ȱ1996,ȱ1998,ȱ2001,ȱ2005,ȱ2008a,ȱ2008b.ȱ 10

ȱForȱaȱconciseȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱClooney’sȱmethȬ odologyȱseeȱHintersteinerȱ2007aȱandȱ2007b.ȱ 11


ConfessionalȱTheology,ȱbutȱnotȱDepreciatingȱApologeticsȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theȱ interculturalȱ andȱ interreligiousȱ referenceȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ earliestȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ discussionsȱ andȱ inȱ thisȱ respectȱ theologyȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ doneȱ comparatively.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ thisȱ veryȱ referenceȱ wasȱ soȱ oftenȱ characterizedȱ byȱ polemicȱapologeticsȱthatȱtheȱcentralȱthrustȱofȱbothȱcomparativeȱ theologyȱ andȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ wasȱ inȱ reactionȱ toȱ it.ȱ ComparaȬ tiveȱ theologyȱ isȱ anȱ antiȬapologeticȱ programmeȱ againstȱ theȱ selfȬ aggrandizingȱ andȱ selfȬimmunizationȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ faith,ȱ directedȱ againstȱ theȱ degradationȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ throughȱ aȱ hermenȬ euticȱofȱsuspicion,ȱwhichȱoneȱcanȱstudyȱinȱtheȱexemplaryȱearlyȱ ChristianȱAdversusȱJudaeos12ȱwritings,ȱandȱagainstȱtheȱisolationȬ istȱrhetoricȱofȱuniqueness,ȱignoranceȱandȱblindness.ȱButȱnotȱevȬ eryȱ theologyȱ thatȱ dealsȱ withȱ comparisonsȱ toȱ otherȱ religionsȱ isȱ alreadyȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ(1)ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱrelatesȱ toȱ otherȱ religionsȱ withȱ aȱ benevolence,ȱ aȱ willingnessȱ toȱ learn,ȱ andȱ criticalȱ appreciation.ȱ (2)ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Davidȱ Tracy’sȱ differentiaȬ tionȱ (seeȱ above,ȱ p.ȱ 236),ȱ theȱ theologicalȱ natureȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ consistsȱ inȱ theȱ factȱ that,ȱ materially,ȱ theȱ theologiesȱ ofȱ religionȱ themselvesȱ belongȱ toȱ theirȱ fieldȱ ofȱ researchȱ andȱ thusȱ theirȱ claimsȱ toȱ truthȱ areȱ takenȱ seriouslyȱ and,ȱ evenȱ more,ȱ thatȱ formallyȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱnormativelyȱreflexiveȱandȱdoesȱ notȱtryȱtoȱavoidȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtruth.ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱisȱ denominationalȱ andȱ hasȱ itsȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ sphereȱ ofȱ creedȱ andȱ church,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱdetailsȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱmayȱbeȱladenȱwithȱ tension.ȱ Theology,ȱnotȱjustȱReligiousȱStudiesȱ Alongȱ withȱ olderȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ goȱ backȱtoȱaȱcommonȱdateȱofȱorigin.ȱItȱbecameȱaȱtrueȱalternativeȱtoȱ theology,ȱ whichȱ gaveȱ itselfȱ aȱ badȱ nameȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ religionȱ throughȱ itsȱ distortions,ȱ whileȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ wereȱ thoughtȱ capableȱ ofȱobjectivity.ȱWhyȱshouldȱ oneȱ notȱ justȱcontinueȱ toȱ doȱ religiousȱstudiesȱandȱstillȱgiveȱtheologyȱcredit?ȱ

ȱ Forȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ strategyȱ ofȱ immunizationȱ seeȱ Winklerȱ 2008a.ȱ 12


TheologyȱisȱreflectionȱfromȱtheȱinsideȱperspectiveȱandȱadȬ vocatesȱclaimingȱvalidityȱforȱone’sȱownȱtruth.ȱBecauseȱofȱthis,ȱitȱ isȱinȱdangerȱofȱonlyȱrelatingȱtoȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱoutȱofȱ apologeticȱinterest.ȱInȱcontrast,ȱaccordingȱtoȱitsȱfoundingȱaspiraȬ tions,ȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ choosesȱ anȱ outsideȱ perspectiveȱ forȱ obȬ servingȱ religions,ȱ notȱ judgingȱ butȱ ratherȱ describingȱ andȱ classiȬ fying.ȱ Butȱ itȱ hasȱ sufferedȱ severalȱ upheavalsȱ andȱ posedȱ graveȱ problemsȱ concerningȱ itsȱ ownȱ subject.ȱ Howȱ canȱ aȱ religionȱ beȱ graspedȱandȱunderstood,ȱwhenȱoneȱonlyȱknowsȱitȱfromȱtheȱperȬ spectiveȱofȱtheȱobserver?ȱTheȱsearchȱforȱanȱessentialistȱconceptȱ ofȱ religionȱ couldȱ neitherȱ removeȱ theȱ unavoidableȱ fixedȱ standȬ pointȱofȱtheȱobserverȱnorȱattainȱanȱappropriateȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱ concreteȱhistoricalȱandȱexistentialȱrealitiesȱofȱreligionsȱupȱtoȱtoȬ dayȱwhenȱtheȱnotionȱofȱreligionȱisȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱdissolutionȱ afterȱtheȱculturalȱturn.13ȱ Theȱcontributionȱofȱreligiousȱstudiesȱandȱitsȱrichȱempiricalȱ materialȱareȱofȱgreatȱvalueȱforȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱReligiousȱ studiesȱisȱindispensableȱforȱtheology.ȱTheȱonlyȱpointȱofȱcontenȬ tionȱ isȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ methodicalȱ sufficiencyȱ forȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱ andȱ theȱ claimȱ toȱ soleȱ representationȱ forȱ religionsȱ andȱ thusȱtheȱdelegitimizationȱofȱtheology.ȱTheologyȱhasȱdevelopedȱ aȱsenseȱforȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱparticipantȱperspectives,ȱsinceȱitȱisȱ necessaryȱtoȱsubmitȱoneselfȱtoȱaȱreligion’sȱdemandsȱinȱorderȱtoȱ understandȱit.ȱReligionsȱareȱparametersȱofȱmeaningȱthatȱaskȱnotȱ justȱ toȱ beȱ observedȱ andȱ reflectedȱ uponȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ beȱ exisȬ tentiallyȱtriedȱoutȱandȱexperienced.ȱAlthoughȱitȱisȱtrueȱthatȱobȬ serversȱcanȱusuallyȱgraspȱtheȱgrammarȱbetterȱthanȱparticipants,ȱ religiousȱstudiesȱhasȱalsoȱcarriedȱoutȱsignificantȱamendmentsȱtoȱ theirȱ idealȱ ofȱ objectivity,ȱ asȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smithȱ hasȱ done,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ throughȱ aȱ constitutiveȱ incorporationȱ ofȱ theȱ selfȬ interpretationȱ ofȱ participantsȱ (seeȱ Smithȱ 1963;ȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 1997:ȱ85;ȱ2005:ȱ56f.,ȱ167;ȱ2009;ȱTworuschkaȱ2001:ȱ132,ȱ136).ȱ ȱItȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱtoȱfigureȱoutȱeitherȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtheȱorȬ iginatingȱpointȱofȱview,ȱtheȱpositionȱfromȱwhichȱoneȱcarriesȱoutȱ theȱ observation,ȱ orȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theȱ consecutiveȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ sinceȱ researchȱ hasȱ itsȱ consequences,ȱ whichȱ isȱ especiallyȱ ȱSeeȱmyȱdiscussionȱinȱSabbatucciȱ1988ȱandȱWinklerȱ2008c.ȱ

13


trueȱforȱreflectionsȱonȱreligion.ȱBecauseȱofȱthis,ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ representationȱ isȱ intensified,ȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ justȱ aboutȱ fairȱ depictionsȱ butȱ aboutȱ givingȱ anȱ opinion,ȱ takingȱ reȬ sponsibility,ȱ confrontingȱ historyȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ guilt,ȱ and,ȱ finally,ȱ makingȱmodifications.14ȱThisȱisȱsomethingȱonlyȱparticipantsȱcanȱ do.ȱHereȱcomparativeȱtheologiansȱgetȱdownȱtoȱworkȱwhenȱtheyȱ insistȱonȱbeingȱtheologiansȱandȱconsistentlyȱbearingȱresponsibilȬ ityȱinȱtheirȱownȱchurches.ȱ DiscourseȱonȱtheȱRationaleȱofȱaȱTheologyȱofȱReligions,ȱ notȱaȱBlindȱAlleyȱ WhatȱenablesȱtheologyȱtoȱactȱnotȱonlyȱpartiallyȱandȱorientedȱtoȬ wardȱparticipantsȱ–ȱinȱotherȱwordsȱpolemicallyȱandȱapologeticȬ allyȱ–ȱbutȱalsoȱrespectfullyȱtowardȱothersȱandȱyetȱwithoutȱabanȬ doningȱitsȱstandpointsȱasȱinȱreligiousȱstudies?ȱTheologyȱofȱreliȬ gionsȱrespondsȱtoȱtheseȱquestions.ȱItȱaccountsȱforȱChristianity’sȱ stanceȱ towardȱ otherȱ religionsȱ andȱ thusȱ forȱ itsȱ ownȱ selfȬunderȬ standing.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ doesȱ notȱ assumeȱ aȱ depreciaȬ toryȱ butȱ ratherȱ aȱ positiveȱ relationshipȱ toȱ otherȱ religions.ȱ Thisȱ fundamentalȱ prerequisiteȱ needsȱ aȱ thoroughȱ theologicalȱ rationaleȱ andȱ –ȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ theȱ overwhelmingȱ counterȬtraditionsȱ –ȱ aȱ convincingȱ theologicalȱ justification.ȱ Theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ mustȱcarryȱoutȱthisȱrationalȱdiscourse.ȱ Theologyȱ hasȱ goneȱ throughȱ aȱ changeȱ inȱ thisȱ respectȱ andȱ theȱchurchȱhasȱgoneȱthroughȱaȱconversion.ȱItȱhasȱmovedȱawayȱ fromȱextraȱecclesiamȱnullaȱsalusȱ(seeȱBeinertȱ1990;ȱBernhardtȱ1990:ȱ 53ff.;ȱ D’Costaȱ 1986:ȱ 52ff.;ȱ Sullivanȱ 1992).ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ originallyȱ aȱ paraeneticȱ callȱ toȱ imperiledȱ Christiansȱ butȱ thenȱ mutatedȱ toȱ aȱ theologicalȱaxiomȱofȱaȱCatholicȱclaimȱtoȱabsoluteȱtruthȱandȱtheȱ theoremȱ ofȱ damnationȱ inȱ hellȱ forȱ pagans,ȱ Jews,ȱ heretics,ȱ andȱ

ȱ Johnȱ Paulȱ IIȱ lucidlyȱ recognizedȱ thatȱ theȱ newȱ relationȱ toȱ otherȱ religionsȱ confrontsȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ withȱ itsȱ ownȱ guilt,ȱ which,ȱ althoughȱtheyȱareȱlecturedȱaboutȱitȱfromȱtheȱoutside,ȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱauȬ thoritativelyȱ andȱ representativelyȱ confessedȱ onȱ theȱ inside.ȱ Seeȱ Johnȱ PaulȱIIȱ2001.ȱ 14


schismatics,15ȱ forȱ whomȱ notȱ evenȱ hopeȱ wasȱ allowed,16ȱ i.e.ȱ putȬ tingȱtheirȱdestinyȱintoȱtheȱhandsȱofȱGodȱthroughȱprayer.ȱ Butȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ madeȱ aȱ discovery.17ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ Vaticanȱ Councilȱ nowȱ callsȱ onȱ Christiansȱ toȱ “learnȱ byȱ sincereȱ andȱ patientȱ dialogueȱ whatȱ treasuresȱ aȱ generousȱ Godȱ hasȱ disȬ tributedȱ amongȱ theȱ nationsȱ ofȱ theȱ earth”ȱ (Adȱ Gentesȱ [AG]ȱ 11).ȱ Theȱ Councilȱ hasȱ broughtȱ aboutȱ aȱ revolutionȱ inȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ towardȱ otherȱ religionsȱ andȱ especiallyȱ toȬ wardȱJudaism18ȱwithȱitsȱdeclarationȱNostraȱAetateȱ(NA)ȱ(seeȱSieȬ benrockȱ2005;ȱSinkovitsȱandȱWinklerȱ2006)ȱwhichȱhasȱwithstoodȱ theȱ crossfireȱ toȱ thisȱ day.19ȱ Yetȱ theȱ Secondȱ Councilȱ didȱ notȱ enȬ gageȱinȱdiplomaticȱconcessionsȱtoȱtheȱspiritȱofȱtheȱtimes,ȱwhichȱ oneȱcouldȱeasilyȱdismissȱafterwards,ȱbutȱanchoredȱitsȱtheologyȱ ofȱreligionȱtoȱtheȱcenterȱofȱitsȱownȱfaithȱandȱidentityȱbyȱmeansȱ ofȱ aȱ Trinitarianȱ theology.20ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ declarationȱ doesȱ notȱ beginȱ condescendinglyȱ withȱ aȱ coȬoptingȱ conceptȱ ofȱ Godȱ (Sanderȱ 2006)ȱ butȱ withȱ theȱ universalȱ solidarityȱ ofȱ allȱ huȬ mansȱ(NAȱ1.1),ȱwhichȱisȱbasedȱinȱtheȱ“oneȱ…ȱorigin”ȱandȱleadsȱ toȱtheȱ“oneȱ…ȱfinalȱgoal”ȱ(NAȱ1.2).ȱReligionsȱserveȱtheȱdignityȱ ofȱ human’sȱ questioningȱ spirit.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ aȱ placeȱ ofȱ truthȱ andȱ holiness,ȱ whichȱ theyȱ haveȱ received:ȱ “Theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ reȬ jectsȱ nothingȱ thatȱ isȱ trueȱ andȱ holyȱ inȱ theseȱ religionsȱ …ȱ [their]ȱ waysȱofȱconductȱandȱofȱlifeȱ…ȱpreceptsȱandȱteachingsȱwhichȱ…ȱ oftenȱreflectȱaȱrayȱofȱthatȱTruthȱwhichȱenlightensȱallȱmen”ȱ(NAȱ 2.2).ȱ Theȱ truthȱ andȱ holinessȱ isȱ aȱ giftȱ fromȱ theȱ logosȬlikeȱ rayȱ ofȱ ȱInȱtheȱDecreeȱforȱtheȱCoptsȱfromȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱFlorenceȱ(1439Ȭ 1445):ȱNDȱ(NeunerȱandȱDupuis)ȱ1351.ȱ 15

ȱ Popeȱ Piusȱ IXȱ inȱ 1864ȱ inȱ theȱ “Syllabusȱ ofȱ Modernȱ Errors”ȱ NDȱ

16

2917.ȱ 17ȱThusȱtheȱquotationȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱthisȱarticle;ȱseeȱWinklerȱ 2007c:ȱ“MoreȱthanȱTolerance.”ȱ

ȱForȱmoreȱonȱsystematicȱtheologyȱseeȱWinklerȱ2009c.ȱ

18

ȱCf.ȱtheȱcontroversyȱsurroundingȱtheȱJewishȱmissionȱinȱreactionȱ toȱ theȱ reinstatementȱ ofȱ theȱ Piusȱ Xȱ brotherhood:ȱ Discussionȱ groupȱ “JewsȱandȱChristians.”ȱ 20ȱForȱmoreȱdetailȱseeȱWinklerȱ2007a:ȱ179ff.;ȱWinklerȱ2009b:ȱ175ff.ȱ 19


truth.ȱ Theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ urgesȱ itsȱ believersȱ toȱ theȱ recogȬ nition,ȱ preservationȱ andȱ promotionȱ (!)ȱ ofȱ theȱ “goodȱ things,ȱ spiritualȱ andȱ moral,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ socioȬculturalȱ values”ȱ (NAȱ 2.3)ȱ thatȱ oneȱ canȱ accordinglyȱ findȱ inȱ otherȱ faiths.ȱ Theȱ giftsȱ ofȱ God,ȱtheȱspiritualȱgoodsȱ(bonaȱspiritualia)ȱareȱalsoȱgivenȱtoȱotherȱ religions,ȱ theȱ giftȱ thatȱ Heȱ Himselfȱ is.ȱ Godȱ revealsȱ Himselfȱ toȱ themȱthroughȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit.ȱTheirȱlifeȱinȱtruthȱandȱholinessȱisȱaȱ lifeȱfromȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱfollowingȱsentenceȱwithȱ theȱproclamationȱofȱChristȱasȱtheȱway,ȱtruth,ȱandȱlifeȱ(NAȱ2.2)ȱisȱ byȱnoȱmeansȱaȱcontradictionȱofȱthisȱMagnaȱCartaȱforȱtheologyȱofȱ religionsȱ butȱ theȱ logicalȱ contextȱ ofȱ aȱ Trinitarianȱ theological 21ȱ argumentation!ȱ Godȱ asȱ sourceȱ andȱ goal,ȱ theȱ Christȱ logosȱ asȱ theȱ fountainȬ headȱofȱtruth,ȱandȱtheȱgiftȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱformȱtheȱTrinitarȬ ianȱ criteriaȱ ofȱ aȱ Catholicȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ theȱ measuresȱ ofȱ aȱ theologicalȱ appreciationȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ andȱ constituteȱ strongȱ groundsȱ forȱ theȱ legitimacyȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ alternativeȱ toȱ aȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ fallenȱ intoȱ difficultiesȱ becauseȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gionsȱ isȱ anȱ explanatoryȱ discourseȱ forȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ (Winklerȱ2009b).ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱandȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreȬ ligionsȱhaveȱdifferentȱtasksȱandȱareȱmutuallyȱrelated.ȱTheȱtheoȬ logyȱofȱreligionsȱmustȱbeȱableȱtoȱargueȱtheȱpotentialȱequalityȱofȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ andȱ theȱ constitutivityȱ ofȱ religiousȱ differȬ encesȱ forȱ theȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ respectiveȱ faith.ȱ ComparȬ ativeȱtheologyȱventures,ȱwithȱthisȱencouragement,ȱintoȱtheȱconȬ creteȱandȱdetailȬorientedȱfieldȱofȱreflectionȱandȱexperienceȱofȱreȬ ligions:ȱ theȱ formationsȱ ofȱ discourseȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ sideȱ influenceȱ thoseȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ andȱ viceȱ versa.ȱ Becauseȱ ofȱ this,ȱ bothȱ fieldsȱ haveȱ theȱ obligationȱ toȱ interconnectȱ andȱ notȱ toȱ becomeȱ separȬ ated.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱSeeȱaȱsummaryȱofȱTrinitarianȱtheologicalȱessaysȱwithȱaȱcompreȬ hensiveȱbibliographyȱinȱBernhardtȱ2005:ȱ219ff.ȱ 21


IntrareligiousȱDialogue:ȱAȱSpiritualȱStanceȱ VaticanȱIIȱdidȱnotȱjustȱaffirmȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱinȱ otherȱ religionsȱ andȱ fileȱ thisȱ withȱ theȱ tradition’sȱ dogmaticȱ maȬ terials.ȱTheȱChurchȱalsoȱenteredȱintoȱaȱnew,ȱqualitativelyȱdifferȬ entȱ realm.ȱ Nostraȱ Aetateȱ hasȱ theȱ Latinȱ titleȱ “deȱ habitudine,”ȱ meaningȱ theȱ newȱ positionȱ thatȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ wasȱ adopȬ tingȱ towardȱ otherȱ religions.ȱ Aȱ spiritualȱ responseȱ toȱ otherȱ reliȬ gionsȱ andȱ notȱ justȱ aȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ theologicalȱ argumentationȱ correspondsȱ withȱ theȱ bonaȱ spiritualia,ȱ theȱ spiritualȱ lifeȱ inȱ theseȱ religions.ȱ Aȱ spiritualȱ stanceȱ isȱ nowȱ neededȱ (Winklerȱ 2008b)!ȱ Withȱaȱspiritualȱattitude,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱconductȱaȱdiscretioȱspirȬ ituum,ȱ i.e.ȱ aȱ spiritualȱ discrimination,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ necesȬ saryȱ toȱ entrenchȱ oneselfȱ behindȱ apologeticȱ prejudicationsȱ orȱ takeȱrefugeȱinȱindifference.ȱ Theȱ optionȱ ofȱ respectȱ forȱ othersȱ inȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ callsȱforȱaȱ“newȱspirituality”ȱ(SchmidtȬLeukelȱ2004).ȱItȱdoesȱnotȱ simplyȱ emergeȱ fromȱ aȱ theoreticalȱ decision,ȱ deductive,ȱ asȱ itȱ were,ȱbutȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱnurturedȱbyȱconcretelyȱencounteringȱothȬ erȱreligiousȱfaithsȱinȱveryȱdiverseȱways,ȱbeginningȱwithȱresearchȱ inȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue,ȱ friendships,ȱ throughȱritualsȱandȱart,ȱtoȱexperiencesȱinȱanotherȱreligion’sȱspirȬ itualityȱandȱspiritualȱpraxis.ȱAsȱindispensableȱasȱtheseȱexternalȱ encountersȱ are,ȱ theyȱ remainȱ onȱ theȱ outsideȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ supportedȱbyȱanȱinternalȱstanceȱandȱanȱinnerȱdialogue.ȱOnlyȱinȱ thisȱ wayȱ isȱ internalȱ participationȱ inȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ othersȱ possibleȱ(Dupuisȱ2006,ȱ2004).ȱ Raimonȱ Panikkarȱ coinedȱ theȱ phraseȱ intrareligiousȱ dialogueȱ toȱ describeȱ thisȱ (Panikkarȱ 1978).ȱ Givenȱ theȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ esȬ tablishingȱaȱdoctrinalȱsynthesisȱbetweenȱtwoȱreligionsȱ–ȱHinduȬ ismȱ andȱ Christianityȱ inȱ Panikkar’sȱ caseȱ –ȱ orȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ inȬ deedȱ actualȱ incommensurabilitesȱ separatingȱ twoȱ traditions,ȱ Panikkarȱ buildsȱ onȱ thisȱ innerȱ dialogue.ȱ Hisȱ modelȱ ofȱ interȬ pretation,ȱ gainedȱ fromȱ anȱ intuitiveȱ andȱ mysticȱ levelȱ ofȱ experiȬ ence,ȱ isȱ theȱ triuneȱ cosmotheandricȱ principleȱ (Panikkarȱ 1973,ȱ 1993,ȱ 1999)ȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ Christophanyȱ (Panikkarȱ 2006:ȱ 191ff.)ȱofȱtheȱwholeȱuniverse.ȱDialogueȱresultsȱinȱanȱinnerȱtransȬ


formation,22ȱ butȱ itȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ presupposesȱ thisȱ willingness,ȱ atȱ leastȱ implicitly,ȱ whichȱ isȱ indispensableȱ forȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logy.ȱ InterreligiousȱDialogueȱfromȱCommunionȱtoȱAffiliation:ȱ DoubleȱBelongingȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ livesȱ fromȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theologiansȱ enȬ gageȱ withȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ respectfullyȱ andȱ particiȬ pantȬorientedȱ andȱ withȱ aȱ clearȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theirȱ standpoint,ȱ solidȱ theologicalȱreasoningȱandȱaȱspiritualȱstanceȱinȱorderȱtoȱpracticeȱ theologyȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ it.ȱ Diverseȱ socialȱ formsȱ areȱ usedȱ forȱ thisȱ exchange.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ isȱ theȱ intenseȱ personalȱ dedicationȱ thatȱ someȱ individualsȱ haveȱ whenȱ theyȱ anchorȱ themselvesȱ inȱ aȱ secondȱreligionȱsoȱfarȱthatȱoneȱcanȱspeakȱofȱaȱdoubleȱbelonging.ȱ Suchȱ biographiesȱ ofȱ individualȱ interreligiouslyȱ giftedȱ peopleȱ fromȱ whomȱ theologicalȱ reflectionsȱ haveȱ arisenȱ areȱ exceptions,ȱ whichȱshouldȱnotȱdisguiseȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱsubjectȱhasȱbecomeȱ widelyȱ relevant,ȱ becauseȱ intraȬȱ andȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ areȱ inseparableȱ fromȱ eachȱ otherȱ andȱ areȱ mutuallyȱ intertwined.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ emphasizedȱ theȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ asȱ theȱ prerequisiteȱ forȱ theȱsecond.ȱWhoeverȱentersȱintoȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱdiverseȱformsȱ ofȱinterreligiousȱdialoguesȱorȱinterreligiousȱtheologicalȱdebatesȱ willȱnotȱbeȱableȱtoȱavoidȱquestionsȱofȱtheirȱownȱpersonalȱtransȬ formationȱandȱmodificationȱofȱtheirȱownȱpositionȱofȱfaith.ȱ Theȱ wellȬknownȱ examples,ȱ Hugoȱ EnomiyaȬLasalle,ȱ Henriȱ Leȱ Saux/Swamiȱ Abhishikt¬nanda,ȱ Bedeȱ Griffiths,ȱ Raimonȱ PanȬ ikkar,ȱandȱFrithjofȱSchuon,ȱbearȱwitnessȱtoȱtheȱexistentialȱstrugȬ gleȱforȱtheirȱcalling.ȱTheyȱareȱnotȱonlyȱandȱprimarilyȱfoundingȱ fathersȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology;ȱ theyȱ are,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ extremeȱ singularityȱofȱtheirȱbiographies,ȱratherȱmodelsȱforȱaȱveryȱfundaȬ

ȱ Theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ Panikkar’sȱ approachȱ are,ȱ inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ whereȱ understandingȱandȱacceptanceȱareȱtooȱcloseȱtoȱeachȱotherȱandȱtooȱlittleȱ spaceȱ remainsȱ forȱ incommensurabilitiesȱ andȱ theȱ discretioȱ mentionedȱ above.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ easilyȱ underestimateȱ theȱ cumbersomeȱ differencesȱ ofȱ beliefsȱunderȱtheȱimpressionȱofȱaȱcommonȱfaith.ȱ 22


mentalȱquestionȱofȱreligiousȱbelonging23ȱthatȱaȱlargeȱnumberȱofȱ peopleȱ andȱ scholarsȱ doingȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ areȱ currentlyȱ askingȱ themselves.ȱ Theȱ keyȱ conceptȱ ofȱ hybridityȱ inȱ culturalȱ studiesȱhasȱreachedȱreligiousȱbelongingȱandȱhasȱbeenȱobservedȱ inȱtheȱsociologyȱofȱreligionȱandȱreligiousȱstudiesȱforȱyears.ȱTheȱ churchesȱ haveȱ difficultiesȱ withȱ theȱ phenomenon,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱcaseȱofȱaȱtheologianȱorȱotherȱrepresentativeȱfromȱtheirȱownȱ ranks.ȱForȱthisȱreason,ȱtheȱemergingȱdiscourseȱcanȱcontributeȱtoȱ objectification.ȱ Catherineȱ Cornilleȱ ofȱ Bostonȱ Collegeȱ hasȱ publishedȱ aȱ highlyȱregardedȱvolume 24ȱinȱwhichȱsheȱusesȱherȱcriticalȱanalysisȱ toȱsort,ȱorganize,ȱandȱclassifyȱtheȱphenomenaȱandȱthusȱincreaseȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ highlyȱ diverseȱ realitiesȱ subsumedȱ underȱ theȱ termsȱdoubleȱandȱmultipleȱreligiousȱbelongingȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱ andȱ toȱ honeȱ theȱ termȱ systematicallyȱ onȱ theȱ other.ȱ 1)ȱ Strictlyȱ speaking,ȱsheȱfindsȱtheȱtermȱselfȬcontradictory,ȱsinceȱitȱassumesȱ thatȱ religionsȱ seeȱ themselvesȱ asȱ comprehensiveȱ horizonsȱ ofȱ meaningȱ andȱ thereforeȱ insistȱ onȱ undividedȱ belongingȱ fromȱ theirȱfollowers.ȱItȱfollowsȱthatȱthereȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱvaryingȱdegreesȱ ofȱ drawingȱ near,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ narrowerȱ senseȱ thereȱ canȱ beȱ noȱ multipleȱbelonging.ȱ2)ȱAȱsubjectiveȱstatementȱandȱpersonalȱexȬ perienceȱofȱbelongingȱtoȱanȱadditionalȱreligionȱareȱnotȱsufficientȱ forȱ belonging;ȱ rather,ȱ belongingȱ dependsȱ uponȱ mutualityȱ andȱ thusȱ objectiveȱ recognition.ȱ Selectiveȱ sympathyȱ doesȱ notȱ estabȬ lishȱbelongingȱbyȱaȱlongȱshot.ȱ3)ȱAnotherȱreductionȱisȱadoptingȱ theȱotherȱreligionȱprimarilyȱinȱitsȱfunctionalȱorȱritualisticȱaspectsȱ andȱ puttingȱ theȱ doctrinalȱ dimensionȱ last.ȱ 4)ȱ Multipleȱ religiousȱ belongingȱ harmsȱ spiritualȱ ripeningȱ becauseȱ itȱ preventsȱ comȬ pleteȱsurrenderȱtoȱoneȱreligionȱandȱinsteadȱraisesȱtheȱegoȱasȱtheȱ criterion,ȱwhichȱcountersȱspiritualȱgrowth.ȱ

ȱ Insteadȱ ofȱ theȱ currentlyȱ abundantȱ literatureȱ Iȱ pointȱ toȱ theȱ conferenceȱ transcript:ȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 2008;ȱ seeȱ Winklerȱ2009b:ȱ182ff.ȱ 23

ȱ Seeȱ Cornilleȱ 2002,ȱ 2008a,ȱ 2008b.ȱ Cf.ȱ Gortȱ etȱ al.ȱ 1992;ȱ Giraȱ andȱ Scheuerȱ2000;ȱPhanȱ2003,ȱ2004;ȱSchoenȱ1996,ȱ2000.ȱ 24


Besidesȱ Cornille’sȱ illuminativeȱ analyses,25ȱ theȱ lastȱ thesisȱ harborsȱconsiderableȱproblems.ȱOneȱcanȱadmittedlyȱagreeȱwithȱ Cornilleȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ dangerȱ ofȱ endlesslyȱ searchingȱ andȱ avoidingȱtheȱintractableȱandȱchallengingȱaspectsȱofȱeveryȱfaith.ȱ Gettingȱtoȱknowȱanotherȱreligionȱdoesȱnotȱpermitȱusingȱitȱasȱaȱ quarryȱtoȱbeȱmined.26ȱHowever,ȱherȱidealȱviewȱmissesȱtwoȱotherȱ phenomena.ȱ Firstȱ ofȱ all,ȱ herȱ thesisȱ suffersȱ fromȱ tooȱ highȱ anȱ identificationȱ ofȱ religionȱ andȱ transcendentȱ reality,ȱ whichȱ callsȱ forȱ undividedȱ surrender,ȱ and,ȱ second,ȱ sheȱ disregardsȱ convinȬ cingȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ practicedȱ belongingȱ (Leȱ Sauxȱ 2005;ȱ HackbarthȬJohnsonȱ 2003).ȱ Theȱ reflectionsȱ ofȱ aȱ comparaȬ tiveȱ theologicalȱ methodologyȱ inȱ particularȱ haveȱ developedȱ aȱ sensibilityȱ forȱ howȱ theseȱ pathsȱ inȱ twoȱ orȱ moreȱ religiousȱ tradiȬ tionsȱcanȱbeȱundertakenȱresponsibly.ȱ OrderȱofȱDiscourse,ȱMoreȱthanȱComparativeȱ Theȱ termȱ comparativeȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ aȱ theologyȱthatȱcomparesȱreligions,ȱsimilarȱtoȱcomparativeȱreligiousȱ studies.ȱSinceȱcomparingȱbelongsȱtoȱourȱeverydayȱactivitiesȱandȱ theȱbasicȱoperationsȱofȱallȱsciences,ȱitȱisȱassumedȱtoȱbeȱaȱsimpleȱ process.ȱHowever,ȱthatȱwhichȱsoundsȱtrivialȱandȱisȱusedȱdailyȱisȱ ofȱ considerableȱ methodologicalȱ complexity.ȱ Iȱ willȱ stateȱ theȱ seeminglyȱsimpleȱprerequisitesȱforȱaȱcomparison.ȱConsiderableȱ questionsȱareȱraisedȱinȱapplyingȱthisȱtoȱtheologicalȱproceedingsȱ (Schenkȱ 1990;ȱ Schenkȱ andȱ Krauseȱ 2001).ȱ 1)ȱ Theȱ entitiesȱ toȱ beȱ comparedȱ(comparata)ȱmustȱbeȱdefined,ȱsinceȱaȱcomparisonȱcanȱ existȱonlyȱifȱtheȱcomparataȱshowȱbothȱcommonȱaspectsȱasȱwellȱasȱ differences;ȱ thusȱ thoseȱ aspectsȱ thatȱ areȱ incomparableȱ andȱ opȬ positesȱareȱexcluded.ȱThatȱis,ȱaȱcomparisonȱisȱimpossibleȱifȱtheȱ comparataȱonlyȱhaveȱeitherȱopposingȱorȱcommonȱcharacteristics.ȱ 2)ȱAȱcomparativeȱrelationshipȱ(tertiumȱcomparationis)ȱmustȱbeȱinȬ ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ mostȱ recentȱ studyȱ byȱ Cornilleȱ (2008b)ȱ withȱ theȱ provokingȱtitle,ȱTheȱImȬpossibilityȱofȱInterreligiousȱDialogue,ȱwhichȱisȱdiȬ rectedȱagainstȱassumptionsȱtakenȱwithȱallȱtooȱmuchȱlevity.ȱ 25

ȱBettinaȱBäumer,ȱwhoȱhasȱlivedȱforȱoverȱfourȱdecadesȱinȱIndiaȱinȱ faithfulȱcontinuityȱandȱhasȱfoundȱbelongingȱinȱHinduism,ȱemphasizesȱ this.ȱSeeȱBäumerȱ2007.ȱ 26


dicated.ȱ 3)ȱ Thenȱ theȱ comparisonȱ canȱ beȱ carriedȱ out.ȱ CompariȬ sonsȱresultȱfromȱtheȱinterplayȱofȱanȱanalyticȱ(descriptionȱofȱcomȬ parata,ȱ empirical)ȱ andȱ syntheticȱ procedureȱ (findingȱ commonȱ qualitiesȱandȱdifferences,ȱideational).ȱ4)ȱTheȱlogicȱofȱcomparisonȱ isȱ influencedȱ byȱ science,ȱ inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ andȱ assumesȱ thatȱ theȱ cognizingȱ andȱ comparingȱ subjectȱ isȱ oppositeȱ theȱ objectȱ toȱ beȱ comparedȱwithȱit.ȱ5)ȱAȱcomparisonȱisȱresultȬoriented:ȱsomethingȱ newȱ emerges.ȱ 6)ȱ Epistemologically,ȱ bothȱ comparataȱ needȱ notȱ beȱ equatedȱ onȱ theȱ sameȱ scale,ȱ butȱ instead,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Leibniz,ȱ comparisonsȱhaveȱtheȱpurposeȱ“thatȱfromȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱ oneȱtheȱotherȱcanȱbeȱknown”ȱ(SchenkȱandȱKrauseȱ2001:ȱ667).ȱ7)ȱ Comparingȱdoesȱnotȱfollowȱanyȱsyllogisticȱmechanismȱbutȱfallsȱ intoȱtheȱrealmȱofȱestheticsȱ(aísthesis)ȱandȱthereforeȱcallsȱforȱ“witȱ andȱ acumen”ȱ (Schenkȱ andȱ Krauseȱ 2001:ȱ 679)ȱ inȱ findingȱ similarȬ ities.ȱ Likeȱaȱwholeȱrangeȱofȱacademicȱfieldsȱ(comparativeȱliteraȬ ture,ȱ comparativeȱ philosophy,ȱ etc.)ȱ theȱ scientificȱ studyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gionȱandȱespeciallyȱtheȱphenomenologyȱofȱreligionȱareȱdevotedȱ toȱcomparing.ȱWithȱtheȱcrisisȱofȱtheirȱmethodologyȱandȱtheirȱenȬ tireȱ researchȱ design,ȱ practicallyȱ allȱ classicȱ topoiȱ inȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ haveȱ beenȱ discussedȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ culturalȱ turn.ȱ Theȱ borderȱ betweenȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ andȱ theologyȱ hasȱ remainedȱ unchanged.ȱ Despiteȱ complexȱ interferences,ȱ theȱ comparataȱ areȱ clearlyȱ separatedȱ andȱ differentiatedȱ fromȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ underȬ standingȱinȱtheȱscientificȱstudyȱofȱreligions.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ differentȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Itȱ isȱ distingȬ uishedȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱtheȱcomparisonȱofȱtheologies,ȱbutȱitsȱsubjectȱ isȱalsoȱbyȱdefinitionȱinvolvedȱinȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheȱcomparataȱandȱ involvedȱ inȱ othersȱ inȱ varyingȱ degrees.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ tertiumȱ comparationisȱisȱnotȱdeterminedȱbyȱbutȱtakesȱonȱformȱduringȱtheȱ process.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reasonȱ theȱ logicȱ ofȱ comparisonȱ isȱ subjectȱ toȱ suchȱformidableȱmodificationsȱthatȱelucidationȱofȱaȱpossibleȱorȬ derȱofȱdiscourseȱinȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱnecessary.ȱ Theȱ pioneersȱ ofȱ theȱ newerȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ menȬ tionedȱ aboveȱ followedȱ theȱ methodologicalȱ considerationsȱ ofȱ religiousȱstudiesȱofȱtheirȱtimeȱforȱtheȱmostȱpartȱandȱaccordinglyȱ workedȱ onȱ itsȱ developmentȱ personally.ȱ Keithȱ Ward,ȱ W.C.ȱ Smith,ȱ Ninianȱ Smart,ȱ andȱ othersȱ wantedȱ toȱ relativizeȱ theȱ preȬ dominanceȱ andȱ autarchyȱ ofȱ Christianȱ occidentalȱ theologizingȱ thatȱ wasȱ takenȱ forȱ grantedȱ byȱ lookingȱ withȱ fascinationȱ atȱ theȱ


largeȱ incidenceȱ ofȱ relatedȱ ideasȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Theȱ discussionȱ onȱ methodologyȱ firstȱ becameȱ intensifiedȱ inȱ theȱ youngerȱ generation,ȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ throughȱ Robertȱ CumȬ mingsȱ Nevilleȱ (Nevilleȱ 2000a,ȱ 2000b;ȱ Clooneyȱ 2007b,ȱ Winklerȱ 2008c:ȱ132ff.).ȱHisȱmainȱfocusȱinȱhisȱthreefoldȱconceptȱofȱlogicȱofȱ comparisonȱ isȱ toȱ findȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ comparisonȱ throughȱ processȱ (Nevilleȱ 2007,ȱ 2009).ȱ Theȱ firstȱ identificationȱ ofȱ aȱ comparativeȱ cateȬ goryȱ mustȱ beȱ vagueȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ andȱ mustȱ beȱ openȱ toȱ modification.ȱTheȱcontentsȱofȱtheȱcomparativeȱcategoryȱfirstȱbeȬ comeȱ increasinglyȱ definedȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ specification,ȱ whichȱ inȱ turnȱ leadsȱ toȱ furtherȱ adjustmentsȱ ofȱ theȱ comparativeȱ cateȬ gory.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ heȱ developedȱ aȱ detailedȱ analyticalȱ methodȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ achieveȱ asȱ fairȱ aȱ portrayalȱ asȱ possibleȱ ofȱ otherȱ theoȬ logicalȱ concepts.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ comparativeȱ correlationsȱ areȱ deȬ scribedȱbyȱcomparativeȱjudgmentsȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱhypotheses.ȱ Nevilleȱarrivedȱatȱtheseȱthreeȱstepsȱthroughȱhisȱcompetenceȱ asȱ aȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ scholar.ȱ Theȱ keyȱ theologicalȱ pointȱ beȬ comesȱ visibleȱ whereȱ heȱ bringsȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ importanceȱ intoȱ theȱ equationȱ asȱ aȱ selectionȱ criterionȱ forȱ bothȱ theȱ comparativeȱ contentȱasȱwellȱasȱforȱtheȱcomparativeȱquestionsȱasked.ȱForȱNeȬ ville,ȱimportanceȱzerosȱinȱonȱbothȱtheȱrepresentativenessȱofȱaȱseȬ lectionȱ orȱ questionȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ beingȱ studiedȱ–ȱi.e.ȱtheȱfairnessȱofȱtheȱportrayalȱandȱresearchȱ–ȱasȱwellȱ asȱonȱtheȱrelevanceȱthatȱanchorsȱidentityȱinȱanȱouterȱreference,ȱ i.e.ȱ theȱ topologicalȱ characterȱ ofȱ aȱ theologyȱ andȱ itsȱ capacityȱ toȱ solveȱproblems.ȱTheȱroleȱofȱtheȱparticipantȱperspectiveȱwasȱnotȱ sufficientlyȱ reflectedȱ upon,ȱ inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ inȱ eitherȱ theȱ idenȬ tificationȱ orȱ theȱ specificationȱ ofȱ aȱ comparativeȱ category,ȱ whichȱ isȱnoticeableȱinȱtheȱfurtherȱquestionȱofȱtheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱ theȱ startingȱ constellationȱ andȱ theȱ goal,ȱ thusȱ betweenȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ importanceȱ andȱ theȱ comparativeȱ judgment’sȱ claimȱ toȱ truth.ȱ Inȱ whatȱ senseȱ doȱ comparativeȱ judgmentsȱ haveȱ aȱ norȬ mativeȱ character?ȱ Onlyȱ whenȱ thisȱ isȱ clarifiedȱ canȱ itȱ beȱ askedȱ whatȱgoalsȱandȱconsequencesȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱhasȱforȱtheȱ startingȱsituationȱofȱdenominationalȱtheology,ȱsoȱtoȱsayȱhowȱdeȬ nominationalȱ theologyȱ willȱ beȱ changedȱ byȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ logy.ȱ Neville’sȱ workȱ doesȱ haveȱ meritȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ reasons.ȱ 1)ȱHeȱarmsȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱwithȱhisȱmethodologyȱagainstȱ theȱ chargeȱ fromȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ thatȱ itȱ lacksȱ objectivity.ȱ Itȱ canȱ


withstandȱ suchȱ charges,ȱ notȱ leastȱ ofȱ allȱ becauseȱ theȱ sameȱ subȬ stantialȱ questionsȱ wereȱ putȱ toȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ inȱ theȱ postcoȬ lonialȱ discussionsȱ afterȱ E.W.ȱ Said’sȱ bookȱ onȱ orientalismȱ (Saidȱ 1978).ȱ 2)ȱ Furthermore,ȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ clearȱ atȱ leastȱ sinceȱ Nevilleȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ cannotȱ continueȱ withȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ theȱ phenomenologyȱ ofȱ religion27ȱ andȱ substantiatingȱ andȱ reȬ finingȱ theȱ tablesȱ ofȱ parallelȱ positingȱ withȱ studiesȱ onȱ contents.ȱ TheȱorderȱofȱtractsȱofȱChristianȱtheologyȱisȱalsoȱonlyȱofȱlimitedȱ useȱ asȱ anȱ instrumentȱ forȱ classification.28ȱ 3)ȱ Comparativeȱ theoȬ logy,ȱhowever,ȱfindsȱuniqueȱandȱinnovativeȱordersȱofȱdiscourseȱ withȱ “witȱ andȱ acumen.”ȱ Clooney’sȱ lifeworkȱ providesȱ anȱ eloȬ quentȱtestimonialȱtoȱthis.ȱEachȱofȱhisȱbooksȱcontainsȱreflectionsȱ onȱ andȱ continuationsȱ ofȱ thisȱ exploration.ȱ Doingȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱisȱaȱprocessȱofȱcreativityȱandȱspontaneity,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱ reflectedȱfurtherȱinȱtheȱspiritȱofȱNevilleȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱCharlesȱ Sandersȱ Peirce’sȱ abductionȱ (Nevilleȱ 2008).29ȱ Comparativeȱ theoȬ logy’sȱdiscoveriesȱcannotȱbeȱinferredȱorȱgainedȱbyȱaȱprocessȱofȱ reȬinference,ȱ thusȱ neitherȱ deducedȱ norȱ induced,ȱ butȱ theyȱ canȱ veryȱ wellȱ beȱ abductivelyȱ comprehendedȱ andȱ reviewed.ȱ Anȱ “epistemicȱinstinct”ȱ(Schärtlȱ2006:ȱ146)ȱforȱestablishingȱsuchȱcreȬ ativeȱrelationshipȱdevelopsȱthroughȱdivingȱdeeplyȱintoȱanotherȱ religiousȱ tradition.ȱ 4)ȱ Neville’sȱ methodologyȱ showsȱ somethingȱ ofȱtheȱinterminabilityȱofȱtheȱprocess.ȱItȱpreservesȱaȱcrucialȱherȬ meneuticȱ andȱ thusȱ theologicalȱ knowingȱ ofȱ theȱ basicȱ skepticismȱ regardingȱ theȱ translatability30ȱ ofȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ andȱ beliefsȱ thatȱoftenȱselfȬcriticallyȱaccompaniesȱClooney’sȱwork.ȱ ȱ

27ȱ Exemplarilyȱ andȱ comprehensivelyȱ workedȱ outȱ inȱ Vanȱ derȱ Leeuwȱ1977.ȱ

ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ Germanȱ languageȱ dogmaticȱ soȱ farȱ thatȱ consistentlyȱ respondsȱ toȱ otherȱ religionsȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ contentȱ andȱ shouldȱ thereforeȱ notȱbeȱunderestimatedȱfollowsȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱgenreȱinȱitsȱsystematicȱ structure:ȱBarthȱ2001.ȱSeeȱmyȱreview:ȱWinklerȱ2003.ȱ 28

ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱrecentȱstudyȱbyȱDeuserȱ(2009:ȱ236ff.,ȱ471ff.).ȱ

29

ȱSeeȱtheȱfundamentalȱstudyȱbyȱHintersteinerȱ(2001).ȱForȱfurtherȱ informationȱseeȱnoteȱ6ȱabove.ȱ 30


PurposeȱandȱGoalȱTimeȱSignatureȱ Whyȱcomparativeȱtheology?ȱThisȱquestionȱisȱusuallyȱansweredȱ implicitly,ȱandȱoneȱcanȱdistinguishȱtheȱfollowingȱanswers:ȱ 1) One’sȱ ownȱ intellectualȱ historyȱ andȱ theologyȱ shouldȱ beȱ ledȱ beyondȱ theȱ confinementȱ toȱ Westernȱ andȱ Christianȱ traditions.ȱ 2) Otherȱ religionsȱ shouldȱ beȱ freedȱ fromȱ theȱ inferiorityȱ ofȱ Christianȱ paternalismȱ byȱ showingȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ proȬ ducedȱequallyȱhighȱstandingȱcontributionsȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱ historyȱofȱideas.ȱ 3) Otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ shouldȱ beȱ honored/acknowlȬ edgedȱ notȱ justȱ byȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ andȱ empiricalȱ deȬ scriptionsȱ butȱ ratherȱ byȱ studyingȱ andȱ discussingȱ theirȱ theology.ȱ 4) Oneȱcanȱgetȱtoȱknowȱone’sȱownȱbeliefȱbetterȱandȱenrichȱ itȱthroughȱtheȱdialogueȱwithȱotherȱreligiousȱbeliefȱtradiȬ tions.ȱ 5) Theȱ doctrinesȱ formedȱ inȱ theȱ traditionsȱ areȱ answersȱ toȱ enduringȱhumanȱquestions,ȱsoȱthatȱoneȱcanȱnoȱlongerȱafȬ fordȱtheȱluxuryȱofȱlimitationȱtoȱjustȱoneȱtradition.ȱ 6) TheȱdialogueȱbetweenȱreligionsȱandȱaȱcommonȱtheologȬ icalȱdiscourseȱare,ȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱreligions’ȱsusceptibilityȱ toȱviolenceȱ(seeȱHoffȱandȱWinklerȱ2010),ȱtheȱorderȱofȱtheȱ dayȱ forȱ strengtheningȱ theȱ religions’ȱ resourcesȱ forȱ peaceȱ forȱtheȱsociopoliticalȱhandlingȱofȱviolenceȱscenarios.ȱ 7) Theȱ globalȱ situationȱ ofȱ worldȱ communicationȱ alsoȱ callsȱ forȱaȱglobalȱtheologicalȱdiscourse.ȱ 8) TheȱcomebackȱofȱreligionsȱdiagnosedȱinȱtheȱWesternȱinȬ dustrialȱnationsȱshouldȱbeȱmetȱwithȱaȱseriousȱtheologicalȱ discourseȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱconcreteȱreligions.ȱ 9) TheȱinterfaithȱexchangeȱofȱspiritualitiesȱshouldȱbeȱcriticȬ allyȱaccompaniedȱbyȱaȱtheologicalȱgroundingȱandȱreconȬ textualizationȱ inȱ theȱ respectiveȱ traditionȱ andȱ aȱ theologȬ icalȱdiscourseȱonȱtheȱtraditions.ȱ 10) Asȱ aȱ respiritualizationȱ andȱ socialȱ acceptabilityȱ ofȱ perȬ sonalȱprofessionsȱofȱfaithȱprogress,ȱitȱisȱnoȱlongerȱtabooȱ forȱreligiousȱscholarsȱtoȱcomeȱoutȱasȱbelieversȱandȱtoȱalȬ soȱengageȱinȱtheologicalȱdeliberation.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theȱ answersȱ occurȱ alone,ȱ someȱ inȱ combination.ȱ Theyȱcanȱbeȱsimplifiedȱagainȱbyȱdivisionȱintoȱobjectivesȱthatȱareȱ


predominantlyȱdirectedȱtowardȱbroadeningȱone’sȱownȱhorizonsȱ andȱthoseȱthatȱwantȱtoȱraiseȱtheȱissueȱofȱtheȱforeign.ȱTheȱquesȬ tionȱ mustȱ beȱ askedȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ groupȱ ifȱ theȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traȬ ditionsȱareȱnotȱthusȱinstrumentalized,ȱifȱthisȱapproachȱisȱreallyȱ ableȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ theȱ otherȱ andȱ toȱ graspȱ itȱ inȱ itsȱ intrinsicȱ valueȱ andȱ itsȱ ownȱ world,ȱ ifȱ theȱ epistemicȱ interestȱ ofȱ useȱ isȱ inȬ strumentalizedȱ forȱ oneself.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ groupȱ mustȱ beȱ askedȱ whyȱoneȱshouldȱbeȱconcernedȱwithȱanotherȱreligion,ȱandȱifȱthatȱ isȱmainlyȱansweredȱpositively,ȱwhyȱthisȱparticularȱreligion,ȱandȱ notȱanother,ȱisȱnowȱindicated.ȱIsȱthereȱsuchȱaȱthingȱasȱaȱpurelyȱ museumȱ occupationȱ withȱ aȱ religionȱ orȱ anȱ interestȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ untoȱ itself?ȱ Isȱ itȱ notȱ aȱ misjudgmentȱ ofȱ religionsȱ fromȱ theȱ veryȱ outsetȱ toȱ viewȱ themȱ asȱ piecesȱ inȱ aȱ museum,ȱ withoutȱ claimsȱ orȱ theȱintentȱtoȱinterpret?ȱ Ifȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ doesȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ beȱ exposedȱ byȱ suchȱquestionsȱitȱmustȱproceedȱnotȱjustȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱhavingȱ moreȱ materialȱ butȱ alsoȱ beȱ moreȱ detailȱ orientedȱ whileȱ clearlyȱ statingȱitsȱgoals.ȱJustȱasȱtheȱtimeȱofȱdogmaticȱhandbooksȱisȱcomȬ ingȱtoȱanȱend,ȱtheȱgreatȱreligiousȱhistoriesȱofȱideasȱalsoȱbelongsȱ toȱ theȱ past.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ mustȱ orientȱ itselfȱ toȱ realȱ problemsȱandȱspecifyȱitsȱinterestsȱandȱexpectationsȱofȱsolutionsȱ asȱaȱstartingȱ pointȱ forȱ discourseȱandȱ notȱ asȱ fixedȱ axioms.ȱ 1)ȱInȱ thisȱwayȱ one’sȱ ownȱ interestȱinȱlearningȱcanȱ beȱ modifiedȱ intoȱaȱ trueȱinterestȱinȱtheȱother,ȱorȱthoseȱwhoȱstudyȱotherȱreligionsȱcanȱ returnȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheirȱownȱstandpoint.ȱ2)ȱThoseȱtheoloȬ giansȱwhoȱtakeȱtheȱsignsȱofȱtheȱtimesȱseriouslyȱwillȱalsoȱbeȱableȱ toȱ offerȱ theoriesȱ ofȱ socialȱ relevance,ȱ assumingȱ responsibilityȱ inȱ theȱfaceȱofȱtheirȱownȱandȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ3)ȱAȱprobȬ lemȬbasedȱapproachȱhelpsȱtoȱpreventȱmystificationȱofȱone’sȱownȱ orȱ preciselyȱ anotherȱ tradition.ȱ Theȱ challengesȱ experiencedȱ andȱ masteredȱbyȱtheȱCatholicȱChurchȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheseȱsignsȱ ofȱtheȱtime,ȱespeciallyȱinȱVaticanȱII,ȱalsoȱtakeȱplaceȱanalogouslyȱ inȱtheȱdialogueȱbetweenȱreligions.ȱTheyȱlikewiseȱcauseȱspeechȬ lessnessȱandȱthusȱanȱincentiveȱforȱfindingȱaȱnewȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱ faceȱofȱ“joyȱandȱhope,ȱtheȱgriefȱandȱanguishȱofȱtheȱmenȱofȱourȱ time”ȱ(GaudiumȱetȱSpesȱ1).ȱBothȱtheȱsignsȱofȱtheȱtimeȱasȱwellȱasȱ theȱ earnestȱ andȱ intensiveȱ encounterȱ ofȱ religionsȱ giveȱ themȱ theȱ abilityȱtoȱspeakȱupȱinȱtheȱpresentȱworld.ȱ4)ȱAȱfutureȱdogmaticsȱ willȱ beȱ moldedȱ byȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Newȱ ordersȱ ofȱ disȬ courseȱ willȱ emergeȱ alongsideȱ theȱ usualȱ tractates.ȱ Voicesȱ fromȱ


otherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱwillȱbeȱworkedȱintoȱtheȱdiscussionȱonȱ theȱhistoryȱofȱdoctrineȱandȱdifferentiatedȱanswersȱwillȱbeȱfound.ȱ 5)ȱTheȱtextȬorientedȱresearchȱdesignȱofȱaȱChristianȱcomparativeȱ theologyȱ mustȱ beȱ expandedȱ toȱ includeȱ oralȱ traditionsȱ andȱ ethical,ȱritualistic,ȱesthetic,ȱandȱotherȱpractices.ȱThroughȱthisȱenȬ largementȱ ofȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ discourse,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ beȬ comes,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ moreȱ justȱ towardȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traȬ ditions,ȱ inȱ whichȱ reflectionsȱ findȱ differentȱ focalȱ points.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ encounterȱ andȱ learningȱ becomesȱ conȬ siderablyȱbroader.ȱ(6)ȱReligiousȱpluralism,ȱasȱitȱcanȱbeȱexȬperiȬ encedȱtoday,ȱandȱtheȱpluriformȱorientationȱofȱcontemporariesȱisȱ alsoȱ aȱ currentȱ signatureȱ problemȱ thatȱ theologyȱ canȱ faceȱ upȱ toȱ andȱthusȱshowȱitsȱrationalism.ȱEcclesialȱdogmaticsȱmustȱportrayȱ itsȱ faithȱ underȱ pluralistȱ conditionsȱ andȱ enterȱ intoȱ partnershipsȱ ofȱidentityȱwithȱotherȱreligions,ȱbecauseȱitȱisȱcapableȱofȱcriticalȱ andȱ respectfulȱ discourseȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ reflectionȱ andȱ experiȬ ence,ȱ whichȱ callsȱ forȱ theȱ diverseȱ spectrumȱ ofȱ religiousȱ andȱ culturalȱ humanȱ experiences.ȱ Hereinȱ liesȱ theȱ truthȱ ofȱ theȱ lifeȱ workȱofȱMichaelȱvonȱBrückȱupȱtoȱnow.ȱ Literatureȱ Altaner,ȱB.,ȱandȱA.ȱStuiber.ȱ(1980).ȱPatrologie:ȱLeben,ȱSchriftenȱundȱLehreȱ derȱKirchenväter.ȱ8thȱed.ȱFreiburg/Basel/Vienna:ȱHerder.ȱ Balthasar,ȱ H.ȱ U.ȱ von.ȱ (1960).ȱ “Merkmaleȱ desȱ Christlichen.”ȱ In:ȱ H.U.ȱ vonȱ Balthasar.ȱ Verbumȱ Caro:ȱ Schriftenȱ zurȱ Theologieȱ 1.ȱ Einsiedeln:ȱ JohannesȱVerlagȱ1960.ȱPp.ȱ172Ȭ94.ȱ Barth,ȱ H.ȬM.ȱ (2001).ȱ Dogmatik:ȱ Evangelischerȱ Glaubeȱ imȱ Kontextȱ derȱ Weltreligionen.ȱEinȱLehrbuch.ȱGütersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ Bäumer,ȱB.ȱ(2007).ȱ“InterreligiositätȱundȱSpiritualität:ȱEineȱPerspektiveȱ ‘vonȱinnen’.”ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱFiglȱ(ed.).ȱReligionswissenschaftȱ–ȱInterdisziplinȬ aritätȱundȱInterreligiosität.ȱSchriftenreiheȱderȱÖsterreichischenȱGeȬ sellschaftȱfürȱReligionswissenschaftȱ1.ȱVienna:ȱLITȱVerlag.ȱPp.ȱ87Ȭ 95.ȱ Beinert,ȱW.ȱ(1990).ȱ“DieȱalleinseligmachendeȱKirche.ȱOder:ȱWerȱkannȱ gerettetȱ werden?”ȱ Schweizerischeȱ Theologischeȱ Zeitschriftȱ 115:ȱ 75Ȭ 78,ȱ264Ȭ78.ȱ Bernhardt,ȱ R.ȱ (2005).ȱ Endeȱ desȱ Dialogs?ȱ Dieȱ Begegnungȱ derȱ Religionenȱ undȱihreȱtheologischeȱReflexion.ȱBeiträgeȱzuȱeinerȱTheologieȱderȱReȬ ligionenȱ2.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱ

256ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ (1990).ȱ Derȱ Absolutheitsanspruchȱ desȱ Christentums:ȱ Vonȱ derȱ AufkläȬ rungȱ bisȱ zurȱ Pluralistischenȱ Religionstheologie.ȱ Gütersloh:ȱ GütersȬ loherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ andȱ P.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ (eds.).ȱ (2008).ȱ Multipleȱ religiöseȱ Identität:ȱ AusȱverschiedenenȱreligiösenȱTraditionenȱschöpfen.ȱBeiträgeȱzuȱeinerȱ TheologieȱderȱReligionenȱ5.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱ Brück,ȱ M.ȱ von.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Einȱ Gesprächȱ mitȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brück:ȱ Vonȱ ErichȱGarhammer.”ȱIn:ȱLebendigeȱSeelsorgeȱ57:ȱ334Ȭ40.ȱ (2002a).ȱ “Religiousȱ Identityȱ andȱ theȱ Dialogueȱ ofȱ Religions:ȱ UnȬ derstandingȱ theȱ Socialȱ Constructionȱ ofȱ Alterity.”ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ Cohenȱ andȱ A.ȱ Heldrichȱ (eds.).ȱ Theȱ Threeȱ Religions:ȱ Interdisciplinaryȱ ConȬ ferenceȱofȱTelȱAvivȱUniversityȱandȱMunichȱUniversity.ȱMunich:ȱHerȬ bertȱUtzȱVerlag.ȱPp.ȱ109Ȭ24.ȱ ȱ (2002b).ȱ Wieȱ könnenȱ wirȱ leben?ȱ Religionȱ undȱ Spiritualitätȱ inȱ einerȱ WeltȱohneȱMaß.ȱMünchen:ȱC.H.ȱBeck.ȱ ȱ(1999).ȱ“InterkulturalitätȱalsȱIdentitätspartnerschaft.”ȱIn:ȱMeditaȬ tion:ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ christlicheȱ Spiritualitätȱ undȱ Lebensgestaltungȱ 25:ȱ 9Ȭ14.ȱ ȱ (1996a).ȱ“GibtȱesȱeineȱinterreligiöseȱHermeneutik?”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱ TheologieȱundȱKircheȱ93:ȱ284Ȭ308.ȱ (1996b).ȱ ”Keineȱ Erneuerungȱ ohneȱ Wagnis:ȱ Spiritualitätȱ undȱ dieȱ KircheȱderȱZukunft.”ȱLutherischeȱMonatshefteȱ35:ȱ8Ȭ11.ȱ ȱ (1994a).ȱ “Einheitȱ derȱ Religionenȱ alsȱ Herausforderungȱ fürȱ dasȱ Christentum.”ȱLebendigeȱSeelsorgeȱ45:ȱ31Ȭ37.ȱ (1994b).ȱ “Kommunikationȱ undȱ Kommunionȱ desȱ Christentumsȱ mitȱanderenȱReligionen.”ȱDiakoniaȱ25:ȱ102Ȭ10.ȱ ȱ (1992).ȱ Religionswissenschaftȱ undȱ interkulturelleȱ Theologie.ȱ In:ȱ EvangelischeȱTheologieȱ52:ȱ245Ȭ61.ȱ (1991).ȱTheȱUnityȱofȱReality:ȱGod,ȱGodȬExperienceȱandȱMeditationȱinȱ theȱHinduȬChristianȱDialogue.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ (1986).ȱEinheitȱderȱWirklichkeit:ȱGott,ȱGotteserfahrungȱundȱMeditationȱ imȱhinduistischȬchristlichenȱDialog.ȱMunich:ȱChr.ȱKaiserȱVerlag.ȱ (1979).ȱ Möglichkeitenȱ undȱ Grenzenȱ einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen.ȱ TheologischeȱArbeitenȱ38.ȱBerlin:ȱEvangelischeȱVerlagsanstalt.ȱ andȱ W.ȱ Lai.ȱ (2001).ȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ Christianity:ȱ Aȱ Multiculturalȱ HistoryȱofȱTheirȱDialogue.ȱTransl.ȱPhyllisȱJestice.ȱFaithȱMeetsȱFaith.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ andȱ J.ȱ Werbick.ȱ (eds.).ȱ (1994).ȱ Traditionsabbruch:ȱ Endeȱ desȱ ChrisȬ tentums?ȱWürzburg:ȱEchter.ȱ

WHATȱISȱCOMPARATIVEȱTHEOLOGY?ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ257ȱ Burrell,ȱ D.B.ȱ (1993).ȱ Freedomȱ andȱ Creationȱ inȱ Threeȱ Traditions.ȱ Notreȱ Dame:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress.ȱ (1986).ȱ Knowingȱ theȱ Unknowableȱ God:ȱ IbnȬSina,ȱ Maimonides,ȱ AquiȬ nas.ȱNotreȱDame:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress.ȱ Clooney,ȱFrancisȱX.ȱSJ.ȱ(2008a).ȱBeyondȱCompare:ȱSt.ȱFrancisȱdeȱSalesȱandȱ SriȱVedantaȱDesikaȱonȱLovingȱSurrenderȱtoȱGod.ȱWashington,ȱD.C.:ȱ GeorgetownȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (2008b).ȱ Theȱ Truth,ȱ theȱ Way,ȱ theȱ Life:ȱ Christianȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ ThreeȱHolyȱMantrasȱofȱtheȱSrivaisnavaȱHindus.ȱLouvain:ȱPeeters.ȱ (2007a).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheology.”ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱWebster,ȱK.ȱTanner,ȱandȱ I.ȱTorranceȱ(eds.).ȱTheȱOxfordȱHandbookȱofȱSystematicȱTheology.ȱOxȬ fordȱHandbooksȱinȱReligionȱandȱTheology.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniȬ versityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ653Ȭ69.ȱ (2007b).ȱ“ErklärungȱderȱArbeitsgruppeȱ‘KomparativeȱTheologie’ȱ derȱ Americanȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Religionȱ (AAR).”ȱ [Statementȱ forȱ theȱ ComparativeȱTheologyȱGroupȱforȱtheȱAAR.ȱGivenȱonȱ18ȱNovemȬ berȱ2006ȱatȱtheȱAARȱMeetingȱinȱWashingtonȱD.C.].ȱIn:ȱSalzburgerȱ TheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:140Ȭ52.ȱ (2005).ȱDivineȱMother,ȱBlessedȱMother:ȱHinduȱGoddessesȱandȱtheȱVirȬ ginȱMary.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (2001).ȱ Hinduȱ God,ȱ Christianȱ God:ȱ Howȱ Reasonȱ Helpsȱ Breakȱ Downȱ theȱBoundariesȱbetweenȱReligions.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (1998).ȱ Hinduȱ Wisdomȱ forȱ Allȱ God’sȱ Children.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱ Orbisȱ Books.ȱ (1996).ȱSeeingȱThroughȱTexts.ȱDoingȱTheologyȱamongȱtheȱSrivaisnavasȱ ofȱSouthȱIndia.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ (1993).ȱTheologyȱAfterȱVedanta:ȱAnȱExperimentȱinȱComparativeȱTheoȬ logy.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ (1990).ȱ Thinkingȱ Ritually:ȱ Rediscoveringȱ theȱ PĀrvaȱ MÎm¬ms¬ȱ ofȱ JaiȬ mini.ȱVienna:ȱDeȱNobiliȱResearchȱPublications.ȱ Cornille,ȱ C.ȱ (2008a).ȱ “Mehrereȱ Meister?ȱ Multipleȱ ReligionszugehörigȬ keitȱ inȱ Praxisȱ undȱ Theorie.”ȱ In:ȱ R.ȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ P.ȱ SchmidtȬ Leukelȱ (eds.).ȱ Multipleȱ religiöseȱ Identität:ȱ Ausȱ verschiedenenȱ religiösenȱ Traditionenȱ schöpfen.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zuȱ einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionenȱ5.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱPp.ȱ15Ȭ32.ȱ (2008b).ȱ Theȱ ImȬpossibilityȱ ofȱ Interreligiousȱ Dialogue.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Crossroads.ȱ (ed.).ȱ (2002).ȱ Manyȱ Mansions?ȱ Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belongingȱ andȱ ChristianȱIdentity.ȱFaithȱMeetsȱFaith.ȱNewȱYork:ȱOrbis.ȱ

258ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ D’ȱ Costa,ȱ G.ȱ (1986).ȱ Theologyȱ andȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism:ȱ Theȱ Challengeȱ ofȱ OtherȱReligions.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwellȱPublishers.ȱ Deuser,ȱ H.ȱ (2009).ȱ Religionsphilosophie.ȱ Berlin/Newȱ York:ȱ Walterȱ Deȱ Gruyter.ȱ Drobner,ȱH.R.ȱ(2004).ȱLehrbuchȱderȱPatrologie.ȱFrankfurt:ȱPeterȱLang.ȱ Duffy,ȱS.J.ȱ(1999).ȱ“AȱTheologyȱofȱtheȱReligionsȱand/orȱaȱComparativeȱ Theology?”ȱHorizonsȱ26:ȱ105Ȭ15.ȱ Dupuis,ȱ J.ȱ (2006).ȱ Towardȱ aȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱ (2004).ȱ “Renewalȱ ofȱ Christianityȱ throughȱ Interreligiousȱ DiaȬ logue.”ȱ Bijdragen:ȱ Internationalȱ Journalȱ inȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ Theologyȱ 65:ȱ131Ȭ43.ȱ Fredericks,ȱJ.L.ȱ(2003).ȱ“TheȱCatholicȱChurchȱandȱtheȱOtherȱReligiousȱ Paths.ȱ Rejectingȱ Nothingȱ thatȱ isȱ Goodȱ andȱ True.”ȱ Theologicalȱ Studiesȱ64:ȱ225Ȭ54.ȱ (1999).ȱFaithȱamongȱFaiths:ȱChristianȱTheologyȱandȱNonȬChristianȱReȬ ligions.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ (1995).ȱ “Aȱ Universalȱ Religiousȱ Experience?ȱ Comparativeȱ TheoȬ logyȱ asȱ anȱ Alternativeȱ toȱ aȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religions.”ȱ Horizonsȱ 22:ȱ 67Ȭ87.ȱ Gesprächskreis.ȱ(2009).ȱ“JudenȱundȱChristenȱbeimȱZentralkomiteeȱderȱ deutschenȱ Katholiken.”ȱ Neinȱ zurȱ Judenmissionȱ –ȱ Jaȱ zumȱ Dialogȱ zwischenȱJudenȱundȱChristen.ȱ9ȱMarch.ȱ Gira,ȱD.,ȱandȱJ.ȱScheuer.ȱ(2000).ȱVivreȱdeȱplusieursȱreligions:ȱPromesseȱouȱ illusion.ȱ Collectionȱ Questionsȱ ouvertes.ȱ Paris:ȱ Lesȱ Editionsȱ deȱ l’Atelier.ȱ Gort,ȱ J.D.ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.).ȱ (1992).ȱ Onȱ Sharingȱ Religiousȱ Experience:ȱ PossiȬ bilitiesȱ ofȱ Interfaithȱ Mutuality.ȱ Currentsȱ ofȱ Encounterȱ 4.ȱ AmsterȬ dam/GrandȱRapids:ȱEditionsȱRodopi/W.B.ȱEerdmans.ȱ HackbarthȬJohnson,ȱ C.ȱ (2003).ȱ Interreligiöseȱ Existenz:ȱ Spirituelleȱ ErfahrȬ ungȱ undȱ Identitätȱ beiȱ Henriȱ Leȱ Sauxȱ (O.S.B.)ȱ /ȱ Swamiȱ AbhishikȬ t¬nandaȱ (1910Ȭ1973).ȱ Europäischeȱ Hochschulschriftenȱ 23/763.ȱ Frankfurtȱet.al.:ȱPeterȱLang.ȱ Hintersteiner,ȱN.ȱ(2007a).ȱ“InterculturalȱandȱInterreligiousȱ(Un)TransȬ latibilityȱ andȱ theȱ Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ Project.”ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ HinterȬ steinerȱ(ed.).ȱNamingȱandȱThinkingȱGodȱinȱEuropeȱToday.ȱCurrentsȱ ofȱEncounterȱ32.ȱAmsterdam/NewȱYork:ȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ465Ȭ91.ȱ (2007b).ȱ “Wieȱ denȱ Religionenȱ derȱ Weltȱ begegnen?ȱ Dasȱ Projektȱ derȱKomparativenȱTheologie.”ȱSalzburgerȱTheologischerȱZeitschriftȱ 11:ȱ153Ȭ74.ȱ

WHATȱISȱCOMPARATIVEȱTHEOLOGY?ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ259ȱ (2003).ȱ “Dialogȱ derȱ Religionen.”ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Figlȱ (ed.).ȱ Handbuchȱ ReliȬ gionswissenschaft:ȱReligionenȱundȱihreȱzentralenȱThemen.ȱInnsbruck/ȱ Vienna/Göttingen:ȱTyrolia/Vandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht.ȱPp.ȱ834Ȭ52.ȱ ȱ (2001).ȱ Traditionenȱ überschreiten:ȱ Angloamerikanischeȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ interkulturellenȱ Traditionshermeneutik.ȱ Mitȱ einemȱ Vorwortȱ vonȱ RobertȱJ.ȱSchreiter.ȱVienna:ȱwuvȱUniversitätsverlag.ȱ Hoff,ȱG.M.,ȱandȱU.ȱWinklerȱ(eds.).ȱ(2010).ȱReligionskonflikte:ȱZurȱlokalenȱ Topographieȱ einesȱ Globalisierungsphänomens.ȱ Salzburgerȱ theologiȬ scheȱStudienȱ–ȱinterkulturellȱ5.ȱInnsbruck/Vienna:ȱTyroliaȱ JohnȱPaulȱII.ȱ(2001).ȱ“SchuldbekenntnisȱundȱVergebungsbitteȱamȱErstȬ enȱFastensonntagȱ2000ȱinȱSt.ȱPeterȱinȱRom.”ȱIn:ȱH.H.ȱHenrixȱandȱ W.ȱ Krausȱ (eds.).ȱ Dieȱ Kirchenȱ undȱ dasȱ Judentumȱ 2:ȱ Dokumenteȱ vonȱ 1986Ȭ2000.ȱ Veröffentlichungȱ imȱ Auftragȱ derȱ Studienkommissionȱ Kircheȱ undȱ Judentumȱ derȱ Evangelischenȱ Kircheȱ inȱ Deutschlandȱ undȱderȱArbeitsgruppeȱfürȱFragenȱdesȱJudentumsȱderȱÖkumeneȬ Kommissionȱ derȱ Deutschenȱ Bischofskonferenz,ȱ Paderborn/GütȬ erslohȱ2001.ȱPp.ȱ151Ȭ56.ȱForȱtheȱEnglishȱsee:ȱhttp://www.vatican.ȱ va/jubilee_2000/jubilevents/events_day_pardon_en.htm.ȱ Kippenberg,ȱ H.G.ȱ (1997).ȱ Dieȱ Entdeckungȱ derȱ Religionsgeschichte:ȱ ReliȬ gionswissenschaftȱundȱModerne.ȱMunich:ȱC.H.ȱBeck.ȱ andȱ K.ȱ vonȱ Stuckrad.ȱ (2003).ȱ Einführungȱ inȱ dieȱ ReligionswissenȬ schaft:ȱGegenständeȱundȱBegriffe.ȱMunich:ȱC.H.ȱBeck.ȱ Leȱ Saux,ȱ H.ȱ (Swamiȱ Abhishikt¬nanda).ȱ (2005).ȱ Innereȱ Erfahrungȱ undȱ Offenbarung:ȱ Theologischeȱ Aufsätzeȱ zurȱ Begegnungȱ vonȱ Hinduismusȱ undȱ Christentum.ȱ Mitȱ einerȱ Einführungȱ vonȱ Jacquesȱ Dupuis,ȱ S.J.ȱ Ed.ȱbyȱC.ȱHackbarthȬJohnsonȱetȱal.ȱTransl.ȱfromȱFrenchȱandȱEngȬ lishȱbyȱC.ȱHackbarthȬJohnson.ȱSalzburgerȱtheologischeȱStudienȱ– interkulturellȱ2.ȱInnsbruck/Vienna:ȱTyrolia.ȱ Nehring,ȱ A.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Welttheologieȱ oderȱ Religionswissenschaft?ȱ Zurȱ Bedeutungȱ vonȱ W.C.ȱ Smithȱ inȱ derȱ postkolonialenȱ KulturdebatȬ te.”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱReligionswissenschaftȱ13:ȱ45Ȭ59.ȱ (2003a).ȱ Orientalismusȱ undȱ Mission:ȱ Dieȱ Repräsentationȱ derȱ tamilȬ ischenȱ Gesellschaftȱ undȱ Religionȱ durchȱ Leipzigerȱ Missionareȱ 1840Ȭ 1940.ȱWiesbaden:ȱHarrassowitz.ȱ (2003b).ȱ“Religion,ȱKultur,ȱMacht.ȱAuswirkungenȱdesȱkolonialenȱ Blicksȱ aufȱdieȱKulturbegegnungȱamȱBeispielȱIndiens.”ȱZeitschriftȱ fürȱMissionwissenschaftȱundȱReligionswissenschaftȱ87:ȱ200Ȭ17.ȱ Neville,ȱ R.C.ȱ (2009).ȱ “Philosophischeȱ Grundlagenȱ undȱ Methodenȱ derȱ Komparativenȱ Theologie.”ȱ In:ȱ R.ȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ K.ȱ vonȱ Stoschȱ (eds.).ȱ Komparativeȱ Theologie:ȱ Interreligiöseȱ Vergleicheȱ alsȱ Wegȱ derȱ

260ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Religionstheologie.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zuȱ einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionenȱ 7.ȱ Zürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱ (2008).ȱRitualȱandȱDeference:ȱExtendingȱChineseȱPhilosophyȱinȱaȱComȬ parativeȱContext.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Theȱ Roleȱ ofȱ Conceptsȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ Crossculturalȱ ComparȬ ativeȱ Theology.”ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ Hintersteinerȱ (ed.).ȱ Namingȱ andȱ Thinkingȱ GodȱinȱEuropeȱToday.ȱCurrentsȱofȱEncounterȱ32.ȱAmsterdam/Newȱ York:ȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ513Ȭ29.ȱ (2006).ȱOnȱtheȱScopeȱandȱTruthȱofȱTheology:ȱTheologyȱasȱSymbolicȱEnȬ gagement.ȱNewȱYork:ȱT&TȱClark.ȱ ȱ (ed.).ȱ(2001a).ȱTheȱHumanȱCondition.ȱForewordȱbyȱPeterȱL.ȱBerger.ȱ Theȱ Comparativeȱ Religiousȱ Ideasȱ Projectȱ 1.ȱ Albany:ȱ Stateȱ UniȬ versityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ (ed.)ȱ (2001b).ȱ Religiousȱ Truth.ȱ Forewordȱ byȱ Jonathanȱ Z.ȱ Smith.ȱ Theȱ Comparativeȱ Religiousȱ Ideasȱ Projectȱ 3.ȱ Albany:ȱ Stateȱ UniȬ versityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ (ed.)ȱ (2001c).ȱ Ultimateȱ Realities.ȱ Forewordȱ byȱ Tuȱ Weiming.ȱ Theȱ Comparativeȱ Religiousȱ Ideasȱ Projectȱ 2.ȱ Albany:ȱ Stateȱ Universityȱ ofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ ȱ(2000a).ȱBostonȱConfucianism:ȱPortableȱTraditionȱinȱtheȱLateȬModernȱ World.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ (2000b).ȱ “Interkulturelleȱ Verständigungȱ undȱ dieȱ realeȱ MögȬ lichkeitȱ religiöserȱ Wahrheit.”ȱ In:ȱ T.ȱ Schreijäckȱ (ed.).ȱ Religionȱ imȱ Dialogȱ derȱ Kulturen.ȱ Forumȱ Religionspädagogikȱ interkulturellȱ 2.ȱ Münster/Hamburg/London:ȱLit.ȱPp.ȱ15Ȭ22.ȱ (1991).ȱBehindȱtheȱMasksȱofȱGod:ȱAnȱEssayȱtowardȱComparativeȱTheoȬ logy.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ Neuner,ȱJ.,ȱandȱJ.ȱDupuisȱ(eds.).ȱ(1992).ȱTheȱChristianȱFaithȱinȱtheȱDocȬ trinalȱ Documentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Church.ȱ 5thȱ ed.ȱ London:ȱ Harperȱ Collins.ȱ Panikkar,ȱR.ȱ(2006).ȱChristophanie:ȱErfahrungȱdesȱHeiligenȱalsȱErscheinungȱ Christi.ȱTransl.ȱRuthȱHeimbach.ȱFreiburg/Basel/Vienna:ȱHerder.ȱ (1999).ȱ Gott,ȱ Menschȱ undȱ Welt:ȱ Dieȱ DreiȬEinheitȱ derȱ Wirklichkeit.ȱ Petersberg:ȱViaȱNova.ȱ ȱ (1993).ȱ Theȱ Cosmotheandricȱ Experience:ȱ Emergingȱ Religiousȱ ConȬ sciousness.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ (1978).ȱTheȱIntrareligiousȱDialogue.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ ȱ (1973).ȱTheȱTrinityȱandȱtheȱReligiousȱExperienceȱofȱMan.ȱMaryknoll:ȱ OrbisȱBooks.ȱ

WHATȱISȱCOMPARATIVEȱTHEOLOGY?ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ261ȱ Phan,ȱ P.ȱ (2004).ȱ Beingȱ Religiousȱ Interreligiously:ȱ Asianȱ Perspectivesȱ onȱ InterfaithȱDialogue.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ (2003).ȱ “Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belonging:ȱ Opportunitiesȱ andȱ ChalȬ lengesȱforȱTheologyȱandȱChurch.”ȱTheologicalȱStudiesȱ64:495Ȭ519.ȱ Sabbatucci,ȱD.ȱ(1988).ȱ“KulturȱundȱReligion.”ȱIn:ȱH.ȱCancik,ȱB.ȱGladiȬ gow,ȱ andȱ K.ȬH.ȱ Kohlȱ (eds.).ȱ Handbuchȱ religionswissenschaftlicherȱ Grundbegriffe.ȱ Volȱ 1.ȱ Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne:ȱ W.ȱ Kohlhammer.ȱ Pp.ȱ43Ȭ58.ȱ Said,ȱE.W.ȱ(1978).ȱOrientalism.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPantheonȱBooks.ȱ Sander,ȱHansȬJoachimȱ(2006).ȱ“DerȱeineȱGottȱderȱJuden,ȱChristenȱundȱ Muslimeȱ undȱ seineȱ Heterotopienȱ derȱ Machtȱ –ȱ derȱ unmöglicheȱ Lebensraumȱ desȱ religiösenȱ Dialogs.”ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Sinkovitsȱ andȱ U.ȱ Winkler.ȱ (eds.).ȱ Weltkircheȱ undȱ Weltreligionen:ȱ Dieȱ Brisanzȱ desȱ Zweitenȱ Vatikanischenȱ Konzilsȱ 40ȱ Jahreȱ nachȱ Nostraȱ Aetate.ȱ SalzȬ burgerȱtheologischeȱStudienȱ–ȱinterkulturellȱ3.ȱInnsbruck/Vienna:ȱ Tyrolia.ȱPp.ȱ45Ȭ65.ȱ Schärtl,ȱ T.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Derȱ religiöseȱ Glaubeȱ imȱ Windschattenȱ desȱ WisȬ sensbegriffs?ȱAnfragenȱanȱdenȱEntwurfȱAlvinȱPlantingas.”ȱIn:ȱT.ȱ Kampmannȱ andȱ T.ȱ Schärtlȱ (eds.).ȱ Derȱ christlicheȱ Glaubeȱ vorȱ demȱ AnspruchȱdesȱWissens.ȱMünster:ȱAschendorff.ȱPp.ȱ87Ȭ146.ȱ Schenk,ȱ G.ȱ (1990).ȱ “Vergleich.”ȱ In:ȱ H.J.ȱ Sandkühlerȱ (ed.).ȱ Europäischeȱ Enzyklopädieȱ zuȱ Philosophieȱ undȱ Wissenschaften.ȱ Vol.ȱ 4.ȱ Hamburg:ȱ F.ȱMeiner.ȱPp.ȱ698Ȭ701.ȱ Schenk,ȱG.,ȱandȱA.ȱKrause.ȱ(2001).ȱ“Vergleich.”ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱRitterȱ(ed.).ȱHisȬ torischesȱ Wörterbuchȱ derȱ Philosophie.ȱ Vol.ȱ 11.ȱ 4thȱ ed.ȱ Basel:ȱ Schwabe.ȱPp.ȱ677Ȭ80.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱ P.ȱ (2009).ȱ Godȱ Beyondȱ Boundaries:ȱ Aȱ Christianȱ andȱ PluralistȱTheologyȱofȱReligions.ȱTransl.ȱKarolinaȱWeening.ȱLondon:ȱ SCMȱPress.ȱ (2005).ȱ Gottȱ ohneȱ Grenzen:ȱ Eineȱ christlicheȱ undȱ pluralistischeȱ TheoȬ logieȱderȱReligionen.ȱGütersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ (2004).ȱ “Eineȱ neueȱ Spiritualitätȱ fürȱ eineȱ religiösȱ pluraleȱ Welt.”ȱ Concȱ40:ȱ552Ȭ559.ȱ ȱ (1997).ȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen.ȱ Probleme,ȱ Optionen,ȱ Argumente.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Fundamentaltheologieȱ undȱ Religionsphilosophieȱ 1.ȱ Neuried:ȱArsȱUna.ȱ Schoen,ȱ U.ȱ (2000).ȱ Menschȱ seinȱ inȱ zweiȱ Welten:ȱ BiȬIdentitätȱ inȱ Sprache,ȱ ReligionȱundȱRecht.ȱMitȱeinemȱGeleitwortȱvonȱAnnemarieȱSchimȬ mel.ȱÖkumenischeȱStudienȱ11.ȱMünster/Hamburg/London:ȱLIT.ȱ

262ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ (1996).ȱBiȬIdentität:ȱZweisprachigkeit,ȱBiȬReligiosität,ȱdoppelteȱStaatsȬ bürgerschaft.ȱZürich/Düsseldorf:ȱWalter.ȱ Siebenrock,ȱ R.A.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Theologischerȱ Kommentarȱ zurȱ Erklärungȱ überȱdieȱHaltungȱderȱKircheȱzuȱdenȱnichtchristlichenȱReligionenȱ Nostraȱ Aetate.”ȱ In:ȱ P.ȱ Hünermannȱ andȱ B.J.ȱ Hilberathȱ (eds.).ȱ HerdersȱTheologischerȱKommentarȱzumȱZweitenȱVatikanischenȱKonzilȱ 3.ȱFreiburg/Basel/Vienna:ȱHerder.ȱPp.ȱ591Ȭ693.ȱ Sinkovits,ȱJ.,ȱandȱU.ȱWinklerȱ(eds.).ȱ(2006).ȱWeltkircheȱundȱWeltreligionȬ en:ȱDieȱBrisanzȱdesȱZweitenȱVatikanischenȱKonzilsȱ40ȱJahreȱnachȱNosȬ traȱ Aetate.ȱ Salzburgerȱ theologischeȱ Studienȱ Ȭȱ interkulturellȱ 3.ȱ Innsbruck/Vienna:ȱTyrolia.ȱ Smart,ȱN.,ȱandȱS.ȱKonstantine.ȱ(1991).ȱChristianȱSystematicȱTheologyȱinȱaȱ Worldȱ Context.ȱ Worldȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ Series.ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ FortressȱPress.ȱ Smith,ȱ W.C.ȱ (1993).ȱ Whatȱ isȱ Scripture?ȱ Aȱ Comparativeȱ Approach.ȱ LonȬ don:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ (1989).ȱTowardsȱaȱWorldȱTheology.ȱFaithȱandȱtheȱComparativeȱHistoryȱ ofȱReligion.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ (1963).ȱ“VergleichendeȱReligionswissenschaft:ȱWohinȱ–ȱWarum?”ȱ In:ȱM.ȱEliadeȱandȱJ.M.ȱKitagawaȱ(eds.).ȱGrundfragenȱderȱReligionsȬ wissenschaft.ȱWortȱundȱAntwortȱ32.ȱSalzburg:ȱOttoȱMüller.ȱPp.ȱ75Ȭ 105,ȱ239Ȭ56.ȱ Stosch,ȱ K.ȱ von.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Komparativeȱ Theologieȱ alsȱ Herausforderungȱ fürȱdieȱTheologieȱdesȱ21.ȱJahrhunderts.”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱKatholischeȱ Theologieȱ130:ȱ401Ȭ22.ȱ (2007).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheologyȱasȱanȱAlternativeȱtoȱtheȱTheologyȱ ofȱReligions.”ȱIn:ȱN.ȱHintersteinerȱ(ed.).ȱNamingȱandȱThinkingȱGodȱ inȱ Europeȱ Today.ȱ Currentsȱ ofȱ Encounterȱ 32.ȱ Amsterdam/Newȱ York:ȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ507Ȭ12.ȱ ȱ (2002).ȱ “Komparativeȱ Theologie.ȱ Einȱ Auswegȱ ausȱ demȱ GrundȬ dilemmaȱ jederȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen?”ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ KathoȬ lischeȱTheologieȱ124:ȱ294Ȭ311.ȱ Sullivan,ȱ F.A.ȱ (1992).ȱ Salvationȱ Outsideȱ theȱ Church?ȱ Tracingȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱtheȱCatholicȱResponse.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ Tracy,ȱ D.ȱ (1987a).ȱ “Comparativeȱ Theology.”ȱ In:ȱ M.ȱ Eliadeȱ (ed.).ȱ Theȱ EncycolopediaȱofȱReligion.ȱVol.ȱ14.ȱNewȱYork/London:ȱMacmillan/ȱ CollierȱMacmillan.ȱPp.ȱ446Ȭ55.ȱ ȱ (1987b).ȱ Pluralityȱ andȱ Ambiguity:ȱ Hermeneutics,ȱ Religion,ȱ Hope.ȱ Cambridge:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow.ȱ

WHATȱISȱCOMPARATIVEȱTHEOLOGY?ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ263ȱ Tworuschka,ȱ U.ȱ (2001).ȱ “Selbstverständnis,ȱ Methodenȱ undȱ Aufgabenȱ derȱ Religionswissenschaftȱ undȱ ihrȱ Verhältnisȱ zurȱ Theologie.”ȱ TheologischeȱLiteraturzeitungȱ126:ȱ123Ȭ38.ȱ VanȱderȱLeeuw,ȱG.ȱ(1977).ȱPhänomenologieȱderȱReligion.ȱ4thȱed.ȱTübingȬ en:ȱMohr.ȱ Vroom,ȱH.M.ȱ(2001).ȱ“KeithȱWard’sȱComparativeȱChristianȱSystematicȱ Theolog:ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ andȱ Criticalȱ Appraisal.”ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ InȬ terreligiousȱDialogueȱ11:ȱ92Ȭ119.ȱ Ward,ȱ K.ȱ (2003).ȱ “Aȱ Guideȱ forȱ theȱ Perplexed.”ȱ In:ȱ T.W.ȱ Bartelȱ (ed.).ȱ Comparativeȱ Theology:ȱ Essaysȱ forȱ Keithȱ Ward.ȱ London:ȱ SPCK.ȱ Pp.ȱ 190Ȭ98.ȱ (2000).ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Community.ȱ Tetralogyȱ inȱ Comparativeȱ TheoȬ logyȱ4.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress.ȱ (1998).ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Humanȱ Nature.ȱ Tetralogyȱ inȱ Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ3.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress.ȱ ȱ(1996).ȱ Religionȱ &ȱ Creation.ȱ Tetralogyȱ inȱ Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ 2.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress.ȱ (1994).ȱReligionȱandȱRevelation:ȱAȱTheologyȱofȱRevelationȱinȱtheȱWorldȱ Religions.ȱTetralogyȱinȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ1.ȱOxford:ȱClarenȬ donȱPress.ȱ (1987).ȱ Imagesȱ ofȱ Eternity:ȱ Conceptsȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ Fiveȱ Religiousȱ TradiȬ tions.ȱLondon:ȱDarton,ȱLongman,ȱandȱTodd.ȱ Winkler,ȱ U.ȱ (2009a).ȱ “Grundlegungenȱ komparativerȱ Theologie(n):ȱ KeithȱWardȱundȱRobertȱC.ȱNeville.”ȱIn:ȱR.ȱBernhardtȱandȱK.ȱvonȱ Stoschȱ (eds.).ȱ Komparativeȱ Theologie:ȱ Interreligiöseȱ Vergleicheȱ alsȱ WegȱderȱReligionstheologie.ȱBeiträgeȱzuȱeinerȱTheologieȱderȱReligiȬ onenȱ7.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱ ȱ (2009b).ȱ “Kniendeȱ Theologieȱ –ȱ Eineȱ religionstheologischeȱ BesinȬ nungȱ aufȱ eineȱ Spiritualitätȱ komparativerȱ Theologie.”ȱ In:ȱ F.E.ȱ Dobberahnȱ andȱ J.ȱ Imhofȱ (eds.).ȱ Wagnisȱ derȱ Freiheit:ȱ Perspektivenȱ geistlicherȱTheologie.ȱFSȱPaulȱImhof.ȱStrukturenȱderȱWirklichkeitȱ4.ȱ Wambach:ȱViaȱVerbis.ȱPp.ȱ162Ȭ98.ȱ ȱ (2009c).ȱ “Vonȱ Gotteskindern,ȱ Heidenȱ undȱ Teufelskindern.ȱ ReliȬ gionstheologieȱ versusȱ Israeltheologieȱ –ȱ einȱ neuerȱ Diskursȱ desȱ Vergessens?”ȱIn:ȱG.ȱLangerȱandȱG.M.ȱHoffȱ(eds.).ȱDerȱOrtȱdesȱJüȬ dischenȱ inȱ derȱ christlichenȱ Theologie.ȱ Göttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ &ȱ Ruprecht.ȱPp.ȱ220Ȭ63.ȱ (2008a).ȱ“ErwählungskonkurrenzȱzwischenȱJudenȱundȱChristen.”ȱ SalzburgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ12:ȱ116Ȭ49.ȱ

264ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ ȱ

(2008b).ȱ“MissionȱSpiritualitätȱ–ȱdieȱFrömmigkeitȱderȱReligionenȱ schätzenȱlernen.”ȱDiakoniaȱ39:ȱ445Ȭ49.ȱ ȱ (2008c).ȱ “Zumȱ Projektȱ einerȱ Komparativenȱ Theologie.”ȱ In:ȱ G.ȱ Ritzerȱ(ed.).ȱ“MitȱeuchȱbinȱichȱMenschȱ….”ȱFSȱFriedrichȱSchleinȬ zer.ȱ Salzburgerȱ theologischeȱ Studienȱ 34.ȱ Innsbruck/Vienna:ȱ TyȬ rolia.ȱPp.ȱ115Ȭ47.ȱ (2007a).ȱ “Fürȱ eineȱ pneumatologischeȱ Religionstheologie.”ȱ SalzȬ burgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:ȱ175Ȭ200.ȱ ȱ (2007b).ȱ“Editorial:ȱKomparativeȱTheologieȱderȱReligionen.”ȱSalzȬ burgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:ȱ137Ȭ39.ȱ ȱ (2007c).ȱ“MehrȱalsȱToleranz:ȱDieȱEntdeckungȱdesȱHeiligenȱGeistȬ esȱinȱdenȱanderenȱKirchenȱundȱReligionen.”ȱIn:ȱR.ȱEggerȬWenzelȱ (ed.).ȱ Geistȱ undȱ Feuer.ȱ FSȱ Erzbischofȱ Aloisȱ M.ȱ Kothgasser.ȱ SalzȬ burgerȱ theologischeȱ Studienȱ 32.ȱ Innsbruck/Vienna:ȱ Tyrolia.ȱ Pp.ȱ 397Ȭ430.ȱ ȱ (2007d).ȱ“ZentrumȱTheologieȱInterkulturellȱundȱStudiumȱderȱReȬ ligionenȱanȱderȱUniversitätȱSalzburgȱ–ȱtheologischeȱKonzeption.”ȱ SalzburgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:ȱ58Ȭ73.ȱ ȱ (2006).ȱ “Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelsȱ christlicheȱ pluralistischeȱ ReliȬ gionstheologie.”ȱSalzburgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ10:ȱ290Ȭ318.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Dieȱ unwiderrufeneȱ Erwählungȱ Israelsȱ undȱ dasȱ Wahreȱ undȱHeiligeȱandererȱReligionen:ȱVonȱderȱIsraeltheologieȱundȱReȬ ligionstheologieȱ zurȱ Pluralismusfähigkeitȱ derȱ Religionenȱ alsȱ inȬ terreligiöseȱ Kriteriologie.”ȱ In:ȱ R.ȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ P.ȱ SchmidtȬ Leukelȱ (eds.).ȱ Kriterienȱ interreligiöserȱ Urteilsbildungȱ Beiträgeȱ zuȱ einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionenȱ 1.ȱ Zürich:ȱ Theologischerȱ Verlagȱ Zürich.ȱPp.ȱ233Ȭ65.ȱ ȱ (2003).ȱ “Rezension:ȱ Barth,ȱ HansȬMartin,ȱ Dogmatik:ȱ EvangelȬ ischerȱ Glaubeȱ imȱ Kontextȱ derȱ Weltreligionen.”ȱ Salzburgerȱ TheoȬ logischeȱZeitschriftȱ7:ȱ230Ȭ33.ȱ Yong,ȱ A.,ȱ andȱ G.P.ȱ Heltzelȱ (eds.).ȱ (2004).ȱ Theologyȱ inȱ Globalȱ Context:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ Robertȱ Cummingsȱ Neville.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Tȱ &ȱ Tȱ ClarkȱInternational.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ PartȱIVȱ

SacredȱTextȱ andȱSocialȱContextȱ

EuropeanȱIslamicȱGenderȱDiscoursesȱ ȱ ȱ AnneȱSofieȱRoaldȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ Theȱ recentȱ migrationȱ waveȱ ofȱ Muslimsȱ fromȱ countriesȱ withȱ mainlyȱ Muslimȱ majorityȱ populationsȱ toȱ countriesȱ withȱ ChrisȬ tianȱmajorityȱpopulationsȱandȱaȱsecularȱstateȱhasȱcausedȱmodiȬ ficationsȱ inȱ Muslimȱ socialȱ attitudesȱ andȱ praxis,ȱ particularlyȱ inȱ genderȱissues.ȱThisȱarticleȱwillȱinvestigateȱsomeȱofȱtheseȱmodiȬ ficationsȱofȱgenderȱissuesȱinȱMuslimȱimmigrantȱcommunitiesȱinȱ Europe.ȱ Theȱ resultsȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ articleȱ buildȱ onȱ anȱ examȬ inationȱofȱIslamicȱscripturalȱsources,ȱIslamistȱliterature,ȱandȱemȬ piricalȱ materialȱ collectedȱ inȱ Muslimȱ communitiesȱ inȱ Europeȱ fromȱtheȱearlyȱ1980sȱon.1ȱTheȱfocusȱofȱtheȱarticleȱwillȱbeȱonȱtheȱ newȱ interpretationsȱ influencedȱ byȱ liberalȱ ideasȱ andȱ humanȱ rightsȱthinking.ȱItȱis,ȱhowever,ȱimportantȱtoȱbeȱawareȱthatȱnewȱ interpretationsȱ alsoȱ implyȱ aȱ returnȱ toȱ conservativeȱ andȱ collecȬ tivisticȱsocialȱpatterns,ȱbutȱthisȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱpresȬ entȱstudy.ȱ Theȱ irregularitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ modificationsȱ ofȱ genderȱ issuesȱ inȱ variousȱ Muslimȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ differentȱ ethnicȱ andȱ nationalȱ backgroundsȱasȱwellȱasȱofȱdifferentȱreligiousȱorientationsȱmakeȱ itȱ difficultȱ forȱ socialȱ researchȱ toȱ anticipateȱ aȱ particularȱ “MusȬ lim”ȱ patternȱ ofȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ migrationȱ situation.ȱ Apartȱ fromȱ theȱ factorsȱ alreadyȱ mentioned,ȱ ethnicity,ȱ nationality,ȱ andȱ reliȬ giousȱorientation,ȱmanyȱotherȱelementsȱinfluenceȱtheȱsocialȱproȬ cessesȱ ofȱ changeȱ inȱ Muslimȱ migrantȱ communities.ȱ Oneȱ imporȬ tantȱ factorȱ isȱ Muslims’ȱ encounterȱ withȱ Europeanȱ secularȱ sociȬ ety.ȱInȱmostȱMuslims’ȱcountriesȱofȱorigin,ȱthereȱisȱaȱgeneralȱreliȬ giousȱoutlook,ȱeitherȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱtheȱstate,ȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱtheȱ inhabitants,ȱ orȱ both.ȱ Theȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ secularisedȱ stateȱ andȱwithȱtheȱsecularȱoutlookȱofȱpartsȱofȱtheȱmajorityȱsocietyȱisȱ thusȱaȱdrivingȱforceȱinȱaȱprocessȱtowardsȱtheȱindividualisationȱ andȱprivatisationȱofȱfaithȱinȱMuslimȱminorityȱcommunitiesȱ(see,ȱ ȱTheȱresultsȱrelyȱonȱfieldworkȱinȱMuslimȱcommunitiesȱinȱEuropeȱ betweenȱ1982ȱandȱ2004.ȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱRoaldȱ2001a;ȱ2004.ȱ 1


e.g.,ȱCesariȱ2004).ȱHowever,ȱsuchȱaȱchangeȱtowardsȱtheȱprivatisȬ ationȱ ofȱ religionȱ dependsȱ toȱ aȱ greatȱ extentȱ onȱ theȱ degreeȱ ofȱ Muslimȱparticipationȱinȱwiderȱsociety.ȱParticularlyȱMuslimsȱbeȬ longingȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ generationȱ immigrantsȱ tendȱ toȱ beȱ lessȱ inȬ volvedȱ inȱ theȱ activitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ majorityȱ societyȱ andȱ moreȱ inȬ volvedȱ inȱ theirȱ ownȱ communities,ȱ eitherȱ withȱ voluntaryȱ workȱ orȱwithȱpaidȱworkȱinȱmosques,ȱinȱreligiousȱorȱethnicȱorganisaȬ tions,ȱ orȱ withȱ tradeȱ ofȱ religiousȱ orȱ ethnicȱ articlesȱ withinȱ theȱ community.ȱ Thisȱ lackȱ ofȱ interactionȱ withȱ theȱ majorityȱ societyȱ tendsȱ toȱ leadȱ toȱ theȱ preservationȱ ofȱ culturalȱ andȱ religiousȱ attiȬ tudesȱandȱpractices.ȱWhereasȱthisȱpatternȱofȱtheȱpreservationȱofȱ homelandȱtraditionsȱmightȱbeȱunintentionalȱinȱsomeȱcommuniȬ ties,ȱinȱothersȱitȱmightȱariseȱdirectlyȱfromȱtheȱcommunities’ȱnegȬ ativeȱattitudeȱtowardsȱtheȱvalueȱtraditionsȱofȱtheȱmajorityȱsociȬ ety.ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ generationȱ community,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ tendȬ encyȱ towardsȱ theȱ individualisationȱ ofȱ theȱ Islamicȱ messageȱ isȱ moreȱ evident.ȱ Childrenȱ ofȱ firstȬgenerationȱ Muslimȱ immigrantsȱ haveȱ attendedȱ publicȱ schoolsȱ inȱ theȱ hostȱ countryȱ and,ȱ despiteȱ socialisationȱ intoȱ aȱ Muslimȱ andȱ ethnicȱ environment,ȱ areȱ embeddedȱ inȱ theȱ valuesȱ andȱ attitudesȱ ofȱ theȱ majorityȱ societyȱ throughȱschool,ȱfriends,ȱandȱmedia.ȱTheyȱareȱthusȱ“inȱbetween”ȱ twoȱculturalȱprocesses,ȱi.e.ȱtheȱmajorityȱsociety’sȱandȱtheirȱparȬ ents’ȱ –ȱ having,ȱ inȱ Sisselȱ Østberg’sȱ words,ȱ “integratedȱ pluralȱ identities”ȱ(Østbergȱ2003).ȱ AnotherȱimportantȱfactorȱisȱthatȱofȱtheȱfirstȬgenerationȱimȬ migrants’ȱbackgrounds:ȱDoȱtheyȱcomeȱfromȱruralȱorȱurbanȱsetȬ tings?ȱInȱcountriesȱwithȱMuslimȱmajorities,ȱpeopleȱinȱruralȱareasȱ tendȱtoȱliveȱmoreȱaccordingȱtoȱtraditionalȱsocialȱpatterns,ȱwithȱaȱ strongȱsocialȱadhesionȱbetweenȱmembersȱofȱtheȱextendedȱfamiȬ lyȱandȱwithȱanȱemphasisȱonȱgenderȱrolesȱbasedȱonȱbiologicalȱarȬ guments,ȱ thanȱ inȱ urbanȱ areas.ȱ Relatedȱ toȱ thisȱ rural/urbanȱ patȬ ternȱamongȱimmigrantsȱisȱtheirȱlevelȱofȱeducationȱandȱthusȱtheirȱ abilityȱ toȱ enterȱ intoȱ theȱ labourȱ marketȱ inȱ theȱ hostȱ countries;ȱ peopleȱ comingȱ fromȱ ruralȱ areasȱ tendȱ toȱ haveȱ lessȱ educationȱ thanȱthoseȱwithȱurbanȱbackgrounds.ȱ Asȱ mentionedȱ above,ȱ theȱ immigrants’ȱ countryȱ ofȱ originȱ playsȱ aȱ partȱ inȱ theȱ patternȱ ofȱ modificationȱ orȱ preservationȱ ofȱ Muslimȱ immigrants’ȱ traditionalȱ socialȱ attitudesȱ andȱ practices.ȱ Muslimȱ immigrantsȱ fromȱ Bosnia,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ haveȱ livedȱ inȱ aȱ minorityȱ situationȱ togetherȱ withȱ nonȬMuslimsȱ forȱ centuries.ȱ

EUROPEAN ISLAMIC GENDER DISCOURSESȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ269ȱ

Moreover,ȱ sinceȱ theyȱ wereȱ citizensȱ inȱ theȱ formerȱ Yugoslaviaȱ theyȱ haveȱ experiencedȱ livingȱ inȱ aȱ secularȱ stateȱ formationȱ andȱ thusȱalso,ȱtoȱaȱcertainȱextent,ȱofȱaȱgenderȱpatternȱbasedȱonȱeveryȱ citizen’sȱ equalȱ rights.ȱ Turks’ȱ experienceȱ ofȱ secularismȱ isȱ alsoȱ firm,ȱ butȱ inȱ bothȱ Bosniaȱ andȱ Turkeyȱ secularismȱ andȱ socialȱ equalityȱhaveȱbeenȱlessȱpervasiveȱinȱruralȱthanȱinȱurbanȱareas.ȱ Immigrantsȱ fromȱ Iranȱ toȱ Europeȱ tendȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ religiouslyȱ inȬ clined,ȱsinceȱmostȱofȱthemȱhaveȱfledȱfromȱanȱIslamicȱtheocracy.ȱ MuslimȱimmigrantsȱfromȱArabȬspeakingȱcountriesȱorȱsouthernȱ AsiaȱhaveȱexperiencedȱleadersȱwhoȱhaveȱusedȱIslamȱasȱaȱlegitȬ imatingȱpower,ȱevenȱinȱgenderȱrelations,ȱandȱtheyȱtendȱthusȱtoȱ relateȱ toȱ aȱ traditionalȱ genderȱ patternȱ basedȱ onȱ Islamicȱ lawȱ schools:ȱ menȱ haveȱ authorityȱ overȱ women.ȱ Somaliȱ immigrantsȱ carryȱwithȱthemȱSomaliȱculturalȱpatternsȱandȱaȱreligiousȱpatternȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ wahhabi/salafiȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ Islamicȱ sourȬ ces.ȱTheȱlatterȱisȱdueȱtoȱSaudiȱArabia’sȱgenerousȱeconomicȱpetȬ roȬdollarȱ grantsȱ toȱ studentsȱ fromȱ poorȱ countries,ȱ particularlyȱ Africa,ȱ whoȱ wantedȱ toȱ becomeȱ Islamicȱ scholars.ȱ Thus,ȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ ongoingȱ civilȱ warȱ inȱ Somaliaȱ thatȱ beganȱ inȱ 1991,ȱ manyȱ Somaliȱ Islamicȱ scholarsȱ livingȱ inȱ Europeȱ wereȱ educatedȱ inȱ SaudiȱArabia,ȱwhichȱinfluencesȱtheirȱfellowȱbelieversȱinȱSomaliȱ communitiesȱinȱaȱwahhabi/salafiȱdirection.ȱTheȱparticularȱIslamicȱ femaleȱ“veiling”ȱwithȱlong,ȱwide,ȱdarkȱclothes,ȱandȱsometimesȱ evenȱfaceȱveils,ȱinȱSomaliȱcommunitiesȱinȱEuropeȱindicatesȱthisȱ recentȱinfluenceȱbyȱwahhabi/salafiȱIslam.ȱ Evenȱ culturalȱ patternsȱ inȱ Europeanȱ hostȱ societiesȱ tendȱ toȱ influenceȱ attitudesȱ andȱ practicesȱ inȱ Muslimȱ communities.ȱ Theȱ Scandinavianȱ stressȱ onȱ genderȬequalȱ opportunitiesȱ hasȱ hadȱ anȱ effectȱ particularlyȱ onȱ Muslimsȱ bornȱ inȱ Scandinavia.ȱ Duringȱ fieldworkȱconductedȱinȱNorwayȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱtwentyȬ firstȱcenturyȱamongȱMuslimsȱpractisingȱIslamicȱprecepts,ȱmanyȱ secondȬgenerationȱ Muslimȱ immigrantsȱ statedȱ thatȱ “Islamȱ isȱ genderȱ equality,”ȱ whereasȱ firstȬgenerationȱ Muslimȱ immigrantsȱ claimedȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ socialȱ equalityȱ inȱ Islamȱ betweenȱ menȱ andȱ women.ȱ Evenȱ theȱ generalȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ humanȱ rightsȱ paradigmȱ latelyȱ mightȱ indicateȱ aȱ moreȱ generalȱ trendȱ towardsȱ genderȱequalityȱamongȱMuslimsȱinȱmostȱEuropeanȱcountries.ȱ TheȱchangeȱinȱethnicȱconstellationȱinȱMuslimȱcommunitiesȱ inȱtheȱmigrationȱsituation,ȱasȱwellȱasȱMuslimsȱfromȱvariousȱethȬ nicȱ groupsȱ andȱ withȱ variousȱ religiousȱ orientationsȱ fromȱ allȱ


partsȱofȱtheȱworldȱlivingȱtogetherȱinȱimmigrantȱ“ghettos,”ȱwillȱ eventuallyȱchangeȱattitudesȱandȱpracticesȱrelatingȱtoȱgender.ȱAsȱ Muslimȱyouthȱsocialiseȱinȱschoolȱandȱleisureȱtimeȱtheirȱdifferentȱ genderȱ viewsȱ willȱ beȱ apparentȱ andȱ theyȱ willȱ questionȱ whatȱ isȱ “Islamic”ȱ orȱ whatȱ isȱ “trueȱ Islam.”ȱ Thisȱ “backȱ toȱ theȱ roots”ȱ apȬ proachȱcommonȱinȱmanyȱrecentȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱisȱtheȱobviȬ ousȱ toolȱ usedȱ byȱ modernȱ Muslimsȱ livingȱ inȱ Europeȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ presentȱ evenȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ extentȱ amongȱ educatedȱ Muslimsȱ inȱ countriesȱwithȱaȱMuslimȱmajorityȱpopulation.ȱ ForȱMuslimsȱinȱEurope,ȱthisȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱapproachȱisȱ bothȱaȱreactionȱtoȱtheȱculturalȱencounterȱwithȱotherȱMuslimsȱ–ȱ howȱ toȱ reconcileȱ theȱ variousȱ Islamicȱ traditionsȱ inȱ theȱ Muslimȱ communitiesȱ inȱ Europeȱ –ȱ andȱ aȱ meansȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ termsȱ withȱ howȱtoȱliveȱasȱaȱMuslimȱinȱaȱmodernȱworldȱwhereȱMuslimsȱareȱ inȱtheȱminority.ȱByȱrereadingȱtheȱIslamicȱsourcesȱandȱinterpretȬ ingȱthemȱinȱviewȱofȱtheȱpresentȱcircumstances,ȱIslamicȱdogmasȱ mightȱ changeȱ sinceȱ theȱ interpretationȱ processȱ includesȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ modernȱ attitudesȱ andȱ perceptions.ȱ Theȱ resultȱ ofȱ thisȱ apȬ proach,ȱ therefore,ȱ mightȱ beȱ aȱ mixtureȱ ofȱ variousȱ Islamicȱ tradiȬ tionsȱ andȱ elementsȱ fromȱ theȱ majorityȱ valueȱ tradition.ȱ Aȱ possiȬ blyȱ overarchingȱ “European”ȱ Islamicȱ traditionȱ mightȱ emerge,ȱ subdividedȱintoȱnationalȱIslamicȱtraditions,ȱsuchȱasȱ“aȱSwedishȱ Islamicȱ tradition,”ȱ “aȱ Germanȱ Islamicȱ tradition,”ȱ etc.ȱ Itȱ isȱ imȬ portantȱ toȱ avoidȱ anyȱ generalisationsȱ ofȱ theseȱ nationalȱ Islamicȱ traditionsȱsinceȱMuslimsȱinȱallȱEuropeanȱcountriesȱhaveȱvariousȱ approachesȱtoȱIslam:ȱsomeȱMuslimsȱareȱIslamists,ȱsomeȱpractiseȱ everyȱ littleȱ Islamicȱ precept,ȱ whileȱ othersȱ areȱ moreȱ relaxedȱ inȱ theirȱIslamicȱpractice.ȱStillȱothersȱareȱsecularȱMuslimsȱeitherȱinȱ theȱ senseȱ thatȱ theyȱ regardȱ theirȱ Islamicȱ identitiesȱ inȱ culturalȱ ratherȱthanȱreligiousȱtermsȱorȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱprivateȱreligiosity.ȱ Theȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱapproachȱcanȱbeȱroughlyȱillustratedȱ inȱtheȱfollowingȱterms. 2ȱTheȱIslamicȱsourcesȱwereȱestablishedȱinȱ theȱearlyȱIslamicȱcenturies.ȱTheȱQur’anȱisȱtheȱmainȱsource,ȱconȬ sistingȱ ofȱ divineȱ revelationsȱ toȱ theȱ Prophetȱ Muhammad.ȱ Theȱ hadithsȱ areȱ storiesȱ aboutȱ theȱ Prophet;ȱ whatȱ heȱ said,ȱ did,ȱ acȬ ȱ Thisȱ paperȱ dealsȱ mainlyȱ withȱ theȱ Sunniȱ tradition.ȱ Thereȱ are,ȱ however,ȱ someȱ similarȱ trendsȱ ofȱ newȱ interpretationsȱ inȱ theȱ Shi’iȱ traȬ dition.ȱȱ 2


cepted,ȱorȱrejected.ȱTheȱSunnaȱconsistsȱofȱtheseȱhadithsȱandȱtheȱ practiceȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ threeȱ generationsȱ ofȱ Muslimsȱ whoȱ areȱ viewedȱasȱhavingȱactedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱProphet’sȱexample.ȱInȱ theȱ periodȱ ofȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ theȱ Islamicȱ legislation,ȱ Shari’ah,ȱ MuslimsȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱgenerationsȱusedȱtheseȱsourcesȱtoȱdeȬ duceȱIslamicȱlawsȱandȱregulations.ȱTheseȱlegalȱactivitiesȱcontinȬ uedȱ upȱ toȱ approximatelyȱ theȱ twelfthȱ century,ȱ whenȱ theȱ comȬ monȱ ideaȱ thatȱ lawsȱ establishedȱ byȱ formerȱ Islamicȱ juristsȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ replacedȱ byȱ laterȱ juristsȱ invadedȱ theȱ legalȱ community.ȱ Thisȱwasȱgenerallyȱcalledȱtheȱclosureȱofȱijtihadȱ(legalȱreasoning),ȱ andȱ althoughȱ thereȱ isȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ someȱ juristsȱ evenȱ inȱ laterȱ centuriesȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ extentȱ performedȱ ijtihad,ȱ inȱ generalȱ legalȱ reformȱactivitiesȱdidȱnotȱriseȱuntilȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱwhenȱ theȱ twoȱ scholars,ȱ Shahȱ Waliullahȱ (1703Ȭ1762)ȱ fromȱ theȱ Indianȱ subcontinentȱ andȱ Muhammadȱ Ibnȱ Abdȱ alȬWahhabȱ (1703Ȭ1792)ȱ fromȱ theȱ Arabȱ Peninsula,ȱ startedȱ theirȱ renewalȱ ofȱ Islamicȱ thinkingȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ “turningȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ sources”ȱ insteadȱ ofȱ lookingȱ toȱ legalȱ rulingsȱ deductedȱ byȱ theȱ classicalȱ scholars.ȱ Theȱ intellectualȱ salafiyyaȱ movementȱ inȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ (notȱ toȱ beȱ confusedȱ withȱ theȱ recentȱ salafiȱ trend)ȱ folȬ lowedȱinȱtheseȱreformers’ȱfootstepsȱandȱlaidȱtheȱfoundationȱforȱ theȱrecentȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱapproachȱcommonȱinȱIslamistȱasȱ wellȱ asȱ inȱ secularȱ settings.ȱ Itȱ isȱ temptingȱ toȱ seeȱ thisȱ recentȱ apȬ proachȱ asȱ aȱ “positive”ȱ approachȱ toȱ Islam,ȱ withȱ emphasisȱ onȱ humanȱrightsȱandȱtheȱequalityȱforȱallȱhumanȱbeings,ȱregardlessȱ ofȱ gender,ȱ class,ȱ nationality,ȱ religion,ȱ etc.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ moreȱ extremeȱ groupsȱ withinȱ Islamistȱ communities,ȱ suchȱ as,ȱ forȱ inȬ stance,ȱ theȱ moreȱ recentȱ wahhabi/salafiȱ trend,ȱ willȱ comeȱ toȱ quiteȱ differentȱ answersȱ throughȱ theȱ “backȱ toȱ theȱ roots”ȱ approachȱ than,ȱforȱinstance,ȱbothȱsecularȱandȱIslamicȱfeminists.ȱTheȱsalaȬ fis’ȱ deductionsȱ onȱ genderȱ issuesȱ fromȱ theȱ Islamicȱ sourcesȱ areȱ heavilyȱ influencedȱ byȱ theȱ traditionalȱ genderȱ patternȱ basedȱ onȱ maleȱauthorityȱoverȱwomenȱasȱindicatedȱbyȱaȱliteralȱreadingȱofȱ theȱIslamicȱsources.ȱ NewȱInterpretationsȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱContextȱ Itȱwasȱscholarsȱwithinȱtheȱintellectualȱsalafiyyaȱtrendȱmentionedȱ aboveȱwhoȱstartedȱoffȱchangesȱrelatingȱtoȱgenderȱrelationsȱinȱIsȬ lamicȱ legislationȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ inȱ generalȱ attitudesȱ towardsȱ woȬ men’sȱroleȱinȱMuslimȱsociety.ȱItȱisȱobviousȱthatȱtheȱintellectualsȱ


wereȱexposedȱtoȱWesternȱdebatesȱonȱwomen’sȱliberationȱatȱtheȱ time.ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ ofȱ vitalȱ importanceȱ thatȱ theȱ mainȱ criticismȱ ofȱ MuslimȱsocietyȱbyȱWesternȱcolonizersȱwasȱbasedȱonȱ“feminist”ȱ argumentation,ȱ suchȱ asȱ criticismȱ ofȱ femaleȱ seclusionȱ andȱ maleȱ dominanceȱ inȱ theȱ publicȱ sphere.3ȱ Inȱ Islamicȱ writingsȱ byȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ Islamicȱ scholarȱ Muhammadȱ Abduhȱ (1849Ȭ1905)ȱ changesȱ towardsȱ genderȱ issuesȱ areȱ apparent.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ commenȬ tariesȱonȱtheȱQur’an,ȱheȱdiscussedȱandȱquestioned,ȱforȱinstance,ȱ theȱcommonȱestablishedȱIslamicȱrulingȱofȱpolygyny,ȱi.e.ȱaȱman’sȱ rightȱ toȱ marryȱ upȱ toȱ fourȱ wivesȱ (Abduhȱ n.d.).ȱ Anotherȱ Egyptian,ȱtheȱlawyerȱQasimȱAminȱ(1863Ȭ1908),ȱalsoȱengagedȱinȱ aȱ “backȱ toȱ theȱ roots”ȱ approach.ȱ Hisȱ booksȱ Women’sȱ Liberationȱ (1899)ȱ andȱ Theȱ Newȱ Womanȱ (1900)ȱ markedȱ aȱ turningȱ pointȱ inȱ intellectualȱIslamicȱthoughtȱonȱwomen.ȱAsȱtheȱSwedishȱscholarȱ JonasȱSvenssonȱhasȱobserved,ȱAmin’sȱapproachȱtoȱgenderȱmightȱ haveȱlessȱtoȱdoȱwithȱaȱconcernȱwithȱliberatingȱwomenȱfromȱsoȬ cialȱ shacklesȱ thanȱ aȱ meansȱ forȱ developingȱ Muslimȱ societyȱ (Svenssonȱ 1996).ȱ Svenssonȱ callsȱ Amin’sȱ approachȱ “stateȱ femȬ inism,”ȱ i.e.ȱ womenȱ shouldȱ developȱ intellectuallyȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ helpȱdevelopȱtheȱnation.ȱItȱis,ȱhowever,ȱpertinentȱtoȱseeȱAmin’sȱ “feminism”ȱalsoȱasȱaȱreactionȱtoȱtheȱcommonȱcolonialists’ȱimageȱ ofȱ Islamȱ asȱ aȱ religionȱ hostileȱ toȱ women.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ salafiyya’sȱ “backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱapproachȱmustȱbeȱconsideredȱwithinȱaȱpatȬ ternȱofȱbothȱaȱculturalȱandȱaȱreligiousȱcollisionȱbetweenȱ“East”ȱ andȱ“West”ȱandȱbetweenȱ”Islam”ȱandȱ“Christianity.”ȱ LaterȱMuslimȱintellectualsȱinȱtheȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱtrendȱ areȱtheȱSudaneseȱjuristȱHasanȱTurabiȱ(bornȱ1932)ȱandȱtheȱEgypȬ tianȱIslamicȱscholarȱMuhammadȱalȬGhazaliȱ(1917Ȭ1996).ȱInȱ1973,ȱ Turabiȱ wroteȱ aȱ bookletȱ inȱ Arabic,ȱ Womenȱ inȱ Islamȱ andȱ Muslimȱ Society,ȱinȱwhichȱheȱdiscussedȱvariousȱestablishedȱgenderȱissuesȱ fromȱ aȱ newȱ angle.ȱ Contraryȱ toȱ theȱ traditionalȱ Islamicȱ lawȬ schoolȱlegislation,ȱwhereȱwomen’sȱfreeȱmovementȱisȱrestricted,ȱ heȱclaimsȱthatȱQur’anicȱversesȱdealingȱwithȱwomen’sȱissuesȱinȬ ȱItȱisȱinterestingȱtoȱnoteȱtheȱPalestinianȬAmericanȱanthropologistȱ LilaȱAbuȱLughud’sȱobservationȱthatȱLordȱCromerȱ(1841Ȭ1917),ȱBritishȱ governor/consulȬgeneralȱ inȱ Egyptȱ fromȱ 1883ȱ toȱ 1907,ȱ wasȱ criticalȱ ofȱ women’sȱ subservientȱ roleȱ inȱ Egypt,ȱ whereasȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ heȱ opposedȱsuffragetteȱactivitiesȱinȱhisȱownȱcountryȱ(AbuȬLughudȱ1998).ȱ 3


dicateȱ restrictionsȱ onȱ menȱ andȱ areȱmeantȱ toȱ teachȱ menȱ howȱ toȱ treatȱwomen.ȱHeȱalsoȱdiscussesȱhadithsȱandȱinterpretsȱthemȱinȱaȱ differentȱ mannerȱ thanȱ previousȱ Islamicȱ scholars.ȱ Turabiȱ wasȱ aȱ studentȱinȱFranceȱinȱtheȱ1960sȱandȱitȱisȱrelevantȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱ hisȱstayȱinȱEuropeȱduringȱaȱtimeȱofȱhugeȱsocialȱchangeȱparticuȬ larlyȱrelatingȱtoȱgenderȱrelationsȱinfluencedȱhisȱviewȱofȱIslamicȱ genderȱroles.ȱHeȱstatesȱinȱhisȱbookȱthatȱitȱisȱbetterȱforȱwomenȱtoȱ beȱliberatedȱthroughȱIslamȱratherȱthanȱfromȱIslam,ȱanotherȱproofȱ thatȱtheȱEuropeanȱexperienceȱofȱwomenȱliberation’sȱsecularȱnaȬ tureȱhasȱaffectedȱhisȱthinkingȱ(seeȱTurabiȱn.d.,ȱ2000).ȱ AlȬGhazaliȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱtwoȱIslamicȱscholarsȱwhoȱwroteȱ aȱ prefaceȱ toȱ Turabi’sȱ bookȱ inȱ 1973.ȱ Contraryȱ toȱ manyȱ otherȱ Islamicȱscholarsȱatȱtheȱtime,ȱwhoȱregardedȱTurabiȱalmostȱasȱanȱ apostateȱ dueȱ toȱ hisȱ approachȱ toȱ genderȱ issues,ȱ alȬGhazaliȱ paidȱ tributeȱ toȱ Turabi’sȱ specialȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ Islamicȱ sources.ȱ AlȬ Ghazaliȱ usedȱ toȱbeȱ aȱmemberȱ ofȱ theȱIslamistȱ organisation,ȱ Theȱ Muslimȱ Brotherhoodȱ (alȬikhwanȱ alȬmuslimun),ȱ butȱ leftȱ itȱ inȱ theȱ midȬtwentiethȱ century.ȱ Hisȱ “postȬikhwan”ȱ (postȬbrother/postȬ organisational) 4ȱ positionȱ hasȱ madeȱ himȱ moreȱ proneȱ toȱ modifyȱ Islamicȱthoughtȱaccordingȱtoȱtimeȱandȱplace,ȱaȱfactȱthatȱisȱparȬ ticularlyȱ apparentȱ inȱ hisȱ booksȱ Theȱ Propheticȱ Sunnaȱ (1989)ȱ andȱ Women’sȱIssueȱ(1990).ȱTheȱmostȱprominentȱmatterȱofȱconcernȱinȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ booksȱ isȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ femaleȱ leadershipȱ inȱ Islam.ȱ Heȱusesȱtheȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱapproachȱtoȱproveȱthatȱwomenȱ canȱbeȱleadersȱinȱMuslimȱsociety,ȱalthoughȱheȱadmitsȱthatȱheȱisȱ notȱ reallyȱ happyȱ withȱ hisȱ ownȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Islamicȱ sourcesȱ inȱ thisȱ matter.ȱ Heȱ drawsȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ that,ȱ inȱ Muslimȱ societies,ȱ womenȱ whoȱ workȱ outsideȱ theȱ homeȱ tendȱ toȱ leaveȱ theirȱ childrenȱ withȱ nonȬMuslimȱ maidsȱ fromȱ Sriȱ Lankaȱ andȱtheȱPhilippines.ȱThus,ȱalthoughȱaccordingȱtoȱhisȱinterpretaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱsourcesȱwomenȱcanȱbeȱleaders,ȱheȱseesȱitȱasȱproblemȬ aticȱthatȱMuslimȱchildrenȱareȱexposedȱtoȱnonȬMuslimȱupbringȬ ȱInȱRoaldȱ2001aȱIȱargueȱthatȱIslamistsȱwhoȱhaveȱleftȱtheirȱorganȬ isationsȱhaveȱaȱmoreȱopenȱattitudeȱtoȱnewȱinterpretationsȱthanȱIslamȬ istsȱ withinȱ organisations.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ strictȱ controlȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ withinȱ theseȱ organisations.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ “postȬikhwan”ȱ (postȬbrother)ȱ indicatesȱaȱpersonȱwhoȱisȱaȱsympathiserȱorȱhasȱbeenȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱ Muslimȱbrotherhoodȱbutȱhasȱleftȱtheȱorganisation.ȱ 4


ingȱ ratherȱ thanȱ beingȱ broughtȱ upȱ byȱ theirȱ Muslimȱ mothers.ȱ Inȱ alȬGhazali’sȱcaseȱtheȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱapproachȱisȱnotȱdirectlyȱ linkedȱtoȱtheȱ“EastȬWest”ȱopposition;ȱrather,ȱheȱusesȱtraditionalȱ legislationȱonȱgenderȱtoȱattackȱtheȱsalafiȱmovement,ȱwhichȱstartȬ edȱtoȱattractȱMuslimȱyouthsȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ1980sȱandȱtheȱbeȬ ginningȱofȱtheȱ1990s.ȱIndirectly,ȱhowever,ȱhisȱapproachȱisȱlinkedȱ toȱMuslims’ȱencounterȱwithȱWesternȱideasȱandȱthoughtȱcurrentsȱ asȱwellȱasȱwithȱanȱincreasedȱoppositionȱinȱMuslimȱsocietyȱtoȱtheȱ WesternȱpresenceȱandȱinterferenceȱinȱMuslimȱaffairs.ȱ Evenȱ femaleȱ scholarsȱ eitherȱ livingȱ inȱ Europeȱ andȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ orȱ influencedȱ byȱ Westernȱ secularȱ thoughtȱ haveȱ developedȱIslamicȱthoughtȱthroughȱtheȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱapȬ proach.ȱ Theȱ Moroccanȱ sociologistȱ Fatimaȱ Mernissi,ȱ theȱ EgypȬ tianȬAmericanȱ historianȱ Leilaȱ Ahmad,ȱ theȱ PakistaniȬAmericanȱ theologianȱ Riffatȱ Hassan,ȱ andȱ theȱ PakistaniȬAmericanȱ politicalȱ scientistȱAsmaȱBurlas,ȱwhoȱhaveȱwrittenȱonȱgenderȱissuesȱinȱIsȬ lam,ȱhaveȱallȱtheȱtheoriesȱofȱsecularȱfeminismȱorȱhumanȱrightsȱ asȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ theirȱ newȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Islamicȱ sourcesȱ andȱ Islamicȱ historyȱ (Mernissiȱ 1987;ȱ Ahmadȱ 1992;ȱ Hassanȱ 1990;ȱ Burlasȱ2002).ȱAndȱlastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱtheȱblackȱAmericanȱconvertȱ Aminaȱ Wadud’sȱ writingsȱ showȱ whatȱ “Islam”ȱ canȱ beȱ inȱ anȱ IsȬ lamicȬWesternȱframeworkȱ(Wadudȱ1992).ȱMoreover,ȱasȱWadudȱ ledȱaȱmixedȱcongregationȱinȱprayerȱinȱNewȱYorkȱinȱMarchȱ2005,ȱ sheȱ anticipatedȱ whatȱ aȱ futureȱ forȱ Muslimsȱ inȱ Europeȱ andȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ mightȱ lookȱ likeȱ withȱ Muslimȱ childrenȱ beingȱ educatedȱinȱlightȱofȱhumanȱrightsȱandȱtheȱgenderȱequalityȱparaȬ digm.ȱ Asȱ theȱ Islamicȱ sourcesȱ inȱ aȱ “backȬtoȬtheȬsources”ȱ apȬ proachȱ areȱ actualisedȱ byȱ Muslimsȱ bornȱ inȱ Europe,ȱ Islamicȱ isȬ suesȱwillȱmainlyȱbeȱunderstoodȱaccordingȱtoȱtheirȱsocialȱrealityȱ andȱnotȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱculturalȱframeworkȱofȱfirstȬgenerationȱ immigrants.ȱ Technologicalȱ developmentȱ isȱ playingȱ aȱ majorȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ pervasiveȱ spreadȱ ofȱ theȱ “backȱ toȱ theȱ roots”ȱ approach.ȱ Theȱ IsȬ lamicȱsourcesȱconsistȱofȱaȱhugeȱtextȱcollection.ȱLegalȱtextsȱbuiltȱ onȱ theseȱ sourcesȱ areȱ evenȱ moreȱ massive.ȱ Moreover,ȱ inȱ tradiȬ tionalȱ Muslimȱ societyȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ sacrednessȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ typesȱofȱtextsȱhaveȱmystifiedȱtheȱinterpretationȱprocess;ȱonlyȱIsȬ lamicȱ scholarsȱ hadȱ theȱ rightȱ toȱ interpretȱ andȱ makeȱ Islamicȱ judgements,ȱ whereasȱ theȱ commonȱ peopleȱ wereȱ toȱ followȱ andȱ acceptȱtheȱscholars’ȱversionsȱofȱwhatȱwasȱIslamicȱandȱwhatȱwasȱ


not.ȱInȱIslamicȱlegalȱthoughtȱthereȱareȱvariousȱcriteriaȱforȱinterȬ pretingȱtheȱsourcesȱandȱforȱbeingȱacceptedȱasȱanȱIslamicȱscholȬ ar,ȱ suchȱ asȱ aȱ profoundȱ masteryȱ ofȱ theȱ Arabicȱ language,ȱ proȬ foundȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱsources,ȱlearningȱtheȱQur’anȱbyȱheart,ȱ etc.ȱ Priorȱ toȱ theȱ technologicalȱ developmentsȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ twentiȬ ethȱ century,ȱ theȱ monopolyȱ ofȱ theȱ scholarsȱ wasȱ easilyȱ mainȬ tained.ȱFewȱpeopleȱoutsideȱtheȱfoldȱofȱscholarsȱhadȱtheȱcapacityȱ toȱcontrolȱtheȱwholeȱcollectionȱofȱtexts.ȱViaȱCDȬROMȱandȱlaterȱ theȱ Internet,ȱ theȱ Islamicȱ textsȱ haveȱ nowȱ becomeȱ availableȱ forȱ everybody.ȱTheȱideaȱofȱ“returningȱtoȱtheȱsources”ȱ(“goingȱbackȱ toȱtheȱroots”),ȱwhichȱstartedȱinȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱhasȱthusȱ expandedȱthroughȱinformationȱtechnologyȱfromȱbeingȱaȱvagueȱ sloganȱtoȱbeingȱanȱestablishedȱmethodȱusedȱbyȱmanyȱMuslims.ȱ Itȱ isȱ particularlyȱ inȱ Westernȱ countriesȱ thatȱ theȱ methodȱ hasȱ spread,ȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ mystificationȱ ofȱ theȱ interpretationȱ processȱ havingȱlessȱpenetratingȱforceȱinȱsocietiesȱwithȱnoȱofficialȱIslamicȱ authorities.ȱInȱMuslimȱcountries,ȱtheȱIslamicȱauthoritiesȱhaveȱaȱ tighterȱgripȱonȱtheȱMuslimȱfaithȱcommunityȱdueȱtoȱtheirȱcontrolȱ of,ȱforȱinstance,ȱmediaȱandȱschoolȱcurricula.ȱ Theȱ newȱ interpretations,ȱ particularlyȱ concerningȱ Islamicȱ familyȱ legislation,ȱ tendȱ toȱ reject,ȱ toȱ aȱ greaterȱ orȱ lesserȱ degree,ȱ collectivisticȱ patternsȱ basedȱ onȱ traditionalȱ Islamicȱ legislationȱ whileȱ promotingȱ individualȱ rightsȱ patternsȱ withȱ justiceȱ andȱ equalȱ opportunitiesȱ forȱ all.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ mainlyȱ dueȱ toȱ youngȱ MusȬ limsȱ attendingȱ schoolsȱ inȱ Westernȱ countriesȱ withȱ aȱ focusȱ onȱ problemȬsolvingȱ teachingȱ withinȱ aȱ humanȱ rightsȱ paradigmȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ schoolsȱ inȱ countriesȱ withȱ Muslimȱ majorities,ȱ whichȱ tendȱ toȱ emphasiseȱ roteȱ learning.ȱ Forȱ theȱ believers,ȱ “Islam”ȱ representsȱ theȱ “good”ȱ values,ȱ andȱ whatȱ isȱ “good”ȱ tendsȱ toȱ changeȱinȱtheȱnewȱEuropeanȱsettingȱfromȱtheȱcollectivistȱtoȱtheȱ individualisticȱ pattern.ȱ Thus,ȱ sinceȱ everyȱ Muslim,ȱ technologicȬ allyȱ speaking,ȱ potentiallyȱ hasȱ theȱ possibilityȱ toȱ beȱ his/herȱ ownȱ shaykh,ȱ thereȱ mightȱ beȱ aȱ rapprochementȱ betweenȱ “Islamicȱ valȬ ues”ȱandȱsecularȱvaluesȱbasedȱonȱindividualisticȱthought.ȱ TwoȱCaseȱStudiesȱ

BelowȱIȱwillȱdiscussȱtwoȱparticularȱcasesȱinȱviewȱofȱnewȱinterȬ pretationsȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱcontext:ȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱandȱtheȱ issueȱofȱMuslimȱwomenȱmarryingȱnonȬMuslimȱmen.ȱAsȱpreviȬ ouslyȱmentioned,ȱtheȱfocusȱisȱonȱnewȱinterpretationsȱbasedȱonȱaȱ


humanȱ rightsȱ perspectiveȱ andȱ notȱ onȱ aȱ salafi/wahhabiȱ modelȱ ofȱ reinforcingȱcollectivistȱsocialȱpatterns.ȱ FemaleȱCircumcisionȱ IslamicȱscholarsȱclaimȱthereȱisȱnoȱexplicitȱQur’anicȱtextȱdealingȱ withȱ femaleȱ circumcision.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ inȱ theȱ hadithȱ literatureȱ thatȱ theȱ textsȱ justifyingȱ theȱ practiceȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ found.ȱ Theȱ folȬ lowingȱ threeȱ hadithsȱ illustrateȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ textsȱ onȱ whichȱ theȱ legalȱjudgementȱonȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱisȱbased:ȱ • theȱfitraȱ(naturalȱway)ȱisȱfive:ȱcircumcision,ȱshavingȱtheȱ privateȱ parts,ȱ trimmingȱ theȱ moustache,ȱ clippingȱ theȱ nails,ȱ andȱ pluckingȱ hairȱ fromȱ theȱ armpitsȱ (AlȬBukhariȱ andȱMuslim)ȱ • whenȱtwoȱcircumcisedȱpartsȱuniteȱthenȱbathingȱbecomesȱ obligatoryȱ(AhmadȱandȱAlȬBaihaqee)ȱ • when/ifȱ (idh)ȱ youȱ circumciseȱ thenȱ doȱ notȱ cutȱ severely,ȱ sinceȱthatȱisȱbetterȱforȱtheȱwomanȱandȱmoreȱpleasingȱtoȱ theȱhusbandȱ(AbuȱDawudȱandȱAlȬBaihaqee)ȱ Allȱ theseȱ texts,ȱ whichȱ haveȱ beenȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ Islamicȱ legalȱ deductionȱ ofȱ femaleȱ circumcision,ȱ areȱ interpretedȱ inȱ variousȱ waysȱbyȱdifferentȱIslamicȱscholars,ȱdependingȱonȱtheirȱparticuȬ larȱculturalȱcontext.5ȱTheȱfirstȱhadithȱdealingȱwithȱfitra,ȱwhichȱinȱ anȱ Islamicȱ contextȱ isȱ understoodȱ asȱ thatȱ whichȱ isȱ accordingȱ toȱ humanȱnature,ȱhasȱbeenȱunderstoodȱbyȱscholarsȱinȱareasȱwhereȱ femaleȱ circumcisionȱ isȱ notȱ commonȱ toȱ concernȱ onlyȱ maleȱ cirȬ cumcision.ȱ Theȱ argumentȱ hasȱ beenȱ that,ȱ althoughȱ shavingȱ theȱ genitalia,ȱclippingȱtheȱnails,ȱandȱpluckingȱhairȱfromȱtheȱarmpitsȱ isȱapplicableȱtoȱbothȱmenȱandȱwomen,ȱtrimmingȱtheȱmoustacheȱ isȱ intendedȱ particularlyȱ forȱ men,ȱ sinceȱ inȱ Islamicȱ lawȱ womenȱ areȱ notȱ allowedȱ toȱ removeȱ facialȱ hair.ȱ Thus,ȱ theyȱ argue,ȱ evenȱ circumcisionȱ isȱ onlyȱ forȱ men.ȱ Scholarsȱ inȱ areasȱ whereȱ femaleȱ circumcisionȱhasȱbeenȱaȱculturalȱtraditionȱprecedingȱtheȱcomingȱ ofȱIslam,ȱhowever,ȱfailȱtoȱremarkȱthatȱtrimmingȱtheȱmoustacheȱ isȱ onlyȱ forȱ menȱ andȱ thusȱ claimȱ thatȱ theȱ hadithȱ appliesȱ toȱ bothȱ menȱandȱwomen.ȱ ȱ Theȱ followingȱ reasoningȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ myȱ extensiveȱ readingȱ ofȱ Islamicȱ textsȱ andȱ discussionsȱ withȱ Islamicȱ scholarsȱ andȱ intellectualsȱ fromȱvariousȱpartsȱofȱtheȱworld.ȱ 5


Asȱ forȱ theȱ secondȱ hadith,ȱ theȱ phraseȱ “whenȱ twoȱ circumȬ cisedȱpartsȱunite”ȱ(anotherȱexpressionȱforȱsexualȱintercourse)ȱisȱ understoodȱ byȱ scholarsȱ outsideȱ areasȱ withȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ feȬ maleȱ circumcisionȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ descriptiveȱ hadith;ȱ atȱ theȱ timeȱ thereȱ mightȱhaveȱbeenȱsomeȱwomenȱwhoȱwereȱcircumcisedȱbutȱthereȱ isȱnoȱcommandȱinȱtheȱhadithȱthatȱimpliesȱthatȱtheȱpracticeȱisȱ“IsȬ lamic.”ȱAsȱforȱscholarsȱwithinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱfemaleȱcircumciȬ sion,ȱtheyȱclaimȱthatȱallȱhadithsȱdescribeȱhowȱtheȱsituationȱwasȱ atȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ Prophet,ȱ andȱ theȱ practiceȱ atȱ thatȱ timeȱ willȱ automaticallyȱ beȱ “Islamic”ȱ ifȱ theȱ Prophetȱ didȱ notȱ explicitlyȱ reȬ jectȱorȱprohibitȱit.ȱThus,ȱifȱsomeȱwomenȱwereȱcircumcised,ȱthisȱ praxisȱisȱipsoȱfactaȱ“Islamic.”ȱ Thisȱleadsȱusȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱhadithȱabove,ȱwhereȱtheȱProphetȱ allegedlyȱ statedȱ thatȱ “when/ifȱ youȱ circumciseȱ thenȱ doȱ notȱ cutȱ severely,ȱsinceȱthatȱisȱbetterȱforȱtheȱwomanȱandȱmoreȱpleasingȱ toȱtheȱhusband.”ȱThisȱhadithȱisȱtheȱtextȱmostȱcommonlyȱreferredȱ toȱinȱtheȱdiscussionȱonȱfemaleȱcircumcision.ȱScholarsȱwithinȱtheȱ culturalȱcontextȱwhereȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱisȱcommonȱinterpretȱ theȱArabicȱwordȱidhȱinȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱtextȱasȱ“when,”ȱinȬ dicatingȱ femaleȱ circumcisionȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ commandȱ andȱ thereforeȱ “Islamic.”ȱ Otherȱ scholars,ȱ however,ȱ understandȱ theȱ wordȱ asȱ “if,”ȱthusȱindicatingȱthatȱtheȱpracticeȱisȱoptional.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱ latterȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ adviceȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ “notȱ [to]ȱ cutȱ severely,ȱ sinceȱthatȱisȱbetterȱforȱherȱandȱmoreȱpleasingȱtoȱtheȱhusband”ȱtoȱ meanȱthat,ȱifȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱisȱnecessary,ȱonlyȱaȱsmallȱpartȱ ofȱ theȱ femaleȱ sexualȱ organȱ shouldȱ beȱ removed,ȱ sinceȱ femaleȱ sexualȱ satisfactionȱ wouldȱ makeȱ aȱ womanȱ beautifulȱ andȱ sheȱ wouldȱbeȱmoreȱwillingȱtoȱengageȱinȱsexualȱintercourseȱwithȱherȱ husbandȱ ifȱ sheȱ enjoysȱ theȱ sexualȱ act.ȱ Theȱ formerȱ scholars,ȱ however,ȱseeȱtheȱexpressionȱthatȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱisȱ“betterȱ forȱtheȱwomanȱandȱmoreȱpleasingȱtoȱtheȱhusband”ȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ femaleȱ circumcisionȱ thatȱ isȱ betterȱ andȱ moreȱ pleasingȱ toȱ theȱ husband.ȱ Oneȱ scholarȱ whoȱ canȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ beingȱ inȱ betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ polarizedȱ pointsȱ ofȱ viewȱ isȱ theȱ Egyptianȱ scholarȱYusufȱalȬQaradawi.ȱAlȬQaradawiȱisȱEgyptian,ȱthusȱcomȬ ingȱfromȱanȱareaȱwhereȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱisȱcommon.ȱHowȬ ever,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱheȱtendsȱtoȱhaveȱquiteȱanȱopenȱmindȱwithȱ respectȱ toȱ currentȱ issuesȱ inȱ theȱ Islamicȱ debateȱ (see,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Roaldȱ 2001b).ȱ Onȱ theȱ popularȱ websiteȱ www.Islamonline.netȱ alȬQaraȬ dawiȱisȱquotedȱasȱsaying:ȱ

278ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Actually,ȱ thisȱ [femaleȱ circumcision]ȱ isȱ aȱ controversialȱ issueȱ amongȱ juristsȱ andȱ evenȱ amongȱ [medical]ȱ doctors.ȱ Itȱ hasȱ sparkedȱ offȱ fierceȱ debateȱ inȱ Egyptȱ wherebyȱ scholarsȱ andȱ doctorsȱareȱsplitȱintoȱproponentsȱandȱopponents.ȱHowever,ȱ theȱ mostȱ moderateȱ opinionȱ andȱ theȱ mostȱ likelyȱ oneȱ toȱ beȱ correctȱisȱinȱfavourȱofȱpracticingȱcircumcisionȱinȱtheȱmoderȬ ateȱIslamicȱwayȱindicatedȱinȱsomeȱofȱtheȱProphetȇsȱhadithsȱ–ȱ evenȱthoughȱsuchȱhadithsȱareȱnotȱconfirmedȱtoȱbeȱauthentic.ȱ ItȱisȱreportedȱthatȱtheȱProphetȱ(peaceȱandȱblessingsȱbeȱuponȱ him)ȱsaidȱtoȱaȱmidwife:ȱ“Reduceȱtheȱsizeȱofȱtheȱclitorisȱbutȱ doȱnotȱexceedȱtheȱlimit,ȱforȱthatȱisȱbetterȱforȱherȱhealthȱandȱ isȱ preferredȱ byȱ husbands.”ȱ Theȱ hadithȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ cirȬ cumcisionȱisȱbetterȱforȱaȱwomanȇsȱhealthȱandȱitȱenhancesȱherȱ conjugalȱrelationȱwithȱherȱhusband.ȱIt’sȱnoteworthyȱthatȱtheȱ Prophetȇsȱ sayingȱ Ȉdoȱ notȱ exceedȱ theȱ limitȈȱ meansȱ doȱ notȱ toȬ tallyȱremoveȱtheȱclitoris.6ȱ

Itȱ isȱ interestingȱ that,ȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ precedingȱ thisȱ fatwaȱ (legalȱ rulȬ ing)ȱbyȱalȬQaradawi,ȱtheȱeditorȱofȱtheȱwebȱpageȱstatesȱthatȱ“beȬ foreȱdelvingȱdeepȱintoȱtheȱquestionȱofȱfemaleȱcircumcision,ȱweȱ wouldȱlikeȱtoȱmakeȱitȱclearȱthatȱ‘femaleȱcircumcision’ȱmeansȱreȬ movingȱtheȱprepuceȱofȱtheȱclitoris,ȱnotȱtheȱclitorisȱitself.”ȱ Manyȱ Somalisȱ livingȱ inȱ Europeȱ haveȱ changedȱ theirȱ viewsȱ onȱ femaleȱ circumcisionȱ inȱ aȱ “backȱ toȱ theȱ roots”ȱ approach.ȱ Theȱ socialȱ anthropologist,ȱ Saraȱ Johnsdotter,ȱ hasȱ showedȱ howȱ SoȬ malisȱlivingȱinȱSwedenȱtendȱtoȱrejectȱtheȱspecificȱformȱofȱfemaleȱ circumcision,ȱ infibulation,ȱ commonȱ inȱ theȱ Somaliȱ context.ȱ Theȱ reasonȱforȱthisȱis,ȱaccordingȱtoȱher,ȱtheȱchangeȱinȱsocialȱpatternsȱ dueȱtoȱmigration.ȱInȱSwedenȱinfibulationȱisȱnoȱlongerȱneededȱtoȱ makeȱ aȱ womanȱ sociallyȱ acceptable,ȱ andȱ theȱ practiceȱ hasȱ thusȱ disappearedȱ (Johnsdotterȱ 2002).ȱ Theȱ Somalisȱ inȱ Swedenȱ useȱ Qur’anicȱ versesȱ toȱ justifyȱ theirȱ argumentationȱ againstȱinfibulaȬ tions.ȱJohndotterȱwrites:ȱ Muslimȱ scholarsȱ propagatingȱ forȱ anȱ eradicationȱ ofȱ femaleȱ circumcisionȱfindȱsomeȱsupportȱinȱtheȱKoran.ȱTheȱpassagesȱ ȱ ”Islamicȱ Rulingȱ onȱ Femaleȱ Circumcision,”ȱ atȱ www.islamonȱ line.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnlineȬEnglishȬAsk_ScholȬ ar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543886ȱ(accessedȱ4ȱSeptemberȱ2009).ȱ 6

ȱ

EUROPEAN ISLAMIC GENDER DISCOURSESȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ279ȱ “Verily,ȱ weȱ createȱ manȱ inȱ theȱ bestȱ conformation”ȱ (95:4ȱ inȱ theȱ Koran),ȱ “Letȱ thereȱ beȱ noȱ alterationȱ inȱ Allah’sȱ creation”ȱ (30:30)ȱandȱ“Heȱperfectedȱeverythingȱheȱcreated”ȱ(32:7)ȱareȱ oftenȱ adducedȱ toȱ layȱ downȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ genitalȱ operationsȱ inȱ womenȱ stronglyȱ conflictȱ withȱ fundamentalȱ valuesȱ inȱ Islam.ȱ(Johnsdotterȱ2002:ȱ65)ȱ

Thereȱis,ȱhowever,ȱalsoȱreasonȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱtheȱSwedishȱ lawȱ prohibitingȱ femaleȱ circumcisionȱ alsoȱ playsȱ aȱ partȱ inȱ thisȱ changeȱ inȱ ritualȱ practice;ȱ pragmatismȱ wasȱ notȱ anȱ uncommonȱ partȱofȱMuslimȱlegalȱpracticeȱinȱtheȱpastȱandȱisȱsoȱstill.ȱTheȱlegalȱ conceptȱhilaȱillustratesȱthisȱpragmaticȱaspectȱinȱIslamicȱlaw.ȱHilaȱ meansȱ“manoeuvre,”ȱ“trick,”ȱorȱ“subterfuge”ȱ(Wehrȱ1994:ȱ253).ȱ Itȱ hasȱ beenȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ Islamicȱ legalȱ traditionȱ inȱ particularȱ toȱ protectȱ theȱ politicalȱ leadershipȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ findȱ sociallyȱ accepȬ tableȱ solutionsȱ toȱ “problematic”ȱ Islamicȱ rulings.ȱ Aȱ storyȱ aboutȱ theȱcaliphȱHarunȱalȬRashidȱ(763Ȭ809),ȱtellsȱaboutȱhow,ȱduringȱaȱ quarrelȱwithȱhisȱwife,ȱheȱexclaimedȱthatȱifȱsheȱspentȱtheȱfollowȬ ingȱ nightȱ inȱ hisȱ empire,ȱ heȱ wouldȱ divorceȱ herȱ threeȱ timesȱ (meaningȱaȱfinalȱirrevocableȱdivorce).7ȱAfterȱcalmingȱdown,ȱheȱ repentedȱ havingȱ saidȱ thisȱ andȱ realizedȱ thatȱ theȱ divorceȱ wouldȱ takeȱeffectȱsinceȱhisȱempireȱwasȱwideȱandȱitȱwasȱimpossibleȱtoȱ travelȱoutsideȱofȱitȱinȱoneȱday.ȱHisȱprivateȱIslamicȱscholarȱfoundȱ theȱ perfectȱ solution,ȱ however:ȱ sinceȱ theȱ mosqueȱ wasȱ God’sȱ houseȱandȱnotȱtheȱpropertyȱofȱtheȱcaliph,ȱhisȱwifeȱcouldȱspendȱ theȱnightȱthereȱandȱtheȱdivorceȱwouldȱnotȱtakeȱeffect.ȱ Thus,ȱtheȱcontemporaryȱdiscussionȱonȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱ inȱ theȱ Islamicȱ contextȱ pointsȱ atȱ howȱ changingȱ circumstancesȱ throughȱmigration,ȱasȱwellȱasȱculturalȱimpulsesȱandȱinfluencesȱ fromȱoutside,ȱcanȱbringȱaboutȱchangesȱinȱtheologicalȱdoctrines.ȱ Islamicȱlawȱwasȱdevelopedȱandȱestablishedȱasȱaȱ“divine”ȱlawȱinȱ earlyȱ Islamicȱ history.ȱ Theȱ lawȱ wasȱ basedȱ onȱ circumstancesȱ atȱ thatȱtimeȱ–ȱasȱisȱapparentȱinȱtheȱdiscrepanciesȱwithinȱIslamicȱleȬ gislationȱonȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱinȱtheȱvariousȱgeographicalȱreȬ gionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Muslimȱ world.ȱ Theȱ recentȱ reformȱ thinking,ȱ howȬ ever,ȱ includesȱ contemporaryȱ circumstances,ȱ withȱ resistanceȱ toȱ certainȱ culturalȱ andȱ religiousȱ practicesȱ bothȱ inȱ Muslimȱ comȬ ȱ Islamicȱ scholarsȱ tellȱ thisȱ storyȱ toȱ showȱ theȱ flexibilityȱ ofȱ theȱ IsȬ lamicȱlaw.ȱ 7


munitiesȱ inȱ Westernȱ societyȱ byȱ theȱ majorityȱ societyȱ andȱ inȱ countriesȱ withȱ Muslimȱ majoritiesȱ byȱ theȱ internationalȱ comȬ munity,ȱsuchȱasȱforȱinstanceȱFNȱresolutions,ȱofȱwhichȱCEDAWȱ (ConventionȱonȱtheȱEliminationȱofȱAllȱFormsȱofȱDiscriminationȱ againstȱWomen)ȱisȱtheȱmostȱprominent.ȱ CanȱMuslimȱWomenȱMarryȱNonȬMuslimȱMen?ȱ Asȱinȱtheȱissueȱofȱfemaleȱcircumcision,ȱtheȱmajorityȱsocietyȱandȱ internationalȱ pressureȱ haveȱ beenȱ drivingȱ forcesȱ inȱ theȱ discusȬ sionȱ onȱ Muslimȱ women’sȱ rightȱ toȱ marryȱ nonȬMuslimȱ men.ȱ However,ȱalthoughȱtheȱissueȱofȱfemaleȱcircumcisionȱhasȱbeenȱaȱ subjectȱ ofȱ discussionȱ inȱ recentȱ decades,ȱ theȱ Muslimȱ women’sȱ rightȱ toȱ marryȱ aȱ nonȬMuslimȱ isȱ aȱ ratherȱ newȱ topicȱ inȱ Islamicȱ discourse.ȱ Theȱ impetusȱ behindȱ itsȱ onsetȱ isȱ theȱ humanȱ rightsȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ equality;ȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ againstȱ Muslimȱ womenȱ marryingȱ outsideȱ theȱ fold,ȱ Muslimȱ menȱ mayȱ marryȱ nonȬMuslimȱ women.ȱ Theȱ recentȱ emphasisȱ onȱ honorȬreȬ latedȱviolenceȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱmajorityȱsocietyȱhasȱincitedȱdisȬ cussionsȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ majorityȱ societyȱ inȱ someȱ Europeanȱ counȬ tries.ȱ Theȱ caseȱ ofȱ theȱ Swedishȱ womanȱ withȱ aȱ Kurdishȱ culturalȱ background,ȱ Fadimeȱ Sahindal,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ murderedȱ byȱ herȱ faȬ ther,ȱindicatesȱbothȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱEuropeanȱcountriesȱ inȱ handlingȱ migrantȱ problemsȱ andȱ howȱ Muslimsȱ mightȱ beȱ forcedȱbyȱtheȱmajorityȱdiscourseȱtoȱreevaluateȱtheirȱtheologicalȱ doctrines.ȱ Whenȱ Fadimeȱ wasȱ killed,ȱ theȱ majorityȱ discussionȱ inȱ SweȬ denȱ startedȱ withȱ discussingȱ Islamȱ asȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ honorȱ killing.ȱAfterȱoneȱday,ȱaȱmemberȱofȱherȱfamilyȱwentȱpublicȱandȱ statedȱthatȱtheȱfamilyȱwasȱnotȱreligious,ȱwhichȱtheȱfather’sȱcomȬ munist/socialistȱbackgroundȱalsoȱindicated.ȱThenȱtheȱdiscussionȱ continued,ȱbutȱnowȱinȱtermsȱofȱKurdishȱ“culture”ȱratherȱthanȱofȱ “Islam.”ȱInȱDenmarkȱandȱNorway,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱdiscussionȱonȱ Famide’sȱdeathȱcameȱtoȱbeȱtreatedȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱIslamicȱdogȬ maȱthatȱMuslimȱwomenȱareȱnotȱallowedȱtoȱmarryȱnonȬMuslimȱ men.ȱ Theȱ discussionȱ wentȱ onȱ forȱ monthsȱ andȱ thusȱ forcedȱ theȱ Muslimȱcommunityȱtoȱstartȱanȱinternalȱdiscussionȱonȱtheȱissue.ȱ AlthoughȱtheȱgreatȱmajorityȱofȱMuslimsȱareȱstillȱofȱtheȱopinionȱ thatȱitȱisȱ“Islamic”ȱthatȱwomenȱmarryȱwithinȱtheȱfaith,ȱIȱdiscovȬ


eredȱthatȱsomeȱreformȱMuslims8ȱstartedȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱissueȱinȱaȱ “backȱ toȱ theȱ roots”ȱ approach.ȱ Inȱ discussionsȱ withȱ theseȱ intelȬ lectualsȱtheyȱreferredȱtoȱtheȱfollowingȱthreeȱQur’anicȱversesȱthatȱ haveȱbeenȱusedȱbyȱtheȱclassicȱscholarsȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱprohibiȬ tion:ȱ 1.ȱ Doȱ notȱ marryȱ unbelievingȱ womenȱ (idolaters),ȱ untilȱ theyȱ beȬ lieve:ȱ Aȱ slaveȱ womanȱ whoȱ believesȱ isȱ betterȱ thanȱ anȱ unbeȬ lievingȱ woman,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ sheȱ alluresȱ you.ȱ Norȱ marryȱ (yourȱ girls)ȱ toȱ unbelieversȱ untilȱ theyȱ believe:ȱ Aȱ manȱ slaveȱ whoȱ believesȱ isȱ betterȱ thanȱ anȱ unbeliever,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ heȱ alluresȱyou.ȱUnbelieversȱdoȱ(but)ȱbeckonȱyouȱtoȱtheȱFire.ȱButȱ Godȱ beckonsȱ byȱ Hisȱ Graceȱ toȱ theȱ Gardenȱ (ofȱ bliss)ȱ andȱ forȬ giveness,ȱ andȱ makesȱ Hisȱ Signsȱ clearȱ toȱ mankind:ȱ Thatȱ theyȱ mayȱcelebrateȱHisȱpraiseȱ(Qur’anȱ2:221).ȱ 2.ȱMenȱareȱinȱchargeȱofȱwomen,ȱbecauseȱGodȱhathȱmadeȱtheȱoneȱ ofȱ themȱ toȱ excelȱ theȱ other,ȱ andȱ becauseȱ theyȱ spendȱ ofȱ theirȱ propertyȱ (forȱ theȱ supportȱ ofȱ women).ȱ Soȱ goodȱ womenȱ areȱ theȱ obedient,ȱ guardingȱ inȱ secretȱ thatȱ whichȱ Godȱ hathȱ guardedȱ(Qur’anȱ4:34).ȱ 3.ȱOȱyeȱwhoȱbelieve!ȱWhenȱbelievingȱwomenȱcomeȱuntoȱyouȱasȱ fugitives,ȱ examineȱ them.ȱ Godȱ isȱ Bestȱ Awareȱ ofȱ theirȱ faith.ȱ Then,ȱifȱyeȱknowȱthemȱforȱtrueȱbelievers,ȱsendȱthemȱnotȱbackȱ untoȱtheȱdisbelievers.ȱTheyȱareȱnotȱlawfulȱforȱthemȱ(theȱdisȬ believers),ȱ norȱ areȱ theyȱ (theȱ disbelievers)ȱ lawfulȱ forȱ them....ȱ GodȱisȱKnower,ȱWiseȱ(60:10)ȱ Inȱ traditionalȱ theologiesȱ ofȱ theȱ lawȱ schools,ȱ theȱ generalȱ ideaȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ firstȱ verseȱ concernsȱ bothȱ menȱ andȱ womenȱ andȱ indicatesȱ aȱ prohibitionȱ againstȱ marryingȱ unbelievers.ȱ Sinceȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Jewsȱ areȱ regardedȱ inȱ Islamicȱ theologyȱ asȱ beȬ lievers,ȱ thisȱ verseȱ doesȱ notȱ concernȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ Peopleȱ ofȱ theȱ Bookȱ(ahlȱalȬkitab),ȱi.e.ȱChristiansȱandȱJews.ȱ ȱ Iȱ discussedȱ thisȱ withȱ twoȱ maleȱ intellectualsȱ whoȱ haveȱ promȬ inentȱ positionsȱ withinȱ theȱ Scandinavianȱ Muslimȱ community.ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ hadȱ discussionsȱ withȱ threeȱ Muslimȱ womenȱ whoȱ haveȱ allȱ hadȱ aȱ uniȬ versityȱeducation.ȱOneȱwomanȱwasȱaȱconvertȱtoȱIslam,ȱoneȱaȱsecondȬ generationȱMuslim,ȱandȱtheȱthirdȱcameȱtoȱScandinaviaȱasȱaȱsmallȱgirl.ȱ 8

ȱ


Theȱ secondȱ verseȱ hasȱ beenȱ appliedȱ inȱ theȱ legislationȱ proȬ cessȱ ofȱ prohibitingȱ Muslimȱ womenȱ fromȱ marryingȱ outsideȱ theȱ fold.ȱ Sinceȱ menȱ areȱ inȱ chargeȱ ofȱ women,ȱ aȱ Christianȱ orȱ Jewishȱ manȱmightȱleadȱhisȱwifeȱtoȱabandonȱherȱreligionȱsinceȱheȱisȱtheȱ strongestȱpersonȱinȱtheȱrelationship.ȱMoreover,ȱsinceȱchildrenȱinȱ Islamȱareȱregardedȱasȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱfatherȱ(IslamȱisȱpartrilinȬ eal),ȱaȱChristianȱorȱJewishȱhusbandȱwouldȱleadȱtheȱchildrenȱintoȱ theirȱownȱfaithȱdueȱtoȱtheȱman’sȱpositionȱasȱtheȱmanagerȱofȱtheȱ family.9ȱ Theȱthirdȱverseȱisȱtheȱverseȱmostȱcommonlyȱreferredȱtoȱinȱ theȱlegalȱliteratureȱdealingȱwithȱwomen’sȱmarriage.ȱItȱdealsȱspeȬ cificallyȱ withȱ women,ȱ andȱ thisȱ verseȱ hasȱ beenȱ understoodȱ inȱ traditionalȱ legislationȱ toȱ prohibitȱ marryingȱ nonȬMuslimȱ menȱ explicitly.ȱ Theȱ reformȱ Muslimsȱ withȱ whomȱ Iȱ discussedȱ thisȱ turnedȱ theȱ traditionalȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anicȱ versesȱ upsideȬ down.ȱ First,ȱ theyȱ claimedȱ that,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ firstȱverseȱtalksȱaboutȱ bothȱmenȱandȱwomenȱnotȱmarryingȱunbelievers,ȱthisȱindicatesȱ thatȱmenȱandȱwomenȱshouldȱ beȱ treatedȱequallyȱ inȱ thisȱ matter:ȱ theyȱcanȱmarryȱbelievers,ȱi.e.ȱMuslimsȱorȱindividualsȱbelongingȱ toȱ theȱ Peopleȱ ofȱ theȱ Book.ȱ Theyȱ furtherȱ discussedȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ menȱhavingȱauthorityȱoverȱwomenȱandȱrejectedȱtheȱgeneralȱunȬ derstandingȱ thatȱ thisȱ verseȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ menȱ shouldȱ decideȱ overȱandȱruleȱtheirȱwives.ȱRather,ȱinȱtheirȱview,ȱtheȱtextȱpointsȱ outȱ thatȱ menȱ couldȱ haveȱ greaterȱ responsibilityȱ forȱ theȱ familyȱ thanȱwomen.ȱAsȱforȱtheȱthirdȱverse,ȱtoȱwhichȱreferenceȱisȱmadeȱ mostȱoften,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱwomenȱstated:ȱ Thisȱ verseȱ doesȱ notȱ stateȱ anȱ explicitȱ prohibitionȱ againstȱ marryingȱnonȬMuslimȱmen.ȱItȱtellsȱaboutȱwomenȱduringȱtheȱ timeȱofȱtheȱProphetȱwhoȱthemselvesȱwantedȱtoȱbeȱfreeȱfromȱ theirȱ nonȬMuslimȱ husbands.ȱ Atȱ thatȱ time,ȱ Muslimȱ womenȱ livingȱoutsideȱtheȱMuslimȱcommunityȱinȱMedinaȱhadȱaȱhardȱ timeȱ withȱ theȱ nonȬMuslims,ȱ andȱ theyȱ thereforeȱ ranȱ awayȱ fromȱ theȱ husbands.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ Muslimȱ authoritiesȱ inȱ Medinaȱ hadȱ madeȱ aȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱ nonȬMuslimsȱ inȱ Meccaȱ thatȱthoseȱunderȱageȱandȱwomenȱwhoȱranȱawayȱfromȱMeccaȱ shouldȱbeȱsentȱback.ȱTheȱQur’anicȱverseȱtellsȱtheȱMuslimsȱtoȱ ȱDiscussionsȱwithȱIslamicȱscholarsȱandȱintellectuals.ȱ

9

EUROPEAN ISLAMIC GENDER DISCOURSESȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ283ȱ examineȱ theȱ womenȱ whoȱ cameȱ toȱ Medinaȱ asȱ toȱ whetherȱ theyȱ wereȱ reallyȱ Muslimsȱ orȱ justȱ fugitivesȱ runningȱ awayȱ fromȱ theirȱ husbands.ȱ Ifȱ theyȱ wereȱ reallyȱ Muslims,ȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ states,ȱ theȱ Muslimȱ authoritiesȱ shouldȱ divorceȱ themȱ fromȱ theirȱ husbandsȱ andȱ theyȱ wouldȱ thenȱ beȱ unlawfulȱ forȱ theirȱ formerȱ husbands.ȱ Thisȱ verse,ȱ inȱ myȱ view,ȱ doesȱ notȱ stateȱ aȱ ruleȱ butȱ tellsȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ howȱ someȱ women,ȱ whoȱ themselvesȱwantedȱtoȱdivorceȱtheirȱnonȬMuslimȱhusbands,ȱ obtainedȱthisȱdivorce.ȱThereȱisȱevidenceȱthatȱmanyȱMuslimȱ womenȱ inȱ Meccaȱ atȱ theȱ timeȱ beforeȱ theȱ Muslimȱ invasionȱ actuallyȱlivedȱtogetherȱwithȱtheirȱhusbands,ȱdespiteȱtheȱfactȱ ofȱ theirȱ beingȱ unbelievers.ȱ Similarly,ȱ theȱ verseȱ aboutȱ notȱ marryingȱ unbelieversȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ orderȱ either;ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ callȱ notȱ toȱ doȱ itȱ becauseȱ itȱ mightȱ beȱ betterȱ forȱ theȱ faithȱ toȱ haveȱ aȱ Muslimȱ partnerȱ whoȱ couldȱ encourageȱ one’sȱ faith.ȱ Andȱthisȱgoesȱforȱbothȱmenȱandȱwomen.ȱ

TheȱQur’anicȱversesȱaboveȱhaveȱbeenȱimportantȱinȱtheȱesȬ tablishmentȱ ofȱ theȱ prohibitionȱ againstȱ Muslimȱ womenȱ marryȬ ingȱ nonȬMuslimȱ men.ȱ However,ȱ historicallyȱ speaking,ȱ itȱ isȱ imȬ portantȱtoȱdrawȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱsocioculturalȱaspectȱbehindȱtheȱ prohibition.ȱAtȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱProphetȱandȱlater,ȱduringȱtheȱforȬ mationȱofȱtheȱIslamicȱlegislation,ȱpowerȱandȱsocialȱcohesionȱwasȱ basedȱonȱreligiousȱbelonging.ȱItȱwasȱthusȱimportantȱforȱallȱfaithȱ communitiesȱtoȱkeepȱbelieversȱwithinȱtheȱfold.ȱThus,ȱsinceȱmenȱ hadȱauthorityȱoverȱwomenȱandȱchildrenȱfollowedȱtheirȱfathers’ȱ faith,ȱ Muslimȱ menȱ whoȱ marriedȱ nonȬMuslimsȱ activelyȱ inȬ creasedȱ theȱnumberȱ ofȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱMuslimȱ community.ȱInȱ contrast,ȱ ifȱ Muslimȱ womenȱ marriedȱ outsideȱ theȱ fold,ȱ theȱ MusȬ limȱ communityȱ wouldȱ decreaseȱ sinceȱ theirȱ childrenȱ wouldȱ beȬ comeȱ Christianȱ orȱ Jews,ȱ andȱ thereȱ wasȱ evenȱ aȱ dangerȱ theyȱ wouldȱconvertȱtoȱtheirȱhusbands’ȱfaith.ȱTheȱincreaseȱorȱdecreaseȱ ofȱ anyȱ ofȱ theȱ faithȱ communitiesȱ atȱ thatȱ timeȱ wasȱ ofȱ utterȱ imȬ portanceȱ forȱ theȱ powerȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ them.ȱ Today,ȱ faithȱ communityȱ affiliationȱ hasȱ lessȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ powerȱ relations,ȱ beȬ causeȱ inȱ modernȱ states,ȱ particularlyȱ inȱ theȱ Westernȱ world,ȱ membershipȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ citizenshipȱ andȱ notȱ religiousȱ beȬ longing.ȱ Inȱ countriesȱ withȱ Muslimȱ majorities,ȱ however,ȱ reliȬ giousȱ affiliationȱ stillȱ playsȱ aȱ role.ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱ inȱ manyȱ counȬ triesȱtheȱhighestȱpoliticalȱpositionȱisȱheldȱbyȱaȱMuslim.ȱThus,ȱalȬ thoughȱ Christiansȱ canȱ beȱ ministersȱ andȱ haveȱ otherȱ highȱ posiȬ


tionsȱinȱsociety,ȱtheȱhighestȱauthorityȱwouldȱalwaysȱbelongȱtoȱaȱ Muslim.ȱDespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱreligiousȱaffiliationȱhasȱnoȱparticuȬ larȱ consequenceȱ forȱ Muslimsȱ livingȱ inȱ Europe,ȱ thatȱ legislationȱ andȱ thinkingȱ stillȱ lingerȱ onȱ inȱ Muslimȱ communities,ȱ probablyȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ minorityȱ statusȱ ofȱ Muslims;ȱ minoritiesȱ tendȱ toȱ feelȱ theyȱareȱinȱdangerȱofȱbeingȱabsorbedȱbyȱtheȱmajority.ȱItȱisȱinterȬ estingȱ thatȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ intellectualsȱ withȱ whomȱ Iȱ discussedȱ thisȱ statedȱthatȱheȱcannotȱabandonȱtheȱIslamicȱruleȱ–ȱitȱisȱforbiddenȱ forȱaȱMuslimȱwomanȱtoȱmarryȱaȱnonȬMuslim.ȱBut,ȱheȱsaid,ȱ“inȱ Europe,ȱthereȱareȱnoȱIslamicȱauthoritiesȱandȱeveryȱMuslimȱwoȬ manȱhasȱtheȱrightȱtoȱchooseȱtoȱfollowȱIslamicȱlawȱorȱnot.ȱThereȱ isȱ noȱ oneȱ whoȱ canȱ stopȱ her.”ȱ Thisȱ statement,ȱ howeverȱ true,ȱ needsȱ qualification,ȱ sinceȱ honorȬrelatedȱ violenceȱ mightȱ wellȱ stopȱaȱMuslimȱwomanȱfromȱmarryingȱtheȱmanȱsheȱwants.ȱ InȱthisȱcontextȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱdrawȱattentionȱtoȱTurabi’sȱ reasoningȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theseȱ issues,ȱ aȱ reasoningȱ thatȱ reȬ semblesȱthatȱofȱtheȱMuslimȱintellectualsȱwithȱwhomȱIȱdiscussedȱ theȱissuesȱinȱ Scandinavia.ȱInȱ Aprilȱ 2006,ȱaȱ LondonȬbasedȱ Arabȱ newspaperȱinterviewedȱTurabiȱinȱwhichȱheȱstatedȱthatȱMuslimȱ womenȱhaveȱtheȱrightȱtoȱmarryȱChristianȱandȱJewishȱmenȱ(SuȬ danȱ Tribuneȱ [21ȱ Aprilȱ 2006]).ȱ Heȱ statedȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ readȱ aboutȱ anȱAmericanȱwomanȱwhoȱwasȱforcedȱtoȱdivorceȱherȱnonȬMusȬ limȱhusbandȱwhenȱsheȱconvertedȱtoȱIslam,ȱandȱthereȱwasȱevenȱaȱ dangerȱthatȱsheȱwouldȱnotȱgainȱcustodyȱofȱherȱchildren.ȱTurabiȱ arguedȱ thatȱ heȱ couldȱ notȱ findȱ anyȱ passageȱ inȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ thatȱ prohibitsȱaȱMuslimȱwomanȱfromȱmarryingȱaȱChristianȱorȱaȱJew.ȱ Heȱ furtherȱ statedȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ lookȱ atȱ theȱ aspectȱ ofȱ da’waȱ(callȱtoȱ Islam)ȱ inȱ thisȱmatter,ȱ since,ȱ asȱaȱ convert,ȱtheȱ woȬ manȱcouldȱinfluenceȱallȱtheȱpeopleȱaroundȱherȱtoȱconvertȱtoȱIsȬ lamȱasȱwell.ȱThatȱaȱconvertedȱwomanȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtoȱdivorceȱ herȱnonȬMuslimȱhusbandȱisȱalsoȱaȱfatwaȱ(anȱIslamicȱlegalȱjudgeȬ ment)ȱ issuedȱ byȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Fatwaȱ andȱ Researchȱ Councilȱ headedȱbyȱalȬQaradawi.ȱHowever,ȱTurabiȱgoesȱfurtherȱthanȱthisȱ Council.ȱIȱinterviewedȱTurabiȱinȱ2007, 10ȱandȱheȱstatedȱexplicitlyȱ thatȱ hisȱ judgmentȱ doesȱ notȱ onlyȱ applyȱ toȱ convertedȱ women:ȱ anyȱMuslimȱwomanȱcouldȱmarryȱaȱChristianȱorȱaȱJew.ȱ“But,”ȱheȱ ȱTheȱinterviewȱwithȱHasanȱTurabiȱwasȱconductedȱtogetherȱwithȱ myȱcolleague,ȱLivȱTønnessen,ȱinȱKhartoum,ȱSudanȱ2007.ȱ 10


claimed,ȱ “atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ sinceȱ Muslimȱ menȱ canȱ marryȱ onlyȱ believingȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Jews,ȱ Muslimȱ womenȱ alsoȱ haveȱ toȱ marryȱbelieversȱfromȱChristianȱorȱJewishȱcommunities,ȱsinceȱthisȱ isȱwhatȱtheȱQur’anȱsays.”ȱTurabi’sȱmoveȱmightȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱ politicalȱact.ȱHeȱhasȱbeenȱanȱinfluentialȱmemberȱofȱtheȱSudaneseȱ leadershipȱ sinceȱ theȱ Islamistȱ coupȱ inȱ 1989.ȱ Atȱ thatȱ timeȱ heȱ didȱ notȱmoveȱfamilyȱlawȱinȱaȱmoreȱhumanȱrightsȱdirectionȱofȱequalȱ opportunityȱ andȱ rightsȱ despiteȱ hisȱ prominentȱ positionȱ withinȱ theȱ legislationȱ processesȱ inȱ Sudan.ȱ However,ȱ heȱ wasȱ aȱ drivingȱ forceȱinȱpromotingȱwomenȱtoȱleadingȱpositionsȱinȱSudan.ȱAtȱtheȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ interviewȱ –ȱ whereȱ heȱ expressedȱ hisȱ reformistȱ viewȱ ofȱ women’sȱ marriageȱ opportunitiesȱ –ȱ heȱ hadȱ beenȱ removedȱ fromȱ theȱ leadershipȱ andȱ wasȱ opposedȱ toȱ theȱ sittingȱ governȬ ment.ȱThus,ȱitȱisȱreasonableȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱhisȱcontroversialȱpoȬ liticalȱreformȱstatementȱwasȱintendedȱtoȱdrawȱattentionȱtoȱhimȬ selfȱandȱthusȱincreaseȱhisȱpoliticalȱsupport.ȱ Manyȱ Islamicȱ scholarsȱ inȱ theȱ Muslimȱ worldȱ reactedȱ stronglyȱ toȱ Turabi’sȱ statements,ȱ andȱ oneȱ prominentȱ scholarȱ atȱ AlȬAzharȱUniversityȱinȱCairoȱevenȱstatedȱthatȱTurabiȱhadȱsidedȱ withȱ theȱ enemyȱ ofȱ Islamȱ (Sudanȱ Tribuneȱ [21ȱ Aprilȱ 2006]).ȱ Thisȱ mightȱ indicateȱ thatȱ thisȱ Egyptianȱ scholarȱ regardsȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ womenȱmarryingȱwithinȱtheȱIslamicȱfoldȱtoȱbeȱaȱmatterȱofȱpowȬ erȱ relations,ȱ particularlyȱ inȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ MusȬ limsȱ andȱ Copticȱ Christiansȱ inȱ Egypt.ȱ Anotherȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ hisȱcriticismȱofȱTurabiȱisȱthatȱheȱbelievesȱthatȱtheȱquestioningȱofȱ traditionalȱ Islamicȱ ideasȱ couldȱ weakenȱ theȱ Islamicȱ creedȱ andȱ Muslimsȱinȱgeneralȱ(SudanȱTribuneȱ[21ȱAprilȱ2006]).ȱ TheȱnewlyȱopenedȱdiscussionȱofȱMuslimȱwomen’sȱrightȱtoȱ marryȱ nonȬMuslimsȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ otherȱ genderȱ issuesȱ highlightedȱ throughȱ theȱ traditionalȱ Islamicȱ understandingȱ ofȱ womenȱ andȱ menȱhavingȱdifferentȱsocialȱrolesȱandȱthusȱunequalȱlegalȱstatus.ȱ Itȱ seems,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ Islamicȱ scholarsȱ areȱ moreȱ reluctantȱ toȱ changeȱtheirȱviewsȱonȱthisȱparticularȱissueȱsinceȱitȱstillȱhasȱsomeȱ sociopoliticalȱimplicationsȱinȱcountriesȱwithȱMuslimȱmajorities.ȱ Manyȱ Muslimȱ societiesȱ haveȱ minoritiesȱ claimingȱ sociopoliticalȱ rights,ȱ whichȱ Muslimȱ secularȱ andȱ religiousȱ leadersȱ areȱ unwilȬ lingȱ toȱ grantȱ them.ȱ Muslimȱ women’sȱ rightȱ toȱ marryȱ nonȬMusȬ limȱ menȱ could,ȱ however,ȱ becomeȱ commonlyȱ acceptedȱ inȱ aȱ deȬ cadeȱorȱtwo,ȱparticularlyȱinȱtheȱMuslimȱintelligentsia,ȱinȱaȱwayȱ similarȱtoȱtheȱincreaseȱinȱsupportȱofȱresistanceȱtoȱfemaleȱcircumȬ


cision,ȱ evenȱ byȱ Muslimsȱ fromȱ areasȱ whereȱ thisȱ practiceȱ wasȱ common.ȱ Newȱ ideasȱ andȱ thoughtsȱ needȱ timeȱ toȱ settleȱ andȱ beȬ comeȱ established,ȱ particularlyȱ forȱ religiousȱ dogmasȱ andȱ docȬ trinesȱthatȱwereȱregardedȱasȱdivineȱforȱcenturies.ȱ Reflectionsȱ Migrationȱ toȱ Europeȱ fromȱ countriesȱ withȱ Muslimȱ majoritiesȱ atȱ theȱ presentȱ timeȱ hasȱ causedȱ encountersȱ betweenȱ individualsȱ andȱ groupsȱ fromȱ variousȱ culturalȱ settings.ȱ Theseȱ encountersȱ haveȱ affectedȱ ideasȱ andȱ thoughtȱ patternsȱ inȱ theȱ Europeanȱ maȬ jorityȱ society,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ inȱ Muslimȱ communitiesȱ thatȱ theȱ mostȱ profoundȱchangesȱhaveȱmanifestedȱthemselves.ȱTheȱtwoȱtrendsȱ inȱ theȱ changingȱ process,ȱ i.e.ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ favourȱ moreȱ theȱ tradiȬ tionalȱsocialȱmodelȱofȱtheȱArabȱpeninsulaȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱProphetȱ MuhammadȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱtendȱtoȱregardȱtheȱIslamicȱsourcesȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ modernȱ ideasȱ ofȱ equalȱ opportunitiesȱ andȱ equalityȱ betweenȱ menȱ andȱ womenȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ betweenȱ variousȱ faithȱ communities,ȱhaveȱaȱsimilarȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱroots”ȱapproach.ȱButȱ theyȱtendȱtoȱarriveȱatȱdifferentȱpointsȱofȱview.ȱ Theȱ focusȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ studyȱ hasȱ beenȱ onȱ theȱ lastȱ trend:ȱ thoseȱwhoȱseeȱIslamȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱmodernȱsocialȱparadigm,ȱinȬ cludingȱ theȱ humanȱ rightsȱ perspectiveȱ withȱ itsȱ emphasisȱ onȱ everyȱhumanȱbeing’sȱequalȱrights.ȱTheȱtwoȱcaseȱstudies,ȱfemaleȱ circumcisionȱandȱMuslimȱwomen’sȱrightȱtoȱmarryȱnonȬMuslimȱ men,ȱillustrateȱtheȱpresentȱongoingȱdiscussionsȱamongȱMuslimsȱ andȱindicateȱhowȱchangesȱinȱtheologicalȱassumptionsȱandȱdocȬ trinesȱmightȱoccurȱbothȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱpressureȱfromȱtheȱmajorityȱ societyȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱnewȬgenerationȱMuslimsȱbeingȱsocialȬ isedȱ intoȱ aȱ differentȱ culturalȱ settingȱ thanȱ theirȱ parents.ȱ Theȱ schoolȱ systemsȱ inȱ Europeanȱ countriesȱ areȱ differentȱ fromȱ mostȱ countriesȱ withȱ Muslimȱ majorities.ȱ Roteȱ learningȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ aȱ prominentȱ educationalȱ methodȱ inȱ Europeanȱ stateȱ schools,ȱ whereasȱmostȱfirstȬgenerationȱMuslimȱimmigrantsȱwereȱtaughtȱ accordingȱtoȱthatȱmethod.ȱThus,ȱfirstȬgenerationȱMuslimȱimmiȬ grantsȱhaveȱaȱtotallyȱdifferentȱviewȱofȱauthorityȱinȱgeneralȱandȱ religiousȱauthorityȱinȱparticularȱthanȱtheirȱchildrenȱandȱgrandȬ childrenȱdo.ȱThisȱshiftȱinȱtheȱviewȱofȱauthorityȱbringsȱaboutȱdifȬ ferentȱanswersȱtoȱsimilarȱquestionsȱinȱtheȱdifferentȱgenerations.ȱ Asȱ inȱ Europeanȱ Christianityȱ andȱ Judaism,ȱ whereȱ religionȱ toȱ aȱ greatȱextentȱhasȱturnedȱintoȱprivateȱreligiosityȱandȱreligiousȱauȬ


thoritiesȱhaveȱlostȱgroundȱtoȱindividualȱinterpretationsȱofȱwhatȱ “Christianity”ȱorȱ“Judaism”ȱis,ȱEuropeanȱMuslimsȱhaveȱstartedȱ movingȱ inȱ aȱ similarȱ direction.ȱ Thus,ȱ “Islam”ȱ inȱ Europeȱ mightȱ eventuallyȱ adjustȱ toȱ generalȱ Europeanȱ patternsȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ ofȱ humanism,ȱhumanȱrights,ȱandȱlastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱanȱidealȱofȱreliȬ gionȱasȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱprivateȱsphereȱandȱnotȱpartȱofȱtheȱofȬ ficialȱexecutionȱofȱpower.ȱ Bibliographyȱ Abduh,ȱMuhammad.ȱ(n.d.)ȱtafsirȱalȬmanar.ȱVolȱIȬXI.ȱCairo:ȱDarȱalȬFikr.ȱ AbuȬLughud,ȱ Lilaȱ (ed.).ȱ (1998).ȱ Remakingȱ Women:ȱ Feminismȱ andȱ MoȬ dernityȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱEast.ȱPrinceton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Ahmad,ȱ Leila.ȱ (1992).ȱ Womenȱ andȱ Genderȱ inȱ Islam:ȱ Historicalȱ Rootsȱ ofȱ aȱ ModernȱDebate.ȱNewȱHaven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Amin,ȱQasim.ȱ(2000).ȱTheȱLiberationȱofȱWomenȱandȱtheȱNewȱWoman:ȱTwoȱ Documentsȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Egyptianȱ Feminism.ȱ Cairo:ȱ Americanȱ UniversityȱinȱCairoȱPress.ȱ Burlas,ȱ Asma.ȱ (2002).ȱ Believingȱ Womenȱ inȱ Islam:ȱ Unreadingȱ Patriarchalȱ InterpretationsȱofȱtheȱKoran.ȱAustin:ȱUniversityȱofȱTexasȱPress.ȱ Cesari,ȱ Jocelyn.ȱ (2004).ȱ Whenȱ Islamȱ andȱ Democracyȱ Meet:ȱ Muslimsȱ inȱ EuropeȱandȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPalgrave.ȱ AlȬGhazali,ȱ Muhammad.ȱ (1989).ȱ alȬsunnaȱ alȬnabawiyyaȱ baynaȱ ahlȱ alȬ hadithȱwaȱahlȱalȬra’yȱ(TheȱPropheticȱSunnaȱbetweenȱtheȱPeopleȱofȱ theȱ Hadithȱ andȱ theȱ Peopleȱ ofȱ Reasonȱ [translationȱ mine]).ȱ Cairo:ȱ DarȱalȬShuruq.ȱ Hassan,ȱ Riffat.ȱ (1990).ȱ “Anȱ Islamicȱ Perspective.”ȱ In:ȱ Jeanneȱ Becherȱ (ed.).ȱ Women,ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Sexuality:ȱ Studiesȱ onȱ theȱ Impactȱ ofȱ ReliȬ giousȱ Teachingsȱ onȱ Women.ȱ Geneva:ȱ Worldȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Churchesȱ Publications.ȱPp.ȱ93Ȭ128.ȱ InterviewȱwithȱHasanȱTurabiȱinȱKhartoum,ȱSudanȱinȱFebruaryȱ2007.ȱ “IslamicȱRulingȱonȱFemaleȱCircumcision.”ȱwww.islamonline.net/servȬ let/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnlineȬEnglishȬAsk_Scholar/FatȬ waE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543886ȱ(Accessedȱ4ȱSeptemberȱ2009).ȱ Johnsdotter,ȱ Sara.ȱ (2002).ȱ Createdȱ byȱ God.ȱ Lund:ȱ Departmentȱ ofȱ Socialȱ Anthropology,ȱLundȱUniversity.ȱ Mernissi,ȱFatima.ȱ(1987).ȱWomenȱandȱIslam:ȱAnȱHistoricalȱandȱTheologicalȱ Enquiry.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Roald,ȱ Anneȱ Sofie.ȱ (2004).ȱ Newȱ Muslimsȱ inȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Context:ȱ Theȱ ExperienceȱofȱScandinavianȱConverts.ȱBrill:ȱLeiden.ȱ (2001a).ȱWomenȱinȱIslam:ȱTheȱWesternȱExperience.ȱRoutledge:ȱLonȬ don.ȱ

288ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ (2001b).ȱ“TheȱWiseȱMen:ȱDemocratisationȱandȱGenderȱEqualisaȬ tionȱ inȱ theȱ Islamicȱ Message:ȱ Yusufȱ alȬQaradawiȱ andȱ Ahmadȱ alȬ KubaisiȱonȱtheȱAir.”ȱEncountersȱ7:ȱ29Ȭ55.ȱ “Sudan’sȱTurabiȱAccusesȱIslamicȱClericsȱofȱMisunderstanding.”Sudanȱ Tribuneȱ(21ȱApril,ȱ2006).ȱ Svensson,ȱJonas.ȱ(1996).ȱMuslimskȱfeminismȱ–ȱNågraȱexempel.ȱReligioȱ46.ȱ Lund:ȱDepartmentȱofȱTheology,ȱLundȱUniversity.ȱ Turabi,ȱ Hasan.ȱ (2000).ȱ Emancipationȱ ofȱ Women:ȱ Anȱ Islamicȱ Perspective.ȱ London:ȱMuslimȱInformationȱCentre.ȱ (n.d.)ȱ alȬmar’aȱ baynaȱ ta’alimȱ alȬdinȱ waȱ taqalidȱ alȬmujtama’.ȱ KharȬ toum:ȱJama’iyyaȱalȬra’ayaȱwaȱalȬislahȱalȬijtima’i.ȱ Wadud,ȱ Aminaȱ (1992).ȱ Qur’anȱ andȱ Women.ȱ Kualaȱ Lumpur:ȱ Penerbitȱ FajarȱBaktiȱSDN.ȱBDH.ȱ Wehr,ȱ Hans.ȱ (1994).ȱ ArabicȬEnglishȱ Dictionary.ȱ Beirut:ȱ Librairieȱ duȱ LiȬ ban.ȱ Østberg,ȱSissel.ȱ2003.ȱMuslimȱiȱNorge:ȱreligionȱogȱhverdagslivȱblantȱungeȱ norskȬpakistanere.ȱOsloȱ:ȱUniversitetsforlaget.

TheȱForbiddenȱFruitȱforȱtheȱNewȱEveȱ ȱ TheȱChristianȱRight’sȱAdaptationȱtoȱtheȱ (Post)ModernȱWorldȱ ȱ SusanneȱScholzȱ ȱ ȱ PostȬSecularism,ȱGender,ȱandȱInterreligiousȱDialogȱinȱEurope:ȱ IntroductoryȱCommentsȱ InȱEurope,ȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱEnlightenmentȱprojectȱhasȱbeenȱ“threeȬ fold.”ȱItȱaimedȱforȱ theȱ radicalȱ separationȱ betweenȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ Faithȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱReason;ȱentrustingȱtheȱrulingȱofȱtheȱpublicȱsphereȱexcluȬ sivelyȱ toȱ theȱ dictatesȱ ofȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ Reason;ȱ andȱ theȱ proȬ motionȱofȱlibertyȱandȱequalityȱforȱall.ȱ(Rosenfeldȱ2009:ȱ2333)ȱ

Yetȱ socialȬreligiousȱ dynamicsȱ areȱ changingȱ theȱ Enlightenmentȱ projectȱinȱEurope.ȱForȱinstance,ȱMichelȱRosenfeldȱobservesȱthatȱ religionȱhasȱbecomeȱ“deȬrelativized”ȱandȱ“deprivatized,ȱandȱasȱ aȱ corollaryȱ secularismȱ fallsȱ offȱ itsȱ modernistȱ pedestalȱ andȱ beȬ comesȱ yetȱ oneȱ moreȱ religionȱ orȱ purelyȱ subjectiveȱ postȬmodernȱ ideology”ȱ (Rosenfeldȱ 2009:ȱ 2336).ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ thatȱinȱEurope,ȱ“Reasonȱlosesȱitsȱmodernistȱgrip”ȱandȱ religionȱ(movedȱfromȱwithin)ȱfindsȱmoreȱroomȱtoȱprojectȱitsȱ truthȱ asȱ absoluteȱ andȱ exclusive,ȱ whileȱ secularismȱ viewedȱ fromȱtheȱoutsideȱbecomesȱmoreȱsusceptibleȱtoȱbeingȱcastȱasȱ yetȱoneȱmoreȱ(false)ȱreligion.ȱ(Rosenfeldȱ2009:ȱ2336)ȱ

Secularȱvaluesȱandȱconvictionsȱhaveȱlostȱtheirȱpower.ȱTheyȱareȱ viewedȱ asȱ aȱ beliefȱ system,ȱ similarȱ toȱ religiousȱ valuesȱ andȱ conȬ victions.ȱ Consequently,ȱ religionȱ leavesȱ theȱ privateȱ realmȱ andȱ stakesȱitsȱclaimȱinȱpublicȱlife.ȱ ThisȱdynamicȱhasȱrealȱlifeȱconsequencesȱinȱEurope.ȱAȱfilmȬ makerȱwasȱmurderedȱonȱtheȱstreet,ȱMuslimȱwritersȱwereȱthreatȬ enedȱwithȱmurderȱforȱtheirȱfiction,ȱnewspaperȱcartoonsȱcreatedȱ unexpectedȱfuryȱ(Fultonȱ2009),ȱandȱEuropeansȱfindȱthemselvesȱ atȱoddsȱwhenȱtheyȱtryȱtoȱexplainȱtheȱreasonablenessȱofȱtheirȱsecȬ ularȱ positions.ȱ Doesȱ theȱ majorityȱ haveȱ theȱ rightȱ toȱ imposeȱ itsȱ viewsȱonȱtheȱminorityȱandȱdoesȱtheȱminorityȱhaveȱtheȱrightȱtoȱ


ignoreȱ theȱ valuesȱ ofȱ theȱ land?ȱ Oneȱ scholar,ȱ Joséȱ Casanovaȱ pointsȱtoȱtheȱheartȱofȱtheȱmatterȱwhenȱheȱwrites:ȱ Whatȱ makesȱ theȱ intolerantȱ tyrannyȱ ofȱ theȱ secular,ȱ liberalȱ majorityȱ justifiableȱ inȱ principleȱ isȱ notȱ justȱ theȱ democraticȱ principleȱofȱmajorityȱrule,ȱbutȱratherȱtheȱsecularistȱteleologiȬ calȱassumptionȱbuiltȱintoȱtheoriesȱofȱmodernizationȱthatȱoneȱ setȱ ofȱ normsȱ isȱ reactionary,ȱ fundamentalist,ȱ andȱ antimodȬ ern,ȱ whileȱ theȱ otherȱ setȱ isȱ progressive,ȱ liberalȱ andȱ modern.ȱ (Casanovaȱ2007:ȱ65)ȱ

Theȱproblemȱisȱthatȱtheȱ“secularȱalternative”ȱhasȱcomeȱtoȱsoundȱ asȱ exclusionaryȱ andȱ intolerantȱ asȱ itsȱ religiousȱ equivalent.ȱ Inȱ postȬsecularȱEuropeanȱsocietiesȱenlightenmentȱprinciplesȱdoȱnotȱ haveȱ theȱ finalȱ sayȱ anymoreȱ becauseȱ aȱ Muslimȱ minorityȱ rejectsȱ beingȱconfinedȱtoȱtheȱrealmȱofȱ“MTD,”ȱi.e.ȱmoralisticȱtherapeuȬ ticȱ deism.ȱ Instead,ȱ itȱ hasȱ becomeȱ clearȱ thatȱ bothȱ religiousȱ andȱ secularȱargumentsȱareȱpartȱofȱpublicȱdiscourseȱtoday.ȱ Sinceȱtheȱ1960s,ȱsociopoliticalȱandȱculturalȱtransformationsȱ wereȱbroughtȱaboutȱbyȱprogressiveȱgrassrootsȱandȱtheȱantiȬVietȬ namȱ movementsȱ inȱ theȱ Unitedȱ States.ȱ Blackȱ Power,ȱ Women’sȱ Rights,ȱGayȱRights,ȱandȱevenȱtheȱEcoȬjusticeȱmovementsȱmadeȱ racism,ȱsexism,ȱhomophobia,ȱandȱecologicalȱexploitationȱkeyȱisȬ suesȱinȱWesternȱconsciousness.ȱJoinedȱbyȱphilosophical,ȱscientiȬ fic,ȱandȱepistemologicalȱinquiriesȱintoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱknowledge,ȱ theȱdiscourseȱmovedȱfromȱmodernȱtoȱpostmodernȱprinciplesȱofȱ knowing.ȱ Thusȱ today’sȱ Europeansȱ recognizeȱ diversity,ȱ globaliȬ zation,ȱ andȱ theȱ shiftingȱ socioculturalȱ andȱ politicalȬeconomicȱ paradigmsȱ asȱ aȱ givenȱ toȱ humanȱ lifeȱ onȱ earth.ȱ Sinceȱ Westernȱ Europeanȱ countries,ȱafterȱ theȱ devastationȱ ofȱ theȱ SecondȱWorldȱ War,ȱ haveȱ orientedȱ themselvesȱ towardȱ theȱ Unitedȱ States,ȱ theyȱ haveȱbecomeȱopenȱtoȱtheȱnewȱsocioculturalȱdevelopmentsȱcomȬ ingȱ fromȱ theȱ Westȱ (Scholzȱ 2000).ȱ Religionȱ hasȱ comeȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱpartȱofȱtheȱpastȱproblemsȱinȱEurope,ȱasȱsomethingȱtoȱbeȱleftȱ behindȱ whenȱsocietyȱaimsȱ forȱ secularȱandȱ rationalȱcooperationȱ withȱ theȱ worldȱ (Bergerȱ etȱ al.ȱ 2008:ȱ 120).ȱ Yetȱ theseȱ comprehenȬ siveȱ transformationsȱ didȱ notȱ eliminateȱ allȱ religiousȱ discourseȱ andȱ practiceȱ (Harrisȱ 2004;ȱ Coxȱ 1965),ȱ andȱ soȱ theȱ questionȱ hasȱ become:ȱ “Howȱ shouldȱ liberal,ȱ tolerantȱ Europeansȱ protectȱ theirȱ

THEȱFORBIDDENȱFRUITȱFORȱTHEȱNEWȱEVEȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ291ȱ

values,ȱevenȱasȱtheyȱprotectȱtheȱrightsȱofȱlessȱliberalȱminoritiesȱ inȱtheirȱmidst?”1ȱWhenȱreligiousȱminoritiesȱrejectȱsecularȱvaluesȱ and,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ promoteȱ fundamentalistȱ religiousȱ positions,ȱ EuroȬ peanȱsocietiesȱareȱconfrontedȱwithȱaȱpublicȱreȬemergenceȱofȱreliȬ gionȱthatȱtheyȱbelievedȱhadȱbeenȱovercome.ȱ Thisȱ developmentȱ bewildersȱ secularizedȱ Europeansȱ beȬ causeȱitȱexposesȱ“aȱseriesȱofȱunresolvedȱissuesȱ–ȱwhichȱforȱdecȬ ades,ȱifȱnotȱcenturiesȱ–ȱhaveȱbeenȱplacedȱinȱtheȱrealmȱofȱtheȱpriȬ vate”ȱ(Bergerȱetȱal.ȱ2008:ȱ105).ȱOneȱofȱtheseȱunresolvedȱissuesȱisȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ secularismȱ didȱ notȱ convinceȱ everybodyȱ toȱ detachȱ themselvesȱ fromȱ religion.ȱ Anotherȱ issueȱ isȱ theȱ fearȱ thatȱ aȱ reȬ emergenceȱofȱpublicȱreligionȱmightȱleadȱtoȱnewȱreligiousȱstrife,ȱ whichȱ hauntedȱ generationsȱ ofȱ Europeansȱ inȱ theȱ past.ȱ Today’sȱ secularizedȱ Europeansȱ wonderȱ whyȱ theȱ principleȱ ofȱ “liveȱ andȱ letȱ live”ȱ doesȱ notȱ offerȱ anȱ acceptableȱ solutionȱ toȱ everybody.ȱ Theyȱ worryȱ thatȱ theȱ Enlightenmentȱ principlesȱ haveȱ beenȱ comȬ promisedȱ becauseȱ noȱ acceptableȱ answerȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ toȱ theȱ question:ȱ“[W)hoȱwillȱgiveȱwayȱtoȱwhomȱinȱtheseȱveryȱdifficultȱ issues?”ȱ(Bergerȱetȱal.ȱ2008:ȱ105).ȱInȱtheȱmeantime,ȱtheȱmajorityȱ rulesȱ prohibitȱ aȱ Muslimȱ minorityȱ byȱ lawȱ fromȱ publiclyȱ pracȬ ticingȱtheirȱreligionȱasȱtheyȱseeȱfit.ȱTheȱlegalȱbattlesȱoverȱheadȬ scarves,ȱminarets,ȱandȱimmigrationȱpoliciesȱareȱonlyȱtheȱicebergȱ ofȱ theȱ profoundȱ sociopolitical,ȱ economic,ȱ andȱ culturalȬintellecȬ tualȱchangesȱtakingȱplaceȱinȱEuropeanȱcountriesȱtoday.ȱ Theseȱ changesȱ alsoȱ affectȱ Christianȱ discourseȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ popeȱ chastisesȱ multiculturalȱ toleranceȱ asȱ theȱ causeȱ ofȱ socialȱ rootlessness,ȱ urgesȱ Europeansȱ toȱ standȱ firmȱ onȱ Christianȱvalues,ȱandȱthenȱreassertsȱtraditionalȱfamilyȱrolesȱandȱ women’sȱchildrearingȱresponsibilitiesȱasȱkeyȱprinciplesȱofȱaȱEuȬ ropeanȱ identity.ȱHisȱ socialȱpositionȱ alignsȱ withȱ fundamentalistȱ MuslimȱviewsȱandȱtheȱChristianȱRightȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱToȱ allȱ ofȱ them,ȱ onlyȱ aȱ societyȱ anchoredȱ inȱ religionȱ providesȱ prosȬ perityȱ andȱ stabilityȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ societiesȱ thatȱ favorȱ multiculȬ turalȱ andȱ secularȱ values,ȱ includingȱ sociallyȱ progressiveȱ viewsȱ onȱgenderȱ(Bergerȱetȱal.ȱ2008:ȱ108).ȱ

ȱ See,ȱ e.g.,ȱ “Inȱ Knotsȱ overȱ Headscarves,”ȱ Economistȱ 392/8649ȱ (19ȱ Septemberȱ2009):ȱ64;ȱMarquandȱ2009:ȱ1;ȱFogelȱ2006/07:ȱ620Ȭ53.ȱ 1


Itȱshouldȱnotȱcomeȱasȱaȱsurpriseȱthatȱgenderȱandȱwomen’sȱ rolesȱ haveȱ becomeȱ aȱ focalȱ point.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ aȱ contestedȱ battleȬ groundȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱlongstandingȱpatriarchalȱreligiousȱtradiȬ tionsȱ inȱ Westernȱ countriesȱ (Bergerȱ etȱ al.ȱ 2008:ȱ 120).ȱ Thisȱ articleȱ providesȱanȱaccountȱonȱtheȱongoingȱpresenceȱofȱtheseȱviewsȱasȱ theyȱ shapeȱ Christianȱ conservatismȱ today.ȱ Theȱ discussionȱ illuȬ minatesȱ theȱ profoundȱ impactȱ Christianȱ conservatismȱ hasȱ hadȱ onȱ Westernȱ countriesȱ forȱ centuriesȱ andȱ theȱ challengesȱ itȱ stillȱ poses.ȱ Theȱ Christianȱ Rightȱ willȱ representȱ theȱ dominantȱ ChrisȬ tianȱ discourseȱ ifȱ nothingȱ changes,ȱ aȱ prospectȱ thatȱ secularizedȱ Europeansȱwillȱfindȱdisturbing,ȱbutȱitȱwillȱperhapsȱalsoȱencourȬ ageȱ themȱ toȱ supportȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ progressiveȱ religiousȱ discourse.ȱ Thus,ȱ anȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ asȬ sumptionsȱ andȱ strategies,ȱ asȱ currentlyȱ advancedȱ byȱ theȱ USȱ AmericanȱChristianȱRight,ȱprovidesȱinsightsȱintoȱtheȱEuropeanȱ situation.ȱItȱteachesȱhowȱtoȱengageȱreligiousȱdiscourseȱeffectiveȬ lyȱ withoutȱ committingȱ twoȱ opposingȱ butȱ interrelatedȱ hermenȬ euticalȱ fallacies.ȱ Oneȱ isȱ theȱ “secularȱ fallacy”ȱ thatȱ rejectsȱ reliȬ giousȱ discourseȱ asȱ irrationalȱ andȱ irrelevant.ȱ Theȱ otherȱ isȱ theȱ “fundamentalistȱ fallacy”ȱ whichȱ acceptsȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ positionȱ asȱ theȱ onlyȱ Christianȱ beliefȱ system,ȱ asȱ ifȱ alternativeȱ Christianȱandȱotherȱreligiousȱpositionsȱdidȱnotȱexist.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ analysisȱ elaboratesȱ onȱ thisȱ dynamic.ȱ Itȱ outȬ linesȱ keyȱ considerationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ discourseȱ onȱgender,ȱfamily,ȱandȱsexuality,ȱasȱtheyȱhaveȱemergedȱfromȱseȬ lectedȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ publications.ȱ Anotherȱ sectionȱ showsȱ thatȱ theȱ secularȱ andȱ fundamentalistȱ fallaciesȱ areȱ interrelated,ȱ aȱ pointȱthatȱreactionsȱtoȱinclusiveȱBibleȱtranslationsȱillustrate.ȱReȬ viewsȱfromȱtheȱsecularȱandȱacademicȱpressȱofȱtheȱfirstȱGermanȱ inclusiveȱ Bibleȱ translation,ȱ Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Spracheȱ (BigS),ȱ andȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱdebateȱ onȱ“genderȬneutral”ȱ Bibleȱ translaȬ tionsȱdocumentȱthatȱtheȱsecularȱandȱfundamentalistȱfallaciesȱareȱ indeedȱinterrelated.ȱBothȱcannotȱseeȱbeyondȱaȱliteralistȬscientificȱ paradigm,ȱ andȱ thusȱ bothȱ rejectȱ religiouslyȱ progressiveȱ alternaȬ tivesȱ (Schüsslerȱ Fiorenzaȱ 2007:ȱ 239Ȭ66).ȱ Aȱ finalȱ sectionȱ exposesȱ literalistȱ hermeneuticalȱ argumentsȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ scientificȬemȬ piricistȱ epistemologyȱ thatȱ hasȱ shapedȱ theȱ Westernȱ intellectualȱ andȱ scientificȱ worldviewȱ sinceȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ Enlightenment.ȱ Itȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ continuingȱ difficultiesȱ ofȱ secularȱ andȱ reliȬ giouslyȱconservativeȱconstituenciesȱinȱWesternȱcountriesȱtoȱdeȬ


velopȱ anȱ intellectualȱ understandingȱ ofȱ religionȱ basedȱ inȱ postȬ modernȱviews,ȱoneȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱcontinueȱtoȱendorseȱstructuresȱ ofȱ domination,ȱ especiallyȱ asȱ theyȱ relateȱ toȱ gender,ȱ family,ȱ andȱ sexuality.ȱ TheȱChristianȱRight’sȱResponsesȱtoȱ(Post)ModernȱDiscourseȱ andȱPracticeȱonȱGender,ȱFamily,ȱandȱSexualityȱ TheȱChristianȱRightȱisȱanȱinherentlyȱUSȬAmericanȱphenomenonȱ withȱ itsȱ ownȱ particularȱ historyȱ inȱ theȱ Americanȱ socioȬpoliticalȱ andȱ religiousȱ infrastructureȱ thatȱ reachesȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ lateȱ nineȬ teenthȬȱ andȱ earlyȱ twentiethȬcenturyȱ battlesȱ overȱ Darwin’sȱ theoryȱofȱevolution.ȱAȱreligiously,ȱpolitically,ȱsocially,ȱandȱecoȬ nomicallyȱ powerfulȱ movement,ȱ itȱ isȱ organizedȱ fromȱ theȱ grassȬ rootsȱlevelȱup.ȱSinceȱtheȱ1990sȱitȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱvisibleȱandȱ prominentȱ movementsȱ inȱ theȱ Unitedȱ States.ȱ Thisȱ holdsȱ trueȱ evenȱafterȱtheȱpresidentialȱelectionȱofȱPresidentȱObamaȱinȱ2008ȱ because,ȱonȱtheȱgrassrootsȱlevel,ȱChristianȱconservativeȱorganizȬ ationsȱ remainȱ deeplyȱ entrenchedȱ withinȱ localȱ politicsȱ despiteȱ someȱclaimsȱofȱanȱincreasingȱintrospectionȱamongȱtheȱChristianȱ Right’sȱ organizationsȱ (see,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Americansȱ Unitedȱ forȱ SeparaȬ tionȱ ofȱ Churchȱ andȱ Stateȱ 2007,ȱ 2008).ȱ Theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ reȬ sponsesȱtoȱ(post)modernȱchallengesȱonȱgender,ȱfamily,ȱandȱsexȬ ualityȱ areȱ notȱ onlyȱ wellȱ articulatedȱ butȱ alsoȱ wellȱ distributedȱ withinȱ theȱ manyȱ mediaȱ outletsȱ ofȱ USȱ society,ȱ soȱ muchȱ soȱ thatȱ theirȱviewsȱareȱusuallyȱidentifiedȱasȱ“the”ȱChristianȱpositionȱonȱ gender,ȱ family,ȱ andȱ sexuality.ȱ Manyȱ people,ȱ especiallyȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ secularȱ orȱ onlyȱ looselyȱ affiliatedȱ withȱ Christianȱ orȱ otherȱ religiousȱorganizations,ȱassumeȱthatȱtheȱChristianȱRight’sȱtheoȬ logicalȱ positionsȱ representȱ mainstreamȱ Christianȱ doctrineȱ andȱ practice.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ Christianȱ Rightȱ isȱ firmlyȱ anchoredȱ inȱ traditionalȱ Christianȱdoctrine,ȱitsȱinsistenceȱonȱaȱpublicȱvoiceȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱ Statesȱ contributesȱ toȱ illuminatingȱ theȱ Europeanȱ interreligiousȱ situation.ȱItȱexemplifiesȱthatȱalsoȱwithinȱChristianityȱtheȱurgeȱtoȱ beȱaȱpublicȱagentȱinȱcontemporaryȱpolitical,ȱsocial,ȱcultural,ȱandȱ economicȱ lifeȱ playsȱ aȱ majorȱ roleȱ today.ȱ Theȱ marginalizationȱ ofȱ religionȱintoȱtheȱprivateȱrealmȱ–ȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱsecularizȬ ingȱparadigmȱinȱEuropeȱ–ȱisȱthusȱanȱunacceptableȱpositionȱnotȱ onlyȱtoȱIslamȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱtheȱChristianȱRight.ȱDueȱtoȱtheȱsecularȬ ization,ȱ Christianȱ organizationsȱ inȱ Europeȱ haveȱ largelyȱ accepȬ


tedȱprivatizedȱfunctions.ȱYetȱIslamicȱfundamentalistȱcommuniȬ tiesȱ inȱ Europeanȱ countriesȱ haveȱ challengedȱ thisȱ arrangementȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ Rightȱ inȱ theȱ Unitedȱ States.ȱ Anȱ underȬ standingȱofȱtheȱChristianȱRight’sȱdiscourseȱisȱthusȱhelpfulȱtoȱtheȱ Europeanȱ contextȱ becauseȱ itȱ illustratesȱ theȱ generalȱ tendencyȱ amongȱtoday’sȱconservativeȬfundamentalistȱreligiousȱcommunȬ itiesȱtoȱseekȱvisibilityȱandȱinfluenceȱinȱpolitics,ȱculture,ȱandȱsociȬ etyȱinȱgeneral.ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ crucialȱ toȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ successȱinȱdefiningȱitsȱmessageȱasȱtheȱChristianȱpositionȱmakesȱ itȱ difficultȱ inȱ theȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ toȱ communicateȱ politically,ȱ soȬ cially,ȱandȱreligiouslyȱprogressiveȱideasȱaboutȱreligion,ȱgender,ȱ family,ȱandȱsexualityȱwithoutȱengagingȱtheȱChristianȱRight’sȱdisȬ course.ȱTheȱproblemȱisȱaȱnarrowlyȱconceptualizedȱhermeneutiȬ calȱframeworkȱinȱwhichȱtheȱChristianȱRightȱsuccessfullyȱdomiȬ natesȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱChristianȱtextsȱandȱtraditionsȱonȱtheȱ oneȱhand,ȱandȱaȱChristianȱunderstandingȱofȱgender,ȱfamily,ȱandȱ sexualityȱonȱtheȱother.ȱThusȱideasȱaboutȱreligion,ȱgender,ȱfamilyȱ andȱ sexualityȱ remainȱ stuckȱ inȱ aȱ Christianȱ discourseȱ thatȱ hasȱ contributedȱ toȱ sociopoliticalȱ andȱ culturalȬtheologicalȱ conservaȬ tismȱforȱcenturies.ȱ UpholdingȱtheȱBible:ȱ TheȱChristianȱRight’sȱStruggleȱagainstȱtheȱ“GenderȱRevolution”ȱ Threeȱ majorȱ positionsȱ characterizeȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ disȬ courseȱonȱgenderȱandȱtheȱBibleȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱconservaȬ tiveȱ Americanȱ Christianityȱ (Scholzȱ 2005,ȱ 2007).ȱ Theyȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱ Bibleȱ isȱ theȱ “actual”ȱ orȱ “inspiredȱ wordȱ ofȱ God,”ȱ butȱ theyȱdifferȱonȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱgenderȱinȱbiblicalȱliterature.ȱFirst,ȱ probablyȱtheȱmostȱinfluentialȱandȱpoliticallyȱpowerfulȱpositionȱ isȱ calledȱ “complementarian.”ȱ Sometimesȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ identifiedȱ asȱ “hierarchicalism”ȱorȱ“traditionalism.” 2ȱItsȱproponentsȱmaintainȱ thatȱwomenȱandȱmenȱareȱequalȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱbiblicalȱrecord,ȱ ȱ Complementariansȱ areȱ “uncomfortable”ȱ withȱ theȱ labelȱ “tradiȬ tionalist”ȱandȱoutrightȱrejectȱtheȱlabelȱ“hierarchicalist”ȱbecauseȱitȱdoesȱ notȱ connoteȱ “mutualȱ interdependence”;ȱ see,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Piperȱ andȱ Grudemȱ 1991:ȱ xiv.ȱ Forȱ aȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ “complementarian”ȱ andȱ aȱ preferenceȱ forȱ “traditionalist,”ȱseeȱGroothuisȱ1997:ȱ15.ȱSeeȱalsoȱGroothuisȱ1994.ȱ 2


butȱ theyȱ haveȱ differentȱ tasksȱ inȱ churchȱ andȱ society.ȱ Second,ȱ anotherȱ positionȱ isȱ calledȱ “egalitarian,”ȱ andȱ inȱ Evangelicalȱ cirȬ clesȱfollowersȱofȱthisȱpositionȱareȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱ“feminists.”3ȱ Theyȱrejectȱtheȱcomplementarianȱnotionȱofȱ“equalȱbutȱdifferent”ȱ becauseȱtoȱthemȱtheȱBibleȱsupportsȱwomen’sȱequalȱparticipationȱ inȱchurchȱandȱsociety.ȱTheyȱalsoȱstruggleȱagainstȱbeingȱsilencedȱ orȱ excludedȱ fromȱ theȱ largerȱ Evangelicalȱ community,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ complementarianȱ positionȱ dominates.ȱ Third,ȱ yetȱ anotherȱ positionȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ discourseȱ onȱ genȬ der,ȱandȱthisȱviewȱisȱheldȱbyȱChristianȱtheologiansȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱ affiliateȱ withȱ theȱ complementariansȱ orȱ theȱ egalitarians.ȱ Thisȱ “moderateȱ Evangelical”ȱ groupȱ engagesȱ Christianȱ conservative,ȱ mainstream,ȱ andȱ evenȱ progressiveȱ Bibleȱ research,ȱ andȱ mainȬ streamȱpublishersȱsuchȱasȱPaulistȱPressȱandȱEerdmansȱPublishȬ ingȱCompanyȱprintȱtheirȱwork.ȱ AȱcentralȱfeatureȱofȱtheȱChristianȱRight’sȱdiscourseȱonȱgenȬ der,ȱ family,ȱ andȱ sexualityȱ isȱ theȱ sincereȱ commitmentȱ withȱ whichȱ proponentsȱ relateȱ theirȱ Bibleȱ readingsȱ toȱ contemporaryȱ genderȱpracticesȱinȱAmericanȱchurchȱandȱsociety.ȱTheyȱconsiderȱ aȱ discussionȱ aboutȱ biblicalȱ genderȱ depictionsȱ notȱ merelyȱ asȱ anȱ academicȱexerciseȱbutȱasȱaȱmatterȱdirectlyȱrelatedȱtoȱtoday’sȱsoȬ cietalȱ andȱ ecclesiasticalȱ life.ȱ Toȱ them,ȱ theȱ Bibleȱ connectsȱ toȱ toȬ day’sȱworldȱbecauseȱtheȱBibleȱisȱtheȱsingleȱandȱmostȱauthoritaȬ tiveȱ guideȱ toȱ Evangelicalȱ Christianȱ faith.ȱ Forȱ sure,ȱ distinctionsȱ canȱ andȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ madeȱ amongȱ theȱ complementarians,ȱ egaliȬ tarians,ȱ andȱ moderateȱ evangelicals,ȱ butȱ overallȱ theyȱ agreeȱ thatȱ theyȱpresentȱbiblical,ȱandȱnotȱtheirȱpersonalȱorȱscholarly,ȱviewsȱ onȱ gender,ȱ family,ȱ andȱ sexuality.ȱ Allȱ ofȱ themȱ shareȱ aȱ sincereȱ commitmentȱ toȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ aȱ passionateȱ struggleȱ overȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱpatriarchalȱgenderȱroles,ȱaȱlackȱtoȱengageȱmainstreamȱscholȬ arship,ȱandȱanȱattachmentȱtoȱgenderȱessentialism.ȱToȱthem,ȱtheȱ Bibleȱ shouldȱ beȱ theȱ foundationȱ forȱ genderȱ practiceȱ inȱ today’sȱ societyȱbecauseȱtheyȱbelieveȱthatȱChristiansȱshouldȱrelateȱbibliȬ calȱteachingsȱtoȱtoday’sȱsocietyȱandȱliveȱbyȱthem.ȱ

ȱSometimesȱtheyȱareȱalsoȱcalledȱ“biblicalȱfeminists”;ȱseeȱCottrellȱ 1994:ȱ 18Ȭ20.ȱ Forȱ anȱ extensiveȱ discussionȱ ofȱ egalitarianȱ biblicalȱ feminȬ ism,ȱseeȱCottrellȱ1992:ȱ239Ȭ338.ȱ 3


Accordingly,ȱ Christianȱ Rightȱ theologiansȱ assertȱ thatȱ bibȬ licalȱteachingsȱhelpȱreadersȱunderstandȱ“God’sȱgoodȱdesign”ȱofȱ “GodȬgiven”ȱ genderȱ identitiesȱ (Piperȱ andȱ Grudemȱ 1991:ȱ 33).ȱ Oneȱcomplementarian,ȱAlexanderȱStrauch,ȱexplains:ȱ Iȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ Scripturesȱ becauseȱ theȱ answerȱ toȱ thisȱ deȬ bateȱ(aboutȱgender)ȱisȱfoundȱinȱGod’sȱWord,ȱnotȱinȱbooksȱofȱ sociologyȱorȱanthropologyȱ….ȱ ItȱisȱessentialȱthatȱChristiansȱ hearȱ clearlyȱ theȱ voiceȱ ofȱ Godȱ throughȱ theȱ Wordȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ counteractȱ secularȱ society’sȱ pervasiveȱ influence.ȱ (Strauchȱ1999:ȱ3Ȭ4)ȱ

Theȱ Bibleȱ supersedesȱ contemporaryȱ convictionsȱ andȱ customs,ȱ because,ȱ asȱ Jackȱ Cottrellȱ claims,ȱ theȱ Bibleȱ isȱ “theȱ inspiredȱ andȱ inerrantȱWordȱofȱGodȱandȱ…ȱtheȱfinalȱauthorityȱonȱallȱmatters”ȱ (Cottrellȱ1992:ȱ21).ȱToȱthem,ȱitȱisȱcrucialȱtoȱreconcileȱtheȱsacredȱ textȱwithȱaȱcultureȱthatȱisȱnotȱBibleȬcenteredȱbutȱincreasinglyȱdiȬ verseȱinȱtermsȱofȱreligious,ȱcultural,ȱandȱgenderȱpractices.ȱ Theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ effortȱ toȱ correlateȱ theȱ Bibleȱ withȱ modernȱ lifeȱ isȱ moreȱ thanȱaȱ centuryȱ old.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ newȱ isȱ theȱ atȬ tackȱ onȱ contemporaryȱ genderȱ practicesȱ packagedȱ intoȱ aȱ tradiȬ tional,ȱ i.e.ȱ androcentric,ȱ theologicalȱ rhetoric4ȱ thatȱ takesȱ fullȱ adȬ vantageȱofȱcontemporaryȱmediaȱandȱmarketingȱtools.ȱItsȱopposȬ itionȱtoȱtheȱ“genderȱrevolution”ȱgoesȱbackȱtoȱtheȱ1960s,ȱfindingȱ itȱ “aȱ radicalȱ departureȱ fromȱ biblical,ȱ apostolicȱ Christianity,”ȱ andȱ thusȱ theȱ movementȱ speaksȱ inȱ essentializingȱ andȱ dualisticȱ categoriesȱofȱbiblicalȱ“manhood”ȱandȱ“womanhood.”ȱTheyȱaimȱ toȱ defineȱ women’sȱ andȱ genderȱ rolesȱ asȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ divinelyȱ sanctionedȱorder.ȱ TheȱNewȱEve:ȱ TeachingȱWomenȱtoȱbeȱGoodȱWivesȱandȱMothersȱ Theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ strategyȱ toȱ advanceȱ traditionalȱ theologyȱ withȱsavvyȱmarketingȱtoolsȱisȱapparentȱinȱaȱpopularlyȱmarketedȱ book,ȱ entitledȱ Theȱ Newȱ Eve:ȱ Choosingȱ God’sȱ Bestȱ forȱ Yourȱ Lifeȱ ȱTheȱofficialȱpositionȱofȱtheȱRomanȱCatholicȱChurchȱsharesȱthisȱ position;ȱseeȱ“OnȱtheȱCollaborationȱofȱMenȱandȱWomenȱinȱtheȱChurchȱ andȱtheȱWorld,”ȱavailableȱonlineȱinȱEnglishȱatȱhttp://www.vatican.va/ȱ roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_2004 0731_collaboration_en.htmlȱ(accessedȱ20ȱAprilȱ2010).ȱ 4


(Lewisȱ2008).ȱInȱfact,ȱthisȱbookȱcaughtȱmyȱattentionȱwhenȱIȱwasȱ browsingȱ theȱ Christianityȱ sectionȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ bigȱ bookstoreȱ chainsȱinȱNewȱYorkȱCityȱinȱ2008.ȱWrittenȱbyȱRobertȱLewisȱ(withȱ JeremyȱHoward)ȱandȱpublishedȱbyȱB&HȱPublishingȱGroup,ȱforȬ merlyȱknownȱasȱ“Broadmanȱ&ȱHolman,”ȱanȱ“Evangelical”ȱpubȬ lishingȱhouseȱthatȱgroundsȱitsȱvisionȱinȱ“biblicalȱauthority,”5ȱtheȱ volumeȱ wasȱ listedȱ withȱ anȱ Amazon.comȱ salesȱ rankȱ ofȱ #51,727ȱ onȱ 12ȱ Aprilȱ 12ȱ 2009,ȱ certainlyȱ notȱ anȱ entirelyȱ reliableȱ compariȬ sonȱ tool.ȱ Still,ȱ feministȱ Christianȱ classicsȱ rankedȱ considerablyȱ lowerȱinȱAprilȱ2009.ȱForȱinstance,ȱElisabethȱSchüsslerȱFiorenza’sȱ InȱMemoryȱofȱHerȱrankedȱ#627,970,ȱPhyllisȱTrible’sȱTextsȱofȱTerrorȱ wasȱatȱ#211,496,ȱandȱMaryȱDaly’sȱBeyondȱGodȱtheȱFather:ȱTowardȱ aȱPhilosophyȱofȱWomen’sȱLiberationȱmadeȱitȱtoȱ#262,657.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ remarkableȱ aboutȱ thisȱ bookȱ isȱ itsȱ comprehensiveȱ offȬȱandȱonlineȱmediaȱpackaging.ȱTheȱbookȱwasȱlaunchedȱwithȱ aȱwebsite,ȱwhichȱcontainedȱinterviewȱvideosȱofȱtheȱauthorȱandȱ videoȱclipsȱforȱeachȱchapter;ȱaȱCDȱcomesȱwithȱtheȱbook.6ȱPreviȬ ously,ȱ Robertȱ Lewisȱ hadȱ developedȱ aȱ smallȱ mediaȱ empireȱ onȱ men’sȱministryȱandȱhadȱwrittenȱbooksȱsuchȱasȱRaisingȱaȱModernȬ DayȱKnightȱorȱRockingȱtheȱRoles:ȱBuildingȱaȱWinȬWinȱMarriage,ȱallȱ ofȱthemȱavailableȱwithȱDVDsȱandȱwebsiteȱorderȱforms.7ȱLewis’sȱ communityȬbuildingȱ strategiesȱ calledȱ “Men’sȱ Fraternity”ȱ haveȱ beenȱreplicatedȱinȱmanyȱchurchȱministries,ȱandȱnumerousȱtestiȬ monialsȱattestȱtoȱtheȱapparentȱsuccessȱofȱhisȱinstructions.8ȱInȱTheȱ NewȱEve,ȱLewisȱexplainsȱthatȱwomenȱaskedȱhimȱtoȱwriteȱaȱbookȱ onȱ “authenticȱ biblicalȱ womenhood”ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ noticedȱ “soȱ manyȱpositiveȱchangesȱinȱtheȱmenȱinȱtheirȱlives”ȱafterȱtheȱmenȱ hadȱreadȱLewis’sȱbooks.ȱSoȱLewisȱcompliedȱandȱconceptualizedȱ

ȱSeeȱhttp://bhpublishinggroup.com/academic/ȱ(accessedȱ27ȱAprilȱ 2010).ȱ 5

6ȱSeeȱhttp://bhpublishinggroup.com/neweve/ȱ(asȱofȱ27Aprilȱ2010,ȱ theȱvideoȱclipsȱdoȱnotȱworkȱanymore).ȱ 7ȱ See,ȱ e.g.,ȱ http://www.rmdk.com/rmdk.htmlȱ (accessedȱ 27ȱ Aprilȱ 2010).ȱ 8ȱ http://www.mensfraternity.com/resources/partners.aspxȱ andȱ http://www.mensfraternity.com/about/pastors.aspx.ȱ


Theȱ Newȱ Eveȱ asȱ aȱ “counterpart”ȱ toȱ hisȱ “teachingsȱ onȱ authenticȱ biblicalȱmanhoodȱ…ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱmodernȱworld.”9ȱ InȱTheȱNewȱEve,ȱLewisȱexplainsȱthatȱcontemporaryȱWesternȱ womenȱfaceȱmanyȱchallengesȱregardingȱtheirȱcareersȱandȱfamiȬ lies.ȱAlthoughȱwomenȱcanȱhaveȱitȱall,ȱfewȱareȱhappy,ȱandȱmanyȱ faceȱ“aȱpainfulȱlifeȱofȱregret”ȱ(Lewisȱ2008:ȱxxi)ȱwhenȱtheyȱmakeȱ theȱ wrongȱ choice.ȱ Fiveȱ issuesȱ confuseȱ today’sȱ women,ȱ accordȬ ingȱ toȱ Lewis:ȱ oneȱ issueȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ changedȱ definitionsȱ ofȱ “femininity,”ȱ anotherȱ toȱ theȱ emphasisȱ onȱ havingȱ aȱ career,ȱ yetȱ anotherȱtoȱtheirȱrelationshipsȱwithȱmen,ȱoneȱtoȱtheȱrefusalȱofȱbeȬ comingȱmothers,ȱandȱfinallyȱtoȱ“theȱmazeȱofȱunlimitedȱchoices”ȱ (Lewisȱ 2008:ȱ 27Ȭ39).ȱ Lewisȱ thenȱ relatesȱ women’sȱ situationȱ toȱ aȱ Christianȱ traditionalȱ paradigmȱ thatȱ distinguishesȱ betweenȱ Eveȱ andȱ Mary,ȱ theȱ “old”ȱ Eveȱ andȱ theȱ “new”ȱ Eve.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ “scripȬ turalȱ pattern,”ȱ Lewisȱ asserts,ȱ thatȱ envisionsȱ “biblicalȱ womanȬ hoodȱlikeȱthatȱofȱAdamȱandȱJesus”ȱ(Lewisȱ2008:ȱ75).ȱLewisȱdeȬ finedȱ biblicalȱ manhoodȱ asȱ followingȱ theȱ modelsȱ ofȱ Adamȱ andȱ Jesus,ȱsoȱwhenȱheȱsearchedȱforȱaȱsimilarȱparadigmȱforȱwomen,ȱ heȱwasȱaskingȱhimself:ȱ IfȱJesusȱisȱtheȱsecondȱAdam,ȱisȱthereȱaȱsecondȱEve?ȱAlmostȱ asȱ soonȱ asȱ Iȱ askedȱ thatȱ question,ȱ Iȱ hadȱ myȱ answer.ȱ Mary.ȱ Thisȱspecialȱwomanȱpresentsȱherselfȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱtoȱbeȱ consideredȱ Eve’sȱ righteousȱ twin.ȱ Anyȱ seriousȱ readerȱ ofȱ Scriptureȱcan’tȱhelpȱbutȱnoticeȱthis.ȱ(Lewisȱ2008:ȱ75)ȱ

LikeȱclassicȱChristianȱdoctrine,ȱthen,ȱLewisȱemphasizesȱtwoȱbibȬ licalȱ women,ȱ Eveȱ andȱ Maryȱ andȱ renamesȱ Maryȱ asȱ theȱ “newȱ Eve.”ȱTheyȱserveȱasȱmodelsȱforȱtoday’sȱwomen.ȱ ToȱLewis,ȱtheȱbiblicalȱ“old”ȱorȱ“first”ȱEveȱrepresentsȱaȱtypeȱ ofȱ womanȱwhoȱenjoysȱ “immenseȱ freedomsȱ andȱopportunities”ȱ butȱ makesȱ “theȱ wrongȱ choicesȱ thatȱ squanderedȱ herȱ potential.”ȱ Asȱ inȱ classicȱ Christianȱ theology,ȱ Eveȱ isȱ aȱ negativeȱ roleȱ model.ȱ Sheȱ takesȱ theȱ forbiddenȱ fruitȱ whichȱ Lewisȱ parallelsȱ withȱ woȬ menȱ whoȱ focusȱ onȱ theirȱ careersȱ onlyȱ andȱ doȱ notȱ devoteȱ theirȱ fullȱ attentionȱ toȱ husbandsȱ andȱ children.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ fallenȱ preyȱ toȱ theȱ temptationȱ ofȱ theȱ “old”ȱ Eveȱ andȱ ignoreȱ “God’sȱ comȬ ȱ Seeȱ http://bhpublishinggroup.com/neweve/book.aspȱ (accessedȱ 27ȱAprilȱ2010).ȱ 9


mand”ȱ inȱ Genesisȱ 1:28ȱ (“Beȱ fruitfulȱ andȱ multiply.”).ȱ Toȱ them,ȱ “motherhoodȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ automaticȱ orȱ evenȱ aȱ topȱ priority”ȱ (Lewisȱ2008:ȱ37).ȱ LewisȱadvisesȱthatȱChristianȱwomenȱmakeȱaȱbetterȱchoice,ȱ oneȱthatȱadheresȱtoȱtheȱprinciplesȱofȱMary,ȱ“theȱNewȱEve”ȱwhoȱ “knowsȱhowȱtoȱnavigateȱourȱmodernȱworldȱandȱitsȱendlessȱopȬ portunities”ȱ (Lewisȱ 2008:ȱ 37).ȱ Theȱ newȱ Eveȱ “makesȱ theȱ rightȱ choices”ȱbecauseȱsheȱgroundsȱherȱlifeȱinȱtheȱBible.ȱHerȱlifeȱisȱnotȱ committedȱtoȱestablishingȱaȱcareerȱandȱhavingȱprofessionalȱsucȬ cess.ȱInstead,ȱitȱisȱdefinedȱbyȱtenȱphases.ȱItȱbeginsȱwithȱbeingȱaȱ “singleȱ adult,”ȱ thenȱ movesȱ toȱ “singleȱ andȱ engaged,”ȱ “newlyȱ marriedȱ andȱ noȱ children,”ȱ “marriedȱ withȱ preschoolers,”ȱ “marȬ riedȱ withȱ gradeȬschoolers,”ȱ “marriedȱ andȱ youngȬadultȱ childȬ ren,”ȱ“marriedȱandȱemptyȱnester,”ȱ“marriedȱandȱinȬlawȱgrandȬ parent,”ȱ “lateȬinȬlifeȱ widow,”ȱ andȱ finallyȱ itȱ endsȱ inȱ beingȱ aȱ “glorifiedȱ saint”ȱ (Lewisȱ 2008:ȱ 93).ȱ Aȱ woman’sȱ “coreȱ calling”ȱ isȱ thusȱ toȱ nurtureȱ aȱ “deepȱ companionship”ȱ withȱ herȱ husband,ȱ “raiseȱandȱlaunchȱhealthyȱchildren,”ȱandȱ“advanceȱGod’sȱkingȬ dom”ȱ(Lewisȱ2008:ȱ171).ȱAȱnewȱEve’sȱlifeȱisȱcharacterizedȱbyȱbeȬ ingȱwifeȱandȱmother.ȱ Itȱ isȱ impressiveȱ and,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ irritatingȱ thatȱ thisȱ traditionalȱ patriarchalȱ theologicalȱ perspectiveȱ hasȱ gainedȱ considerableȱ popularityȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ circles.ȱ Countlessȱ similarȱ publicationsȱexist.ȱForȱinstance,ȱCarolynȱMcCulleyȱpublishedȱaȱ book,ȱ entitledȱ Radicalȱ Womanhood:ȱ Feminineȱ Faithȱ inȱ aȱ Feministȱ World,ȱinȱwhichȱsheȱexplainsȱ“howȱfeminismȱcameȱabout,ȱhowȱ itȱ influencedȱ myȱ thinking,ȱ andȱ whyȱ femininityȱ asȱ definedȱ byȱ theȱBibleȱwasn’tȱaȱthrowȬbackȱtoȱsomeȱhorribleȱera”ȱ(McCulleyȱ 2008:ȱ 28).ȱ Toȱ her,ȱ aȱ woman’sȱ lifeȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ groundedȱ inȱ theȱ Bible,ȱwhichȱmeansȱthatȱherȱlifeȱisȱdefinedȱbyȱmarriage,ȱhavingȱ andȱ raisingȱ children,ȱ listeningȱ toȱ herȱ husband,ȱ andȱ sittingȱ “atȱ theȱ feetȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ receiveȱ fromȱ Himȱ …”ȱ (McCulleyȱ 2008:ȱ 199).ȱ Theȱ messageȱ isȱ veryȱ similarȱ inȱ otherȱ titles,ȱ suchȱ asȱ ElyseȱFitzpatrick’sȱhelperȱbyȱdesign:ȱGod’sȱPerfectȱPlanȱforȱWomenȱ inȱMarriageȱ(Fitzpatrickȱ2003)ȱorȱNancyȱLeighȱDeMoss’sȱLiesȱWoȬ menȱ Believeȱ andȱ theȱ Truthȱ Thatȱ Setsȱ Themȱ Freeȱ (DeMossȱ 2001).ȱ Theseȱ booksȱ illustrateȱ theȱ tendencyȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ movementȱ toȱ engageȱ allȱ mediaȱ andȱ marketingȱ toolsȱ toȱ comȬ municateȱ conventionalȱ androcentricȱ messagesȱ toȱ womenȱ effecȬ tively.ȱ Itȱ isȱ “reactionary”ȱ Christianȱ theologyȱ thatȱ respondsȱ toȱ


theȱ (post)modernȱ worldȱ inȱ aȱ technologicallyȱ advancedȱ andȱ atȬ tractiveȱpackagingȱformat.ȱOtherȱexamplesȱabound,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ teachingsȱofȱBethȱMooreȱandȱherȱ“LivingȱProofȱMinistries”ȱthatȱ initiallyȱtargetedȱwomenȱaudiencesȱandȱincreasinglyȱalsoȱmen.10ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ genderȱ isȱ anȱ importantȱ issueȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ Rightȱandȱhelpsȱtheȱmovementȱtoȱreinforceȱandrocentricȱgenderȱ rolesȱasȱaȱ“defense”ȱagainstȱ(post)modernȱdevelopments.ȱ Theȱ relativeȱ successȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ theologicalȱ perspectiveȱ isȱ deeplyȱ groundedȱ inȱ theȱ sociopoliticalȱ developȬ mentsȱthatȱhaveȱfosteredȱmulticulturalȱandȱsecularȱwaysȱofȱlife.ȱ TheȱChristianȱRightȱalsoȱfightsȱtheȱEnlightenmentȱpositionȱthatȱ relegatedȱ religionȱ toȱ theȱ privateȱ realm.ȱ Similarȱ toȱ fundamenȬ talistȱMuslimȱcommunitiesȱinȱEurope,ȱtheȱUSȬmovementȱassertsȱ publicȱinfluenceȱonȱsocioȬculturalȱissues,ȱespeciallyȱbutȱnotȱexȬ clusivelyȱonȱgender.ȱTheyȱrejectȱmulticulturalȱandȱsecularȱwaysȱ ofȱlifeȱbecauseȱtheyȱwantȱtoȱbringȱbackȱreligiousȱconvictionsȱinȬ toȱ aȱ secularizedȱ society.ȱ Inȱ turn,ȱ secularizedȱ constituenciesȱ reȬ sistȱreligiousȱclaimsȱtowardȱpublicȱpower.ȱAȱcircularȱpatternȱofȱ assertionȱandȱresistanceȱlocksȱtheȱdiscourseȱintoȱanȱongoingȱcyȬ cle.ȱ Neitherȱ groupȱ understandsȱ theȱ limitedȱ hermeneuticalȱ frameworkȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱoperate.ȱTheȱdebateȱonȱinclusiveȱBibleȱ translationsȱillustratesȱthisȱdynamic,ȱandȱsoȱtheȱnextȱsectionȱwillȱ focusȱonȱit.ȱ TheȱBibleȱasȱ“Men’s”ȱWords:ȱ TheȱChallengeȱofȱInclusiveȱBibleȱTranslationsȱ Theȱ hermeneuticalȱ tensionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ fundamentalistȱ andȱ secularȱfallaciesȱfoundȱanȱoutletȱinȱtheȱdebateȱonȱinclusiveȱBibleȱ translations.ȱ Itȱ showsȱ thatȱ theȱ insistenceȱ onȱ aȱ literalȬscientificȱ hermeneuticsȱisȱsharedȱbyȱbothȱChristianȱconservativeȱandȱsecȬ ularȱ commentatorsȱ whenȱ theyȱ areȱ confrontedȱ withȱ anȱ alternaȬ tiveȱhermeneuticalȱmodelȱthatȱadvancesȱaȱprogressiveȱsociopoȬ liticalȱ andȱ culturalȱ agenda.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ inclusiveȱ Germanȱ Bibleȱ translation,ȱ Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Spracheȱ (literally:ȱ “Bibleȱ inȱ justȱ language”)ȱ (Bailȱ etȱ al.ȱ 2006;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Scholzȱ 2008;ȱ Fischerȱ 2008;ȱ

ȱ http://www.lproof.org/;ȱ http:ȱ //livingproofministries.blogspot.ȱ com/2009/01/driveȬthruȬbible.html.ȱ 10


Stegemannȱ 2008;ȱ Rehmannȱ 2008;ȱ Wackerȱ 2008)ȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ theȱproblemȱisȱnotȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱChristianȱRight’sȱinsistenceȱonȱ aȱ“literal”ȱBibleȱtranslationȱbutȱthatȱitȱalsoȱcharacterizesȱsecularȱ responses.ȱ Inȱ Octoberȱ 2006,ȱ whenȱ theȱ Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Spracheȱ wasȱ published,ȱaȱmajorȱtheologicalȬintellectualȱupheavalȱeruptedȱinȱ Germany.ȱ Theȱ BigS,ȱ asȱ thisȱ translationȱ isȱ called,ȱ provokedȱ strong,ȱ evenȱ shrillȱ reactionsȱ inȱ daily,ȱ weekly,ȱ andȱ otherȱ newsȬ papersȱandȱmagazines,ȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱacademicȱandȱecclesiasticalȱ journals.ȱ Certainly,ȱ theȱ BigSȱ hasȱ alsoȱ foundȱ manyȱ supportersȱ andȱ isȱ alreadyȱ inȱ itsȱ fourthȱ edition,ȱ butȱ inȱ postȬChristianȱ GerȬ many,ȱ aȱ theologicalȱ publicationȱ –ȱ noȱ lessȱ aȱ Bibleȱ translationȱ –ȱ hasȱrarely,ȱifȱever,ȱproducedȱsuchȱsweepingȱreactionsȱfromȱtheȱ secularȱmediaȱandȱtheȱchurch.ȱ Interestingly,ȱtheȱnewȱinclusiveȱBibleȱtranslationȱhasȱstimuȬ latedȱ manifoldȱ responsesȱ fromȱ journalistsȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ usuallyȱ engageȱ theologicalȱ issues,ȱ muchȱ lessȱ biblicalȱ scholarship.ȱ GerȬ manȬspeakingȱcountriesȱare,ȱasȱisȱwellȱknown,ȱsecularȱandȱreliȬ gionȱisȱviewedȱasȱanȱoutdatedȱareaȱofȱintellectualȱdiscourse,ȱalȬ thoughȱ itsȱ socialȱ contributionsȱ areȱ valuedȱ andȱ evenȱ cherished.ȱ Yetȱtheȱnewȱtranslationȱhasȱchangedȱthisȱperceptionȱ–ȱifȱonlyȱforȱ aȱ relativelyȱ briefȱ moment.ȱ Columnsȱ andȱ reviewsȱ ofȱ renownedȱ andȱ localȱ dailyȱ andȱ weeklyȱ papersȱ alikeȱ expressedȱ greatȱ skepȬ ticismȱ ofȱ theȱ BigS,ȱ whichȱ reflectedȱ aȱ deepȬseatedȱ androcentricȱ biasȱ prevalentȱ inȱ GermanȬspeakingȱ countriesȱ evenȱ today.ȱ ExȬ amplesȱaboundȱinȱtheȱsecularȱandȱpopularȱmediaȱdiscussion.ȱInȱ Aprilȱ 2006,ȱ severalȱ monthsȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ releaseȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ translation,ȱRobertȱLeichtȱquestionedȱtheȱlegitimacyȱofȱtheȱproȬ jectȱinȱtheȱweeklyȱnewspaper,ȱDieȱZeit.ȱHeȱmaintainedȱthatȱtheȱ translationȱ allegedlyȱ confusesȱ theȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ translaȬ tionȱ andȱ interpretation.ȱ Thisȱ confusionȱ createsȱ aȱ “realȱ danger”ȱ because,ȱ soȱ Leicht,ȱ theȱ BigSȱ misrepresentsȱ theȱ Urtextȱ (Leichtȱ 2006).ȱ Thisȱnaïveȱhermeneuticalȱviewȱofȱtheȱtranslationȱprocessȱisȱ notȱanȱexception.ȱOtherȱreviewers,ȱsuchȱasȱHeikeȱSchmoll,ȱalsoȱ chargedȱthatȱtheȱBigSȱoverturnsȱLuther’sȱprincipleȱthatȱadvisedȱ toȱfollowȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱtext.ȱSchmollȱmaintainedȱ thatȱtheȱnewȱtranslationȱ“doesȱnotȱallowȱtheȱtextȱtoȱspeakȱforȱitȬ self”ȱ andȱ “reversesȱ theȱ principleȱ intoȱ itsȱ absurdȱ opposite”ȱ (Schmollȱ2006:ȱ1).ȱSomeȱreviewers,ȱsuchȱasȱEdgarȱS.ȱHasse,ȱtriedȱ


aȱdifferentȱpathȱandȱridiculedȱspecificȱtranslationȱdecisionsȱthatȱ aimedȱ forȱ inclusivity.ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱ Hasseȱ didȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ beȬ lieveȱfemaleȱasȱwellȱasȱmaleȱshepherdsȱcameȱtoȱseeȱtheȱnewbornȱ Christȱ childȱ inȱ theȱ manger.ȱ Otherȱ commentatorsȱ madeȱ cynicalȱ remarksȱ aboutȱ Godȱ receivingȱ feminineȱ names,ȱ suchȱ asȱ “Dieȱ Ewige”ȱ(theȱEternal),ȱwhereasȱ“theȱdevilȱremainsȱalwaysȱmale”ȱ (Hasseȱ 2006;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Gössmanȱ 2007).ȱ Theȱ weeklyȱ Derȱ Spiegelȱ publishedȱanȱarticleȱinȱtheȱveryȱweekȱduringȱwhichȱtheȱBible’sȱ releaseȱ wasȱ celebratedȱ byȱ editors,ȱ translators,ȱ andȱ supporters.ȱ Theȱauthor,ȱMatthiasȱSchulz,ȱwonderedȱifȱ“modernistsȱareȱmesȬ singȱ upȱ theȱ Sacredȱ Scriptures”ȱ whenȱ “femaleȱ andȱ maleȱ shepȬ herdsȱ hurryȱ toȱ theȱ manger”ȱ andȱ “maleȱ andȱ femaleȱ neighbors”ȱ surroundedȱJesusȱinȱhisȱchildhoodȱ(Schulzȱ2006:ȱ190).11ȱSimplisȬ ticȱhermeneuticalȱassumptionsȱandȱoutrightȱhostilityȱmadeȱforȱaȱ ratherȱunpleasantȱdebate.ȱYet,ȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtime,ȱtheȱgeneralȱGerȬ manȬspeakingȱ publicȱ confrontedȱ theȱ extentȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ disȬ criminatoryȱpatternsȱ–ȱaȱpositiveȱeffectȱinȱaȱcontestȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ secularȱfallacyȱisȱtakenȱforȱgrantedȱandȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱsuperȬ iorȱtoȱreligiousȱdiscourseȱofȱanyȱkind.ȱ Predictably,ȱtheȱvariousȱchurchȱbodiesȱandȱChristianȱtheoȬ logiansȱalsoȱreactedȱtoȱtheȱhistoricȱpublication.ȱPerhapsȱequallyȱ expectedȱ wasȱ theȱ forcefulnessȱ ofȱ theȱ attackȱ ofȱ theȱ Bible’sȱ ediȬ tors,ȱ translators,ȱ andȱ evenȱ grassrootsȱ supporters.ȱ Manyȱ criticsȱ usedȱ aȱ harshȱ andȱ vengefulȱ toneȱ thatȱ dismissedȱ theȱ projectȱ asȱ theologicallyȱ invalidȱ andȱ flimsy.12ȱ Aȱ retiredȱ bishopȱ andȱ transȬ latorȱofȱaȱwellȬknownȱNewȱTestamentȱtranslation,ȱUlrichȱWilckȬ ens,ȱ wentȱ evenȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ toȱ accuseȱ editorsȱ andȱ translatorsȱ ofȱ 11ȱ Forȱ otherȱ reviewsȱ inȱ theȱ popularȱ press,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ “Umstritteneȱ Übersetzung:ȱDieȱSchlangeȱhatteȱmehrȱdrauf,”ȱDerȱSpiegelȱ(25ȱOctoberȱ 2006);ȱ Persakȱ 2007;ȱ Ecksteinȱ 2007;ȱ “Nichtȱ zumȱ Gebrauchȱ imȱ GottesȬ dienstȱgeeignet,“ȱFrankfurterȱAllgemeineȱZeitung;ȱBirnsteinȱ2007.ȱ

ȱForȱaȱcomprehensiveȱcollectionȱofȱacademicȱandȱecclesialȱstateȬ mentsȱ onȱ theȱ inclusiveȱ Bible,ȱ seeȱ “Kontroverseȱ umȱ dieȱ ‘Bibelȱ inȱ geȬ rechterȱ Sprache’,”ȱ epdȬDokumentationȱ 17/18ȱ (24ȱ Aprilȱ 2007);ȱ “Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱSpracheȱ(2):ȱ‘Solaȱscriptura’ȱ–ȱZurȱAktualitätȱdesȱprotestanȬ tischenȱErbes,“ȱepdȬDokumentationȱ23ȱ(29ȱMayȱ2007);ȱ“BibelȱinȱgerechȬ terȱSpracheȱ(3):ȱ’Traditionȱerneuernȱ–ȱGlaubenȱstärken,”ȱepdȬDokumenȬ tationȱ31ȱ(24ȱJulyȱ2007).ȱ 12


“heresy”ȱandȱaȱ“simplyȱwrongȱtranslation”ȱ(Wilckensȱ2007:ȱ30;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Schottroffȱ 2007).ȱ Otherȱ theologyȱ professorsȱ assertedȱ thatȱ thisȱ Bibleȱ translationȱ “goesȱ behindȱ theȱ ideasȱ ofȱ theȱ ProȬ testantȱReformersȱ…ȱservingȱtheologicalȱandȱpoliticalȱinterests”ȱ (Schröterȱ 2007a:ȱ 19;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Schröterȱ 2007b;ȱ Schröterȱ andȱ DalȬ ferthȱ 2007)ȱ ofȱ theȱ translatorsȱ only.ȱ Stillȱ othersȱ contendedȱ thatȱ theȱBigSȱ“hitsȱrockȱbottomȱinȱtheȱmodernȱhistoryȱofȱBibleȱinterȬ pretation”ȱ(Körtnerȱ2007:ȱ23).ȱAndȱsystematicȱtheologianȱIngolfȱ U.ȱ Dalferthȱ declaredȱ theȱ translationȱ “theologicallyȱ bankrupt”ȱ andȱ “philologically,ȱ historically,ȱ andȱ theologicallyȱ useless”ȱ (Dalferthȱ2006).ȱ Thisȱ extremelyȱ heated,ȱ evenȱ intellectuallyȱ violentȱ debateȱ shouldȱ notȱ surpriseȱ ifȱ oneȱ understandsȱ theȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ fallaciesȱ mentionedȱ above.ȱ Theȱ secularȱ fallacyȱ acceptsȱ theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ narrowȱ definitionȱ ofȱ whatȱ isȱ theȱ hermeneutiȬ callyȱ “correct”ȱ approachȱ toȱ theologicalȱ discourse,ȱ particularlyȱ whenȱtheȱtopicȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱgender,ȱfamily,ȱandȱsexuality.ȱItȱisȱaȱ hermeneuticsȱthatȱElisabethȱSchüsslerȱFiorenzaȱdefinedȱasȱ“unȬ democratic”ȱ (Schüsslerȱ Fiorenzaȱ 2009)ȱ forȱ itsȱ deepȱ embeddedȬ nessȱ inȱ imperialisticȱ epistemology.ȱ Suchȱ anȱ epistemologyȱ reȬ futesȱtheȱinsightsȱofȱaȱpostmodernȱhermeneuticsȱthatȱaffirmsȱtheȱ multiplicity,ȱindeterminacy,ȱandȱinfinityȱofȱallȱinterpretations.ȱ SimilarȱtoȱtheȱsecularizedȱandȱacademicȱpressȱinȱGermany,ȱ theȱChristianȱRightȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱalsoȱopposedȱinclusiveȱ Bibleȱtranslations.ȱItsȱadherentsȱrejectedȱwhatȱtheyȱcalledȱ“genȬ derȬneutral”ȱBibleȱtranslations,ȱespeciallyȱafterȱtheȱBritishȱpubȬ lisher,ȱ Hodderȱ andȱ Stoughton,ȱ releasedȱ theȱ NIVI,ȱ anȱ inclusiveȱ editionȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ InternationalȱVersion,ȱ inȱ 1996.ȱ Theȱ outrageȱ wasȱ soȱ largeȱ inȱ USȱ Americanȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ circlesȱ thatȱ theȱ Americanȱpublisher,ȱZondervan,ȱdecidedȱtoȱpostponeȱtheȱpubliȬ cationȱofȱthisȱeditionȱinȱtheȱUSA.ȱInȱfact,ȱtheȱNIVIȱhasȱyetȱtoȱbeȱ published.ȱ Detailedȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ theȱ ensuingȱ outrageȱ exist.ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱ D.A.ȱ Carson,ȱ aȱ complementarian,ȱ providesȱ aȱ fairȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ heatedȱ responsesȱ fromȱ otherȱ complementarȬ ianȱandȱegalitarianȱChristiansȱ(Carsonȱ1998:ȱ15Ȭ38,ȱ183Ȭ192).ȱHeȱ assertsȱthatȱtheȱinclusiveȱtranslationȱdebateȱisȱnotȱnewȱandȱhasȱ occupiedȱ translatorsȱ forȱ centuries.ȱ Hisȱ exampleȱ fromȱ theȱ firstȱ printedȱ Englishȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ translationȱ byȱ Williamȱ TynȬ dale,ȱ publishedȱ inȱ 1526,ȱ isȱ aȱ caseȱ inȱ point.ȱ Carsonȱ showsȱ thatȱ Tyndaleȱ choseȱ theȱ wordȱ “children”ȱ whenȱ heȱ translatedȱ theȱ


Greekȱnounȱhuioiȱ(sons)ȱinȱMatthewȱ5:9:ȱ“BlessedȱareȱtheȱpeaceȬ makers,ȱforȱtheyȱshallȱbeȱcalledȱtheȱchildrenȱofȱGod,”ȱalthoughȱ theȱGreekȱnounȱisȱ“sons.”ȱCarsonȱalsoȱrefersȱtoȱindividualȱcomȬ plementarianȱassessmentsȱofȱtheȱNIVȱwithȱtheȱNIVIȱtoȱillustrateȱ theirȱ concernsȱ andȱ contestations.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ themȱ isȱ Wayneȱ GruȬ demȱ whoȱ objectsȱ toȱ changingȱ singularȱ pronounsȱ toȱ pluralȱ toȱ eliminateȱ genderȱ specificity,ȱ asȱ forȱ instanceȱ inȱ Johnȱ 14:23:ȱ “Ifȱ anyoneȱlovesȱme,ȱheȱwillȱobeyȱmyȱteaching.ȱMyȱFatherȱwillȱloveȱ him,ȱandȱweȱ willȱ comeȱ toȱ himȱandȱmakeȱourȱ homeȱwithȱhim”ȱ (NIV).ȱ Theȱ NIVIȱ replacesȱ theȱ singularȱ masculineȱ withȱ pluralȱ pronouns:ȱ “Thoseȱ whoȱ loveȱ meȱ willȱ obeyȱ myȱ teaching.ȱ Myȱ Fatherȱwillȱloveȱthem,ȱandȱweȱwillȱcomeȱtoȱthemȱandȱmakeȱourȱ homeȱwithȱthem.”ȱ Grudemȱ isȱ concernedȱ thatȱ theȱ NIVIȱ losesȱ theȱ individualȱ personȱandȱspeaksȱofȱFatherȱandȱSonȱdwellingȱamongȱaȱgroupȱ ofȱpeopleȱ(Carsonȱ1998:ȱ31Ȭ32).ȱReviewingȱthisȱandȱotherȱdiscusȬ sionsȱonȱtheȱNIVI,ȱCarsonȱconcludesȱthatȱpassionsȱrunȱhighȱandȱ “someȱ peopleȱ …ȱ areȱ extraordinarilyȱ selfȬdisciplinedȱ andȱ graȬ cious,ȱ andȱ manyȱ …ȱ areȱ betweenȱ theȱ extremes”ȱ (Carsonȱ 1998:ȱ 37).ȱButȱheȱwonders,ȱ [W)hereȱ doȱ weȱ goȱ fromȱ here?”ȱ (Carsonȱ 1998:ȱ 38),ȱ andȱ suggestsȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱhisȱbook:ȱ“Inclusiveȱlanguageȱhasȱnotȱ sweptȱ everythingȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ itȱ away.…ȱ Yetȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ Iȱ canȱ see,ȱ theȱ moveȱ towardȱ inclusiveȱ languageȱ inȱ theȱ EnglishȬ speakingȱ worldȱ hasȱ notȱ yetȱ comeȱ closeȱ toȱ cresting.…ȱ [A]sȱ farȱasȱIȱcanȱreadȱtheȱsituation,ȱtheȱtimesȱtheyȱareȱaȬchangingȱ –ȱandȱtheȱEnglishȱlanguageȱwithȱthem.ȱ(Carsonȱ1998:ȱ192)ȱ

SuchȱaȱstatementȱisȱquiteȱunusualȱforȱtheȱChristianȱRight,ȱwhichȱ hasȱ triedȱ hardȱ toȱ incorporateȱ “traditional”ȱ (i.e.ȱ androcentric)ȱ theologyȱintoȱcontemporaryȱfaithȱperspectives.ȱ Othersȱ haveȱ beenȱ lessȱ sympatheticȱ inȱ recognizingȱ theȱ meritsȱofȱinclusiveȱBibleȱtranslationsȱandȱclassifiedȱ“theȱcurrentȱ attackȱuponȱtheȱreceivedȱlinguisticȱstructureȱofȱChristianity”ȱasȱ “anȱ antagonisticȱ religiousȱ discourse”ȱ (Jensonȱ 1992:ȱ 92).ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ accordingȱtoȱRobertȱW.ȱJenson,ȱ“theȱcurrentȱcrisis”ȱcomparesȱtoȱ theȱ“gnosticȱcrisisȱofȱtheȱsecondȱandȱthirdȱcenturiesȱandȱtheȱcriȬ sisȱofȱvulgarȱEnlightenmentȱatȱtheȱhingeȱofȱtheȱeighteenthȱandȱ nineteenthȱcenturies”ȱ(Jensonȱ1992:ȱ96).ȱInȱhisȱview,ȱproponentsȱ ofȱ inclusiveȱ Bibleȱ translationsȱ followȱ theȱ “gnosticȱ spirit”ȱ whenȱ theyȱassertȱthatȱ“weȱhaveȱcontinuouslyȱ…ȱ[to)ȱmakeȱupȱlanguageȱ


inȱ whichȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ God.”ȱ Instead,ȱ Jensonȱ claims,ȱ “ChristianȬ ity”ȱ knowsȱ thatȱ “weȱ areȱ givenȱ languageȱ thatȱ isȱ immuneȱ toȱ ourȱ manipulating…”ȱ (Jensonȱ 1992:ȱ 109).ȱ Jenson’sȱ statementȱ showsȱ thatȱ heȱ assumesȱ aȱ literalistȬnaturalizingȱ translationȱ theoryȱ thatȱ refutesȱ humanȱ involvementȱ inȱ theȱ biblicalȱ meaningȬmakingȱ process.ȱItȱadheresȱtoȱaȱliteralistȬscientificȱhermeneuticsȱbecauseȱ itȱrejectsȱtheȱnotionȱofȱaȱhumanȬinvolvedȱprocessȱcreatingȱtextuȬ alȱmeanings.ȱ TheȱsameȱhermeneuticalȱstanceȱappearsȱinȱaȱdetailedȱtreatȬ iseȱ againstȱ inclusiveȱ Bibleȱ translations,ȱ writtenȱ byȱ complemenȬ tarians,ȱ Vernȱ S.ȱ Poythressȱ andȱ Wayneȱ A.ȱ Grudemȱ (Poythressȱ andȱ Grudemȱ 2000).ȱ Theȱ twoȱ writersȱ presentȱ aȱ historyȱ ofȱ whatȱ theyȱ callȱ “genderȱ neutral”ȱ Bibleȱ translations:ȱ theyȱ affirmȱ theȱ needȱtoȱbelieveȱinȱtheȱinerrancyȱofȱScripture;ȱtheyȱoutlineȱhowȱ translationsȱshouldȱbeȱdone;ȱtheyȱprovideȱdetailsȱforȱ“permissiȬ bleȱchangesȱinȱtranslatingȱgenderȬrelatedȱterms”ȱandȱ“unaccepȬ tableȱ changesȱ thatȱ eliminateȱ referencesȱ toȱ men”;ȱ andȱ theyȱ disȬ cussȱtheȱ“genericȱ‘He’”ȱandȱtheȱ“feministȱoppositionȱtoȱtheȱgenȬ ericȱ‘He’”ȱandȱmuchȱmore.ȱYetȱlikeȱRobertȱJenson,ȱtheyȱalsoȱasȬ sertȱthatȱ“profoundȱspiritualȱissues”ȱareȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱtranslaȬ tionȱdisputes.ȱPoythressȱandȱGrudemȱmaintain:ȱ Onȱoneȱsideȱstandsȱfeminismȱandȱegalitarianism,ȱpromotingȱ itsȱ ownȱ wayȱ ofȱ salvationȱ andȱ distortingȱ theȱ truth,ȱ insistingȱ thatȱ thereȱ shouldȱ beȱ noȱ genderȬbasedȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ status,ȱprominence,ȱorȱauthorityȱofȱoneȱpersonȱandȱanother.ȱ OnȱtheȱotherȱsideȱstandsȱtheȱteachingȱofȱtheȱBibleȱthatȱGodȱ affirmsȱbothȱtheȱhonorȱofȱallȱhumanȱbeingsȱandȱtheȱGodȬorȬ dainedȱ differencesȱ amongȱ them,ȱ includingȱ differencesȱ inȱ men’sȱandȱwomen’sȱrolesȱinȱmarriage.ȱ(PoythressȱandȱGruȬ demȱ2000:ȱ141Ȭ42)ȱ

TheyȱcontendȱtoȱbeȱonȱtheȱsideȱofȱGodȱandȱchargeȱthatȱinȬ clusiveȱ translatorsȱ putȱ theirȱ ownȱ ideasȱ first.ȱ Theyȱ doȱ notȱ acȬ knowledgeȱ thatȱ allȱ translationsȱ areȱ interpretationsȱ andȱ soȱ exȬ poseȱthemselvesȱasȱbeingȱgroundedȱinȱaȱliteralistȬscientificȱepisȬ temology.ȱ Theirȱ modernistȬfundamentalistȱ stanceȱ convenientlyȱ ignoresȱtheȱvariousȱdevelopmentsȱinȱtranslationȱstudies,ȱsuchȱasȱ Vermeer’sȱSkoposȱtheoryȱofȱtranslationȱ(i.e.ȱwhatȱisȱtheȱpurposeȱ ofȱ translation),ȱ systemsȱ theoriesȱ ofȱ translationȱ (i.e.ȱ whatȱ isȱ theȱ positionȱofȱtheȱtranslatedȱliteratureȱinȱtheȱhistoricalȱandȱliteraryȱ systemsȱ ofȱ theȱ targetȱ culture),ȱ orȱ theȱ culturalȱ andȱ ideologicalȱ


turnsȱ inȱ translationȱ theoriesȱ (i.e.ȱ whatȱ areȱ theȱ interactionsȱ beȬ tweenȱtranslationȱandȱcultureȱandȱhowȱdoesȱcultureȱimpactȱandȱ constrainȱ translationȱ andȱ whatȱ areȱ theȱ largerȱ issuesȱ ofȱ context,ȱ history,ȱandȱconvention)ȱ(Mundayȱ2001,ȱ2008).ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱbothȱ secularȱandȱChristianȱconservativeȱpositionsȱareȱlockedȱinȱtheirȱ respectiveȱ fallacies.ȱ Theȱ secularȱ oneȱ rejectsȱ religiousȱ discourseȱ asȱarbitraryȱandȱirrelevant.ȱTheȱfundamentalistȱoneȱpresentsȱitȬ selfȱ asȱ theȱ onlyȱ “true”ȱ Christianȱ beliefȱ system.ȱ Alternativeȱ Christianȱ andȱ otherȱ religiousȱ positionsȱ remainȱ onȱ theȱ publicȱ marginsȱofȱthisȱloudȱandȱsociopoliticallyȱconservativeȱdebate.ȱ LiteralistȬScientificȱHermeneuticsȱasȱPartȱofȱtheȱScientificȬEmpiricistȱ Epistemology:ȱTheȱChallengeȱofȱProgressiveȱInterreligiousȱDialogueȱ Usually,ȱ alternativeȱ Christianȱ andȱ otherȱ religiousȱ positionsȱ reȬ mainȱonȱtheȱmarginsȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱwhenȱsuchȱdiaȬ logueȱgainsȱanyȱsignificantȱpublicity,ȱasȱtheȱscandalȱaboutȱPopeȱ Benedict’sȱ commentsȱ onȱ Islamȱ indicatedȱ (Blondȱ andȱ Pabstȱ 2006).ȱThenȱinterreligiousȱparticipantsȱdoȱnotȱacknowledgeȱthatȱ theirȱ religiousȱ assumptionsȱ areȱ steepedȱ inȱ aȱ literalistȬscientificȱ hermeneuticsȱ thatȱ seeksȱ toȱ identifyȱ “aȱ single,ȱ oneȬdimensionalȱ meaning”ȱ(SchüsslerȱFiorenzaȱ2007:ȱ49)ȱandȱtoȱholdȱonȱtoȱtheoȬ logicalȱpositivism.ȱTheirȱhermeneuticsȱisȱnotȱbasedȱonȱtheȱideaȱ thatȱ allȱ meaningȱ isȱ “contextualȬcultural”ȱ andȱ “transactional”ȱ (SchüsslerȱFiorenzaȱ2007:ȱ49,ȱ50).ȱTheyȱareȱnotȱinterestedȱinȱinȬ vestigatingȱandȱdismantlingȱstructuresȱofȱoppression,ȱbeȱtheyȱofȱ aȱ religious,ȱ political,ȱ economic,ȱ orȱ culturalȱ nature.ȱ Butȱ thisȱ hasȱ toȱchangeȱbecause,ȱasȱFernandoȱF.ȱSegoviaȱarguesȱperceptivelyȱ inȱaȱstudyȱonȱpostcolonialȱbiblicalȱstudies,ȱ“theȱpastȱdominanceȱ ofȱtheȱWestȱinȱtheȱformulationȱandȱdirectionȱofȱChristianityȱwillȱ graduallyȱbutȱinexorablyȱyieldȱtoȱaȱmuchȱmoreȱdecenteredȱandȱ diversifiedȱformation”ȱ(Segoviaȱ2000:ȱ22).ȱ Theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theȱ literalistȬscientificȱ hermeneuticsȱ inȱ Westernȱ Christianityȱ wasȱ partȱ andȱ parcelȱ ofȱ theȱ “imperial/coȬ lonialȱ formations”ȱ sinceȱ theȱ fifteenthȱ centuryȱ inȱ Europeȱ andȱ paralleledȱ “theȱ climaxȱ ofȱ Westernȱ expansionismȱ andȱ diasporaȱ fromȱ theȱ earlyȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ throughȱ theȱthirdȱ quarterȱofȱ theȱtwentiethȱcentury”ȱ(Segoviaȱ2000:ȱ23).ȱToȱSegovia,ȱthisȱproȬ cessȱhasȱ“comeȱfullȱcircle”ȱtodayȱbecauseȱ

THEȱFORBIDDENȱFRUITȱFORȱTHEȱNEWȱEVEȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ307ȱ whatȱbeganȱinȱtheȱlateȱfifteenȱcenturyȱwithȱdispersionȱfromȱ Europeȱoutward,ȱleadingȱtoȱaȱmassiveȱEuropeanȱdiasporaȱofȱ globalȱproportions,ȱhasȱyieldedȱinȱtheȱlateȱtwentiethȱcenturyȱ toȱdispersionȱfromȱoutsideȱtheȱWestȱintoȱtheȱWest,ȱleadingȱ toȱ aȱ massiveȱ nonȬWesternȱ diasporaȱ ofȱ globalȱ proportionsȱ withinȱtheȱWestȱitself,ȱaboveȱallȱinȱNorthȱAmericaȱ(Canadaȱ andȱtheȱUnitedȱStates)ȱbutȱalsoȱinȱEurope.ȱ(Segoviaȱ2000:ȱ19)ȱ

Segoviaȱ thusȱ maintainsȱ thatȱ theȱ Westernȱ hermeneuticalȱ modelȱ willȱgiveȱwayȱtoȱoneȱinȱwhichȱ“theȱrealȱreader”ȱisȱcentral,ȱ“theȱ fleshȬandȬbloodȱ reader,ȱ alwaysȱ positionedȱ (theȱ questionȱ ofȱ soȬ cialȱ location)ȱ andȱ interestedȱ (theȱ questionȱ ofȱ socialȱ agenda)”ȱ (Segoviaȱ 2000:ȱ 30).ȱ Theȱ stillȱ dominantȱ literalistȬscientificȱ herȬ meneuticsȱ willȱ haveȱ toȱ moveȱ toȱ “aȱ constructiveȱ contextualȱ democraticȱ practice,”ȱ aȱ practiceȱ thatȱ “investigate(s)ȱ andȱ lift(s)ȱ intoȱ consciousness”ȱ howȱ religiousȱ textsȱ andȱ doctrinesȱ inscribeȱ empireȱ andȱ howȱ empireȱ reȬinscribesȱ itselfȱ intoȱ religiousȱ teachȬ ingsȱ(SchüsslerȱFiorenzaȱ2007:ȱ51).ȱ ThisȱvisionȱisȱcertainlyȱremovedȱfromȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱreȬ alitiesȱdescribedȱearlier.ȱWhenȱtheȱChristianȱRightȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱ Bible,ȱitȱpresupposesȱthatȱbiblicalȱtruthȱ canȱbeȱpositivelyȱestablishedȱandȱproven.ȱThusȱitȱstresse[s]ȱ verbalȱinspirationȱandȱcallsȱforȱChristiansȱtoȱacceptȱwithoutȱ questionȱtheȱBibleȱasȱtheȱdirect,ȱinerrantȱWordȱofȱG*d.ȱThisȱ emphasisȱ onȱ verbalȱ inerrancyȱ assertsȱ thatȱ theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ itsȱ interpretationȱtranscendȱideologyȱandȱparticularityȱ(SchüssȬ lerȱFiorenzaȱ2009:ȱ66)ȱ

Inȱthisȱrespect,ȱthen,ȱChristianȱfundamentalismȱassumesȱtheȱsciȬ entificȬempiricistȱ epistemologyȱ promotingȱ objectivity,ȱ univerȬ sality,ȱandȱvalueȬneutralityȱasȱcentralȱhermeneuticalȱprinciples.ȱ Asȱ“theȱpositivistȱparadigmȱofȱknowledge,”ȱitȱgivesȱprimacyȱtoȱ facts,ȱtoȱ“evidence,ȱdata,ȱandȱempiricalȱinquiry”ȱ(SchüsslerȱFiorȬ enzaȱ2007:ȱ68).ȱItsȱrhetoricalȱpowerȱisȱsoȱstrongȱbecauseȱWesternȱ mindsȱareȱusedȱtoȱsubscribeȱtoȱthisȱkindȱofȱthinkingȱinȱgeneral.ȱ Theologicalȱ rhetoricȱ thatȱ proclaimsȱ itsȱ faithȱ convictionsȱ asȱ groundedȱ inȱ objectivity,ȱ universality,ȱ andȱ valueȬneutralityȱ buildsȱonȱtheȱunconsciouslyȱheldȱscientificȬempiricistȱepistemoȬ logyȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱWesternȱworldview.ȱTheȱliteralȱmeanȬ ingȱ ofȱ religiousȱ convictionsȱ orȱ textsȱ makesȱ senseȱ toȱ peopleȱ beȬ causeȱ theȱ transactionalȱ processȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ meaningȬmakȬ


ingȱeffortsȱisȱnotȱquestionedȱandȱremainsȱunconsciousȱ(SchüssȬ lerȱ Fiorenzaȱ 2009:ȱ 50).ȱ Anyȱ alternativeȱ epistemologyȱ hasȱ toȱ workȱhardȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱprocessȱofȱliteralistȱmeanȬ ingsȱvisibleȱbeforeȱitȱcanȱmakeȱaȱconvincingȱcaseȱforȱalternativeȱ meanings.ȱ ThisȱdynamicȱalsoȱexplainsȱwhyȱsecularȱandȱfundamentalȬ istȱ fallaciesȱ areȱ interrelatedȱ andȱ feedȱ onȱ eachȱ other’sȱ concerns.ȱ Theȱhermeneuticalȱalternative,ȱas,ȱforȱinstance,ȱcharacteristicȱofȱ theȱinclusiveȱ GermanȱBibleȱtranslation,ȱ hasȱnoȱ rhetoricalȱ spaceȱ inȱthisȱdynamicȱthatȱrequiresȱunquestionedȱloyaltyȱtoȱtheȱscienȬ tificȬempiricistȱ epistemology.ȱ Compromisesȱ cannotȱ beȱ estabȬ lishedȱ becauseȱ theȱ epistemologicalȱ assumptionsȱ cannotȱ beȱ reȬ conciled.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ scientificȬempiricistȱ epistemologyȱ upholdsȱ objectivity,ȱ universality,ȱ andȱ valueȬneutrality,ȱ theȱ postmodernȱ epistemologyȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ multiplicity,ȱ indeterminacy,ȱ andȱ theȱ infinityȱ ofȱ interpretativeȱ meaning.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ middleȱ ground,ȱ althoughȱ inȱ recentȱ yearsȱ proposalsȱ haveȱ beenȱ advancedȱ comȬ mentingȱonȱtheȱendȱofȱpostmodernity.ȱ CalledȱtheȱeraȱofȱpostȬpostmodernism,ȱtheȱnewȱintellectualȱ periodȱisȱdefinedȱbyȱaȱpragmatic,ȱethicallyȱorientedȱepistemoloȬ gyȱthatȱbuildsȱuponȱpostmodernȱprinciplesȱofȱknowing.ȱSomeȬ timesȱ itȱ isȱ classifiedȱ asȱ “criticalȱ realism,”ȱ “performatism,”ȱ andȱ “digimodernism.”ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ intellectualȱ impetusȱ comingȱ afterȱ postmodernism.ȱ Criticalȱ realism,ȱ insistingȱ onȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ truth,ȱisȱtracedȱoutsideȱtheȱhermeneuticalȱtraditionȱandȱdefinedȱ asȱaȱstanceȱinitiallyȱdevelopingȱfromȱ“aȱsustainedȱandȱrigorousȱ critiqueȱofȱpositivismȱinȱtheȱnaturalȱsciences”ȱ(PotterȱandȱLópezȱ 2001:ȱ8).ȱRaoulȱEshelmanȱcoinedȱtheȱtermȱperformatism.ȱHeȱasȬ sertedȱ thatȱ artȱ isȱ notȱ openȬendedȱ andȱ ambiguousȱ butȱ unifiedȱ andȱ aestheticallyȱ closedȱ inȱ theȱ actȱ ofȱ performanceȱ (Eshelmanȱ 2008).ȱ Alanȱ Kirbyȱ introducedȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “digimodernism”ȱ asȱ theȱ newȱ twentyȬfirstȱ centuryȱ paradigm.ȱ Heȱ contendsȱ thatȱ digimodernismȱdoesȱnotȱdisplaceȱpostmodernismȱbecauseȱpostȬ modernismȱ isȱ justȱ “anotherȱ stageȱ withinȱ modernity”ȱ (Kirbyȱ 2009:ȱ3).ȱInȱhisȱviewȱdigimodernismȱisȱtheȱshallow,ȱunoriginal,ȱ bankrupt,ȱuninspired,ȱinsubstantialȱandȱ“lingeringȱresidueȱofȱitsȱ predecessor,”ȱpostmodernismȱ(Kirbyȱ2009:ȱ49).ȱ Anotherȱproposalȱonȱtheȱtimeȱafterȱpostmodernismȱcomesȱ fromȱNicolasȱBourriaudȱwhoȱexplains:ȱ

THEȱFORBIDDENȱFRUITȱFORȱTHEȱNEWȱEVEȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ309ȱ If,ȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ thisȱ century,ȱ itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ “reȬ thinkȱ theȱ modern”ȱ (whichȱ thusȱ meansȱ movingȱ beyondȱ theȱ historicalȱperiodȱdefinedȱbyȱtheȱpostmodern),ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱ firstȱtoȱtackleȱglobalization,ȱunderstoodȱinȱitsȱeconomic,ȱpoȬ litical,ȱandȱculturalȱaspects.ȱStillȱmoreȱimportant,ȱitȱisȱnecesȬ saryȱtoȱgrappleȱwithȱaȱblindinglyȱobviousȱfact:ȱifȱtwentiethȬ centuryȱmodernismȱwasȱaȱpurelyȱWesternȱculturalȱphenomȬ enon,ȱ laterȱ pickedȱ upȱ andȱ inflectedȱ byȱ artistsȱ theȱ worldȱ over,ȱ todayȱ thereȱ remainsȱ theȱ taskȱ ofȱ envisagingȱ itsȱ globalȱ equivalent,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ taskȱ ofȱ inventingȱ innovativeȱ modesȱ ofȱthoughtȱandȱartisticȱpracticesȱthatȱwouldȱthisȱtimeȱbeȱdiȬ rectlyȱ informedȱ byȱ Africa,ȱ Latinȱ America,ȱ orȱ Asiaȱ andȱ wouldȱintegrateȱwaysȱofȱthinkingȱandȱactingȱcurrentȱin,ȱsay,ȱ Nunavut,ȱLagos,ȱorȱBulgaria.ȱThisȱtimeȱaround,ȱtoȱhaveȱanȱ impact,ȱ Africanȱ traditionȱ won’tȱ haveȱ toȱ influenceȱ newȱ DaȬ daistsȱinȱaȱfutureȱZurich,ȱnorȱwillȱJapaneseȱprintȱartȱhaveȱtoȱ relyȱonȱinspiringȱtomorrowsȱManets.ȱToday’sȱartists,ȱwhatȬ everȱlatitudesȱtheyȱliveȱin,ȱhaveȱtheȱtaskȱofȱenvisagingȱwhatȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ firstȱ trulyȱ worldwideȱ culture.ȱ Butȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ paradoxȱ boundȱ upȱ withȱ thisȱ historicȱ mission,ȱ whichȱ willȱ haveȱtoȱbeȱundertakenȱnotȱinȱtheȱwakeȱof,ȱbutȱinȱresistanceȱ against,ȱthatȱpoliticalȱpressureȱtoȱconformȱknownȱasȱglobalȬ ization.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ forȱ thisȱ emergentȱ culture,ȱ bornȱ ofȱ differȬ encesȱandȱ singularities,ȱ toȱ comeȱ intoȱbeing,ȱ insteadȱ ofȱ conȬ formingȱ toȱ theȱ ongoingȱ standardization,ȱ itȱ willȱ haveȱtoȱ deȬ velopȱ aȱ specificȱ imagination,ȱ relyingȱ onȱ aȱ logicȱ unlikeȱ thatȱ whichȱ presidesȱ overȱ capitalistȱ globalization.ȱ (Bourriaudȱ 2009:ȱ17)ȱ

Bourriaudȱ proposesȱ thatȱ theȱ eraȱ afterȱ postmodernismȱ requiresȱ buildingȱ“theȱfirstȱtrulyȱworldwideȱculture,”ȱoneȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱ imitateȱ“capitalistȱglobalization”ȱbutȱopposesȱit.ȱHeȱchargesȱthatȱ weȱhaveȱtoȱinventȱ“aȱcommonȱworld”ȱandȱtoȱbuildȱ“practicallyȱ andȱtheoretically,ȱaȱglobalȱspaceȱofȱexchange,”ȱbutȱitsȱestablishȬ mentȱrequiresȱ“aȱspaceȱofȱhorizontalȱnegotiationsȱwithoutȱanȱarȬ biter,”ȱ“aȱcounterȬmovement,”ȱandȱ“aȱnewȱexodus”ȱ(Bourriaudȱ 2009:ȱ188).ȱ Interestingly,ȱnoneȱofȱtheseȱworksȱonȱpostȬpostmodernismȱ reflectȱonȱtheȱstateȱofȱreligionȱandȱwhatȱimpactȱreligiousȱmoveȬ mentsȱandȱidentitiesȱhaveȱonȱtheȱeraȱafterȱpostmodernism.ȱYetȱ theirȱsuggestionsȱandȱproposalsȱfitȱnicelyȱwithȱtheȱcritiqueȱofȱlitȬ


eralistȬscientificȱ hermeneuticsȱ andȱ theȱ scientificȬempiricistȱ epistemologyȱtakenȱforȱgrantedȱbyȱtheȱChristianȱRightȱandȱsecȬ ularists.ȱEspecially,ȱBourriaud’sȱproposalȱtoȱcreateȱaȱglobalȱculȬ tureȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ conformȱ toȱ capitalistȱ globalizationȱ shouldȱ findȱ approvalȱ amongȱ manyȱ religiousȱ organizationsȱ andȱ proȬ gressiveȱtheologicalȱthinkers.ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱdramaticȱincreaseȱ ofȱ Christiansȱ inȱ theȱ southernȱ hemisphereȱ makesȱ Bourriaud’sȱ commentȱappearȱreasonableȱandȱindeedȱsensible.ȱTheȱmixingȱofȱ peopleȱfromȱtheȱnorthȱmovingȱtoȱtheȱsouthȱinȱtheȱpastȱandȱpeoȬ pleȱ fromȱ theȱ southȱ goingȱ toȱ theȱ northȱ todayȱ contributesȱ toȱ theȱ uniformityȱinȱculture.ȱTheȱtendencyȱofȱcapitalistȱglobalizationȱtoȱ makeȱ everythingȱ theȱ sameȱ whetherȱ itȱ isȱ locatedȱ inȱ Newȱ York,ȱ Taipei,ȱ orȱ Johannesburgȱ isȱ indeedȱ aȱ threat.ȱ Resistanceȱ mustȱ thereforeȱ beȱ partȱ ofȱ developingȱ aȱ “truly”ȱ worldwideȱ cultureȱ thatȱrecognizesȱtheȱlocalityȱandȱspecificityȱofȱeachȱplaceȱwithoutȱ succumbingȱtoȱparochialismȱorȱtheȱdominantȱmarketȱparadigm.ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ obviousȱ thatȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ religionȱ andȱ theologyȱ asȱ “constructiveȬcontextualȱdemocraticȱpractice”ȱshouldȱbeȱpartȱofȱ thisȱ alternativeȱ thatȱ resistsȱ participatingȱ inȱ capitalistȱ globalizaȬ tionȱ(SchüsslerȱFiorenzaȱ2007:ȱ51).ȱWhenȱviewedȱinȱthisȱintellecȬ tualȱcontextȱofȱpostȬpostmodernism,ȱtheȱdebateȱbetweenȱsecularȱ andȱ fundamentalistȱ constituentsȱ seemsȱ indeedȱ oldȬfashioned,ȱ quaint,ȱandȱoutȱofȱdate.ȱ Theȱ (Post)Modernȱ Impotenceȱ Towardȱ Secularȱ andȱ Religiousȱ FundaȬ mentalism:ȱConcludingȱCommentsȱ Europeanȱ discussionsȱ onȱ theȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ herȬ meneuticsȱ andȱ issuesȱ onȱ gender,ȱ family,ȱ andȱ sexualityȱ benefitȱ fromȱ understandingȱ howȱ thisȱ relationshipȱ isȱ currentlyȱ definedȱ byȱtheȱChristianȱRightȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱAsȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱ visibleȱ andȱ prominentȱ movementsȱ inȱ theȱ USȱ sinceȱ theȱ 1990s,ȱ thisȱreligiously,ȱpolitically,ȱsocially,ȱandȱeconomicallyȱpowerfulȱ movementȱrecognizesȱandȱresistsȱ(post)modernȱchallengesȱandȱ communicatesȱ inȱ accessibleȱ andȱ wellȬdistributedȱ literaturesȱ itsȱ viewsȱonȱgender,ȱfamily,ȱandȱsexualityȱfromȱaȱdecidedlyȱpatriȬ archalȱandȱtheologicallyȱconservativeȱperspective.ȱTheȱinfluenceȱ ofȱtheȱChristianȱRightȱgoesȱfarȱbeyondȱtheȱUSȱAmericanȱcontextȱ becauseȱofȱitsȱactiveȱmissionaryȱprogramsȱthatȱshapeȱChristianȱ thoughtȱ andȱ practiceȱ worldwide.ȱ Itsȱ hermeneuticsȱ isȱ literalist,ȱ claimingȱuniversality,ȱobjectivity,ȱandȱvalueȬneutralityȱinȱoppoȬ


sitionȱtoȱ(post)modernȱchallengesȱandȱtryingȱtoȱcreativelyȱsolveȱ theȱ epistemologicalȱ tensionsȱ byȱ subscribingȱ toȱ patriarchalȱ genȬ derȱ roles.ȱ Yet,ȱ whileȱ presentingȱ itsȱ messageȱ asȱ literalȱ readings,ȱ theȱ Christianȱ Rightȱ simultaneouslyȱ adaptsȱ itsȱ biblicalȱ interpreȬ tationsȱtoȱcontemporaryȱsocioculturalȱandȱpoliticalȱdebatesȱandȱ aimsȱtoȱadvanceȱtheȱuniversalȱtruthȱofȱGod.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱ Christianȱ Rightȱ engagesȱ withȱ theȱ sociopolitical,ȱ economic,ȱ andȱ culturalȬintellectualȱ developmentsȱ ofȱourȱ timeȱ andȱ mustȱ thereȬ foreȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ directȱ responseȱ toȱ theȱ (post)modernȱ conditionsȱinȱWesternȱsocieties.ȱ Anȱ alternativeȱ hermeneuticsȱ isȱ challengedȱ byȱ proponentsȱ ofȱbothȱtheȱsecularȱandȱfundamentalistȱfallacies.ȱThoseȱwhoȱveȬ hementlyȱrejectȱreligionȱorȱsubscribeȱforcefullyȱtoȱitȱmakeȱitȱdifȬ ficult,ȱperhapsȱevenȱimpossible,ȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱarticulateȱprogresȬ siveȱtheologicalȱandȱreligiousȱviewpointsȱtoȱsoundȱconvincing.ȱ Thusȱtheȱtaskȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱarticulateȱprogressiveȱalternativesȱisȱ toȱ understandȱ theseȱ hermeneuticalȱ andȱ sociologicallyȱ rootedȱ dynamicsȱ soȱ thatȱ theyȱ comeȱ toȱ communicateȱ directly,ȱ clearly,ȱ andȱ effectivelyȱ theirȱ positions.ȱ Ifȱ theyȱ fail,ȱ theȱ futureȱ forȱ proȬ gressiveȱ Christianȱ discourse,ȱ analysis,ȱ andȱ practiceȱ willȱ lookȱ slimȱ indeed.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thusȱ highȱ timeȱ toȱ constructivelyȱ understandȱ theȱtheologicalȱchallengesȱofȱprogressiveȱChristianȱdiscourseȱinȱ Europeȱandȱelsewhere.ȱ Literatureȱ AmericansȱUnitedȱforȱSeparationȱofȱChurchȱandȱState.ȱ(2007).ȱ“Isȱtheȱ ‘Religiousȱ Right’ȱ Dead?ȱ Hardly,ȱ Sayȱ ChurchȬStateȱ Experts.”ȱ ChurchȱandȱStateȱ60/ȱ4:11Ȭ14.ȱ Americansȱ Unitedȱ forȱ Separationȱ ofȱ Churchȱ andȱ Stateȱ (2008).ȱ “ReliȬ giousȱ Rightȱ Powerȱ Inȱ Washingtonȱ Isȱ Greatlyȱ Diminished,ȱ Saysȱ Americansȱ United.”ȱ (5ȱ November).ȱ http://www.docuticker.com/ȱ ?p=23144ȱ(Accessedȱ26ȱAprilȱ2010).ȱ Bail,ȱUlrike,ȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.)ȱ(2006).ȱBibelȱinȱgerechterȱSprache.ȱ3rdȱed.ȱGütersȬ loh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ Berger,ȱPeter,ȱGraceȱDavie,ȱandȱEffieȱFokas.ȱ(2008).ȱReligiousȱAmerica,ȱ Secularȱ Europe?ȱ Aȱ Themeȱ andȱ Variations.ȱ Aldershot,ȱ England/BurȬ lington,ȱUSA:ȱAshgate.ȱ “Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Spracheȱ (2):ȱ ‘Solaȱ scriptura’ȱ –ȱ Zurȱ Aktualitätȱ desȱ protestantischenȱ Erbes.“ȱ (2007).ȱ epdȬDokumentationȱ 23ȱ (29ȱ May).ȱ www.epd.de.ȱ

312ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ “Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Spracheȱ (3):ȱ ’Traditionȱ erneuernȱ –ȱ Glaubenȱ stärȬ ken.”ȱepdȬDokumentationȱ31ȱ(24ȱJulyȱ2007).ȱwww.epd.ȱde.ȱ Birnstein,ȱ Uwe.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Sagenȱ Sieȱ mal,ȱ Hirtinȱ …ȱ Interviewsȱ mitȱ PerȬ sonenȱ derȱ Bibel.“ȱ Sonntagsblattȱ Bayernȱ (23ȱ December).ȱ www.sonȱ tagesblattȬbayern.de.ȱ Blond,ȱ Philip,ȱ andȱ Adrianȱ Pabst.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Benedict’sȱ PostȬSecularȱ ViȬ sion.”ȱ InternationalȱHeraldȱTribuneȱ(29ȱNovemberȱ2006).ȱAvailableȱ atȱhttp://www.nytimes.com.ȱ Bourriaud,ȱ Nicolas.ȱ (2009).ȱ Theȱ Radicant.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Lukasȱ &ȱ SternȬ berg.ȱ Carson,ȱ D.A.ȱ (1998).ȱ Theȱ Inclusiveȱ Languageȱ Debate:ȱ Aȱ Pleaȱ forȱ Realism.ȱ GrandȱRapids:ȱBakerȱBooks.ȱ Casanova,ȱ José.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Immigrationȱ andȱ theȱ Newȱ Religiousȱ PluralȬ ism:ȱ Aȱ Europeanȱ Union/Unitedȱ Statesȱ Comparison.”ȱ In:ȱ T.ȱ BanȬ choffȱ(ed.).ȱDemocracyȱandȱtheȱNewȱReligiousȱPluralism.ȱNewȱYork:ȱ OxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Cottrell,ȱ Jack.ȱ (1994).ȱ Genderȱ Rolesȱ andȱ theȱ Bible:ȱ Creation,ȱ theȱ Fall,ȱ andȱ Redemption.ȱJoplin:ȱCollegeȱPress.ȱ (1992).ȱ Feminismȱ andȱ theȱ Bible:ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Feminismȱ forȱ Christians.ȱJoplin:ȱCollegeȱPress.ȱ Cox,ȱ Harveyȱ G.ȱ (1965).ȱ Secularȱ City:ȱ Secularizationȱ andȱ Urbanizationȱ inȱ TheologicalȱPerspective.ȱNewȱYork:ȱMacmillan.ȱ Dalferth,ȱ Ingolfȱ U.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Derȱ Ewigeȱ undȱ dieȱ Ewige:ȱ Dieȱ ‘Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱSprache’ȱ–ȱwederȱrichtigȱnochȱgerecht,ȱsondernȱkonfus.”ȱ Neueȱ Zürcherȱ Zeitungȱ (18ȱ November).ȱ www.nzz.ch/2006/11/18/li/ȱ articleEBIFU.html.ȱ DeMoss,ȱ Nancyȱ Leigh.ȱ (2001).ȱ Liesȱ Womenȱ Believeȱ andȱ theȱ Truthȱ Thatȱ SetsȱThemȱFree.ȱChicago:ȱMoodyȱPress.ȱ Eckstein,ȱKatharina.ȱ(2007).ȱ“DieȱBibelȱausȱdemȱGleichstellungsbüro.”ȱ KölnerȱStadtȬAnzeigerȱ(6ȱJune).ȱwww.ksta.de.ȱ Eshelman,ȱRaoul.ȱ(2008).ȱPerformatism,ȱorȱtheȱEndȱofȱPostmodernism.ȱAuȬ rora:ȱDaviesȱGroup.ȱ Fischer,ȱIrmtraud.ȱ(2008).ȱ“WhyȱtheȱAgitation?ȱTheȱStatusȱofȱtheȱBibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Spracheȱ inȱ Academiaȱ andȱ theȱ Churches.”ȱ SBLȱ Forumȱ (April).ȱhttp://sblȬsite.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=763.ȱ Fitzpatrick,ȱElyseȱ(2003).ȱhelperȱbyȱdesign:ȱGod’sȱPerfectȱPlanȱforȱWomenȱ inȱMarriage.ȱChicago:ȱMoodyȱPress.ȱ Fogel,ȱRubenȱSeth.ȱ(2006/07).ȱ“HeadscarvesȱinȱGermanȱPublicȱSchools:ȱ ReligiousȱMinoritiesȱareȱWelcomeȱinȱGermany,ȱUnlessȱ–ȱGodȱForȬ bidȱ–ȱTheyȱareȱReligious.”ȱNewȱYorkȱLayȱSchoolȱReviewȱ51:ȱ620Ȭ53.ȱ

THEȱFORBIDDENȱFRUITȱFORȱTHEȱNEWȱEVEȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ313ȱ Fulton,ȱLauren.ȱ(2009).ȱ“Europe’sȱImmigrantȱProblem:ȱIntegratingȱMiȬ norityȱPopulations.”ȱHarvardȱInternationalȱReviewȱ31/3:ȱ28Ȭ33.ȱ Gössmann,ȱ Elisabeth,ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.).ȱ (2007).ȱ Derȱ Teufelȱ bliebȱ männlich.ȱ Neukirchen:ȱNeukirchenerȱVerlag.ȱ Groothuis,ȱ Rebeccaȱ Merrill.ȱ (1997).ȱ Goodȱ Newsȱ forȱ Women:ȱ Aȱ Biblicalȱ PictureȱofȱGenderȱEquality.ȱGrandȱRapids,ȱMI:ȱBaker.ȱ (1994).ȱWomenȱCaughtȱinȱtheȱConflict:ȱTheȱCultureȱWarȱbetweenȱTraȬ ditionalismȱandȱFeminism.ȱGrandȱRapids:ȱBaker.ȱ Harris,ȱSam.ȱ(2004).ȱTheȱEndȱofȱFaith:ȱReligion,ȱTerror,ȱandȱtheȱFutureȱofȱ Reason.ȱNewȱYork:ȱW.W.ȱNorton.ȱ Hasse,ȱ Edgarȱ S.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Weihnachtenȱ mitȱ denȱ ‘Hirtinnen’.”ȱ Dieȱ Weltȱ (3ȱ December).ȱ http://www.welt.de/printȬwelt/article699817/Weihȱ nachten_mit_den_Hirtinnen.html.ȱ “InȱKnotsȱoverȱHeadscarves.”ȱEconomistȱ392/8649ȱ(19ȱSeptemberȱ2009):ȱ 64.ȱ Jenson,ȱRobertȱW.ȱ(1992).ȱ“TheȱFather,ȱHeȱ….”ȱIn:ȱAlvinȱF.ȱKimelȱ(ed.).ȱ Speakingȱ theȱ Christianȱ God:ȱ Theȱ Holyȱ Trinityȱ andȱ theȱ Challengeȱ ofȱ Feminism.ȱLeominster,ȱEngland:ȱEerdmans.ȱPp.ȱ95Ȭ109ȱ Kirby,ȱAlan.ȱ(2009).ȱDigimodernism:ȱHowȱNewȱTechnologiesȱDismanȬ tleȱ theȱ Postmodernȱ andȱ Reconfigureȱ Ourȱ Culture.ȱ London/ȱ Newȱ York:ȱContinuum.ȱ “Kontroverseȱ umȱ dieȱ ‘Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Sprache’.”ȱ (2007).ȱ epdȬ Dokumentationȱ17/18ȱ(24ȱApril).ȱwww.epd.de.ȱ Körtner,ȱ Ulrichȱ H.J.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Bibelȱ oderȱ nichtȱ Bibel:ȱ Dasȱ istȱ hierȱ dieȱ Frage!ȱ Zurȱ Kritikȱ derȱ ’Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Sprache’.“ȱ epdȬDokuȬ mentationȱ17/18ȱ(24ȱApril):ȱ23.ȱ Leicht,ȱRobert.ȱ(2006).ȱ“KeinȱWortȱsieȱwollenȱlassenȱstahn.“ȱDieȱZeitȱ15ȱ (4ȱJune).ȱhttp://images.zeit.de/text/2006/15/Bibel.ȱ Lewis,ȱ Robert.ȱ (2008).ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Eve:ȱ Choosingȱ God’sȱ Bestȱ forȱ Yourȱ Life.ȱ Nashville:ȱB&HȱPublishing.ȱ López,ȱ José,ȱ andȱ Garryȱ Potterȱ (2001).ȱ Afterȱ Postmodernism:ȱ Anȱ IntroȬ ductionȱtoȱCriticalȱRealism.ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱTheȱAthloneȱPress.ȱ Marquand,ȱRobert.ȱ(2009).ȱ“NoȱBurqasȱinȱFrance?ȱRulingȱPartyȱMovesȱ toȱBanȱVeilsȱinȱPublic.”ȱChristianȱScienceȱMonitorȱ(23ȱDecember):ȱ1.ȱ Munday,ȱ Jeremy.ȱ (2001/2008).ȱ Introducingȱ Translationȱ Studies:ȱ Theoriesȱ andȱApplications.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱ “Nichtȱ zumȱ Gebrauchȱ imȱ Gottesdienstȱ geeignet.“ȱ (2007).ȱ Frankfurterȱ AllgemeineȱZeitungȱ(5ȱJune).ȱwww.faz.net.ȱ

314ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Persak,ȱ Ursula.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Inȱ Gottesȱ Namen:ȱ Eineȱ Neuübersetzungȱ derȱ Bibelȱ berücksichtigȱ Erkenntnisseȱ derȱ Geschlechterforschung.”ȱ NürnbergerȱNachrichtenȱ(Mayȱ1).ȱwww.nnȬonline.de.ȱ Piper,ȱ John,ȱ andȱ Wayneȱ A.ȱ Grudemȱ (eds.).ȱ (1991).ȱ Recoveringȱ Biblicalȱ Manhoodȱ andȱ Womanhood:ȱ Aȱ Responseȱ toȱ Evangelicalȱ Feminism.ȱ Wheaton:ȱCrossway.ȱ Poythress,ȱVernȱS.,ȱandȱWayneȱA.ȱGrudem.ȱ(2000).ȱTheȱGenderȬNeutralȱ BibleȱControversy:ȱMutingȱtheȱMasculinityȱofȱGod’sȱWords.ȱNashville:ȱ B&HȱPublishers.ȱ Rehmann,ȱLuziaȱSutter.ȱ(2008).ȱ“WhatȱisȱtheȱBibelȱinȱgerechterȱSprache?ȱ Assumptions,ȱProcess,ȱandȱGoalsȱofȱaȱNewȱGermanȱBibleȱTranslaȬ tion.”ȱSBLȱForumȱ(April).ȱhttp://sblȬsite.org/Article.aspx?ArticleIDȱ =761.ȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ Church.ȱ (2010).ȱ “Onȱ theȱ Collaborationȱ ofȱ Menȱ andȱ Womenȱ inȱ theȱ Churchȱ andȱ theȱ World.”ȱ http://www.vatican.va/ȱ roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_ 20040731_collaboration_en.htmlȱ(Accessedȱ26ȱApril).ȱ Rosenfeld,ȱMichel.ȱ(2009).ȱ“Introduction:ȱCanȱConstitutionalism,ȱSecuȬ larismȱandȱReligionȱBeȱReconciledȱinȱanȱEraȱofȱGlobalizationȱandȱ ReligiousȱRevival?”ȱCardozoȱLawȱReviewȱ30:ȱ2333Ȭ68.ȱ Schmoll,ȱHeike.ȱ(2006).ȱ“BefreitȱzurȱreligiösenȱMündigkeit.“ȱFrankfurȬ terȱAllgemeineȱ253ȱ(30ȱOctober):ȱ1.ȱ Scholz,ȱ Susanne.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Theȱ Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Spracheȱ (BigS):ȱ Theȱ Secularȱ Press,ȱ Kirchenherren,ȱ andȱ Theologyȱ Professorsȱ Reactȱ Toȱ aȱ Newȱ Germanȱ Inclusiveȱ Bibleȱ Translation.”ȱ SBLȱ Forumȱ (April):ȱ http://sblȬsite.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=760.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Bibleȱ Truth,ȱ Megaȱ Churches,ȱ andȱ theȱ Christianȱ Rightȱ inȱ theȱ USA.”ȱ In:ȱ Irmtraudȱ Fischerȱ (ed.).ȱ Theologieȱ vonȱ Frauenȱ fürȱ Frauen?ȱChancenȱundȱProblemeȱderȱRückbindungȱfeministischerȱTheoȬ logieȱ anȱ dieȱ Praxis.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zumȱ Internationalenȱ Kongressȱ anlässlichȱ desȱ zwanzigjährigenȱ Gründungsjubiläumsȱ derȱ Europäischenȱ GesellȬ schaftȱfürȱtheologischeȱForschungȱvonȱFrauenȱ(ESWTR).ȱMünster:ȱLITȱ Verlag.ȱPp.ȱ202Ȭ26.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Theȱ Christianȱ Right’sȱ Discourseȱ onȱ Genderȱ andȱ theȱ Bible.”ȱJournalȱofȱFeministȱStudiesȱinȱReligionȱ21:ȱ83Ȭ104.ȱ (2000).ȱ “Goingȱ West:ȱ Zurȱ Situationȱ deutscherȱ Theologinnen.”ȱ In:ȱ Katharinaȱ vonȱ Kellenbachȱ andȱ Susanneȱ Scholzȱ (eds.).ȱ ZwischenȬ räume:ȱ Deutscheȱ feministischeȱ Theologinnenȱ imȱ Ausland.ȱ Münster:ȱ LITȱVerlag.ȱPp.ȱ55Ȭ67.ȱ

THEȱFORBIDDENȱFRUITȱFORȱTHEȱNEWȱEVEȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ315ȱ Schottroff,ȱ Luise.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Stellungnahmeȱ zumȱ theologischenȱ GutachȬ tenȱ vonȱ Ulrichȱ Wilckensȱ zurȱ Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Sprache.”ȱ epdȬ Dokumentationȱ31ȱ(24ȱJuly):ȱ34Ȭ37.ȱ Schröter,ȱJens.ȱ(2007a).ȱ“KritischeȱAnmerkungenȱzurȱ‘BibelȱinȱgerechȬ terȱSprache’.”ȱepdȬDokumentationȱ17/18ȱ(24ȱApril):ȱ19.ȱ (2007b).ȱ “Übersetzungȱ undȱ Interpretation:ȱ Bemerkungenȱ zurȱ ‘BiȬ belȱinȱgerechterȱSprache’.“ȱepdȬDokumentationȱ31ȱ(24ȱJuly):ȱ21Ȭ27.ȱ andȱ Ingolfȱ U.ȱ Dalferth.ȱ (eds.).ȱ (2007).ȱ Bibelȱ inȱ gerechterȱ Sprache?ȱ KritikȱeinesȱmisslungenenȱVersuchs.ȱTübingen:ȱMohrȱSiebeck.ȱ Schüsslerȱ Fiorenza,ȱ Elisabeth.ȱ (2009).ȱ Democratizingȱ Biblicalȱ Studies:ȱ TowardȱanȱEmancipatoryȱEducationalȱSpace.ȱLouisville:ȱWestminsterȱ JohnȱKnox.ȱ ȱ (2007).ȱ Theȱ Powerȱ ofȱ theȱ Word:ȱ Scriptureȱ andȱ theȱ Rhetoricȱ ofȱ Empire.ȱ Minneapolis:ȱFortressȱPress.ȱ Schulz,ȱMatthias.ȱ(2006).ȱ“WortsalatȱimȱGartenȱEden.“ȱDerȱSpiegelȱ(30ȱ October):ȱ190.ȱ Segovia,ȱFernandoȱF.ȱ(2000).ȱ“InterpretingȱBeyondȱBorders:ȱPostcolonȬ ialȱ Studiesȱ andȱ Diasporicȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Biblicalȱ Criticism.”ȱ In:ȱ FerȬ nandoȱF.ȱSegoviaȱ(ed.).ȱInterpretingȱBeyondȱBorders.ȱSheffield:ȱShefȬ fieldȱAcademicȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ11Ȭ34.ȱ Stegemann,ȱ Wolfgang.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Translationȱ orȱ Interpretation:ȱ Intenseȱ Controversyȱ aboutȱ theȱ Newȱ Germanȱ Translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Bible.”ȱ SBLȱForumȱ(April):ȱhttp://sblȬsite.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=762.ȱ Strauch,ȱAlexander.ȱ(1999).ȱMenȱandȱWomen,ȱEqualȱyetȱDifferent:ȱAȱBriefȱ StudyȱofȱtheȱBiblicalȱPassagesȱonȱGender.ȱLittleton:ȱLewisȱ&ȱRoth.ȱ “Umstritteneȱ Übersetzung:ȱ Dieȱ Schlangeȱ hatteȱ mehrȱ drauf.”ȱ (2006).ȱ DerȱSpiegelȱ(25ȱOctober).ȱOnline:ȱwww.spiegel.de.ȱ Wacker,ȱ MarieȬTheres.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Theȱ Newȱ Inclusiveȱ Bibleȱ Translationȱ inȱ theȱ Contextȱ ofȱ (Post)Modernȱ Germany.”ȱ SBLȱ Forumȱ (April):ȱ http://sblȬsite.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=764.ȱ Wilckens,ȱ Ulrich.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Theologischesȱ Gutachtenȱ zurȱ ‘Bibelȱ inȱ geȬ rechterȱSprache’.”ȱepdȬDokumentationȱ17/18ȱ(24ȱApril):ȱ30.ȱ ȱ

InterreligiousȱLearningȱ ȱ TheȱShapingȱofȱInterreligiousȱIdentityȱ inȱPluralisticȱEuropeȱ ȱ ȱ EmpiricalȱResearchȱonȱChristianȬBuddhistȱ andȱMuslimȬChristianȱRelationsȱ ȱandȱtheirȱTheologicalȱImplicationsȱ ȱ

ȱ

MartinȱRöttingȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ Thisȱcontribution1ȱwillȱdiscussȱtheȱtheological,ȱmethodological,ȱ andȱ empiricalȱ questionsȱ onȱ researchȱ onȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ processesȱbasedȱonȱtheȱongoingȱstudyȱbyȱOCCURSOȱonȱinterreȬ ligiousȱ learningȱ inȱ MuslimȬChristianȱ relationsȱ andȱ aȱ studyȱ onȱ BuddhistȬChristianȱ relationsȱ (Röttingȱ 2007).ȱ Processȱ religiosityȱ andȱ referenceȱ religiosityȱ areȱ twoȱ keyȱ termsȱ forȱ describingȱ theȱ theologicalȱimplicationsȱraisedȱinȱinterreligiousȱprocesses.ȱWhatȱ doesȱ thatȱ meanȱ forȱ religiousȱ identitiesȱ shapedȱ byȱ dialogue?ȱ Howȱcanȱimplicationsȱforȱtheologicalȱframeworksȱbeȱdescribed?ȱ Weȱwillȱlookȱatȱtheȱdynamicsȱofȱdifferentȱdialoguesȱ(BudȬ dhistȬChristian,ȱ MuslimȬChristian)ȱ andȱ argueȱ forȱ aȱ newȱ focusȱ onȱ differentȱ theologicalȱ implications.ȱ Theȱ currentȱ termsȱ ofȱ exȬ clusivistic,ȱ inclusivistic,ȱ andȱ pluralisticȱ categoriesȱ areȱ shiftingȱ towardsȱ aȱ processȬȱ andȱ referenceȬorientedȱ description,ȱ leadingȱ toȱ anȱ“interreligiousȱ spirituality”:ȱ Theologyȱneedsȱ toȱ reflect,ȱ toȱ giveȱguidanceȱto,ȱandȱtoȱsupportȱtheȱlearningȱprocess.ȱThisȱsupȬ portȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ basedȱ onȱ reflectionȱ ofȱ empiricalȱ studiesȱ andȱ dogmaticȱthought.ȱ ȱ

ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱthankȱtheȱparticipantsȱofȱtheȱESITISȱconferenceȱ forȱ theirȱ commentsȱ andȱ Maggieȱ CaseyȬNeumayerȱ forȱ herȱ helpȱ withȱ theȱEnglish.ȱ 1


ShapingȱIdentity:ȱTowardsȱNewȱReligiousȱIdentitiesȱinȱEurope?ȱ Religionȱ mattersȱ inȱ Europeȱ again.ȱ Afterȱ theȱ declineȱ andȱ irreleȬ vanceȱ ofȱ religionȱ wasȱ predictedȱ forȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ decade,ȱ itȱ reȬ emergedȱ inȱ manyȱ unforeseenȱ ways:ȱ spiritualȱ journeys,ȱ papalȱ mediaȱ events,ȱ aȱ newȱ upcomingȱ Muslimȱ prideȱ mixedȱ withȱ anȬ xiousȱ feelingsȱ ofȱ fearȱ andȱ uncertaintyȱ turningȱ intoȱ radicalism,ȱ andȱaȱnewȱurgeȱtowardsȱintegrationȱandȱdialogue.ȱHowȱdoȱinȬ dividualsȱ copeȱ inȱ thisȱ newȱ dynamic?ȱ Whatȱ kindȱ ofȱ identityȬ formingȱprocessesȱcanȱbeȱfound?ȱIsȱthisȱleadingȱtoȱnewȱreligiousȱ identitiesȱinȱEurope?ȱThisȱpaperȱrefersȱtoȱresultsȱofȱtheȱresearchȱ intoȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ processesȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ continuingȱ studyȱatȱOCCURSOȱ(InstituteȱofȱInterreligiousȱandȱInterculturalȱ Encounterȱ [www.occurso.de])ȱ ofȱ MuslimȬChristianȱ andȱ BudȬ dhistȬChristianȱrelationsȱ(Röttingȱ2007).ȱTheȱfindingsȱallowȱtheȱ formulationȱofȱaȱhypothesisȱonȱtheȱdynamicsȱinȱdialogue.ȱ AfterȱweȱlookȱatȱtheȱtheologicalȱandȱmethodologicalȱquesȬ tionsȱofȱresearch,ȱaȱsampleȱofȱinterreligiousȱlearningȱinȱMuslimȬ Christianȱ andȱ ChristianȬBuddhistȱ relationsȱ willȱ beȱ examined.ȱ Theȱ suggestedȱ keyȱ termsȱ “processȱ religiosity”ȱ andȱ “referenceȱ religiosity”ȱ willȱ provideȱ aȱ frameworkȱ forȱ concludingȱ theologȬ icalȱ remarksȱ onȱ possibleȱ implicationsȱ forȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ gions.ȱ Theological,ȱMethodological,ȱandȱEmpiricalȱQuestionsȱofȱResearchȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ oftenȱremainsȱ aȱ theologyȱ ofȱ salvation.ȱInȱ consequence,ȱ religiousȱ identityȱ becomesȱ closelyȱ linkedȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ salvation.ȱ Identityȱ isȱ oftenȱ seenȱ andȱ sometimesȱ reȬ ducedȱtoȱidentificationȱwithȱaȱgivenȱpathȱtoȱsalvation.ȱButȱisȱthisȱ perspectiveȱ onȱ religiousȱ identityȱ sufficient?ȱ Isȱ salvationȱ reallyȱ theȱ onlyȱ centralȱ pointȱ forȱ markingȱ religiousȱ identity?ȱ Howȱ aboutȱ otherȱ identityȱ markersȱ inȱ pointsȱ ofȱ contactȱ toȱ otherȱ reliȬ gionsȱ likeȱ history,ȱ culture,ȱ personalȱ friendships,ȱ orȱ spiritualȱ search?ȱ Aȱ lookȱ atȱ theȱ interreligiousȱ processesȱ ofȱ learningȱ canȱ helpȱ toȱ broadenȱ ourȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ howȱ religiousȱ identityȱ isȱ shapedȱ andȱ whyȱ certainȱ formsȱ ofȱ identityȱ areȱ developed.ȱ Thisȱ leadsȱtoȱanȱimportantȱtheologicalȱquestion:ȱAreȱthereȱotherȱcateȬ goricalȱwaysȱofȱdescribingȱtheologicalȱandȱthusȱspiritualȱidentiȬ ficationsȱthanȱtheȱclassicȱthreeȱexclusivist,ȱinclusivist,ȱandȱplurȬ alistȱmodels?ȱ

INTERRELIGIOUS LEARNINGȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ319ȱ

Interreligiousȱ learningȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ processȱ thatȱ isȱ alreadyȱ highlyȱreflectedȱuponȱbyȱtheȱlearningȱindividual.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱenȬ ableȱsomeoneȱtoȱtalkȱaboutȱherȱorȱhisȱexperience,ȱtheȱrightȱquesȬ tionsȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ asked,ȱ andȱ theoryȬbasedȱ setsȱ ofȱ questionsȱ areȱ necessary.ȱQualitativeȱresearchȱisȱthereforeȱbasedȱonȱaȱtheoryȱofȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ processesȱ (Röttingȱ 2007).ȱ Theȱ basicȱ movementȱ inȱ anyȱ encounterȱ withȱ aȱ differentȱ culturalȱ andȱ reliȬ giousȱotherȱcanȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱcircleȱmovement:ȱpassingȱoverȱandȱ comingȱ back.ȱ Bothȱ movementsȱ canȱ beȱ spelledȱ outȱ inȱ stagesȱ comprisingȱtheȱprocessȱofȱinterreligiousȱlearning2ȱthatȱstartsȱbyȱ enteringȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ other:ȱ (1)ȱ becomingȱ rootedȱ inȱ one’sȱ ownȱtradition,ȱ(2)ȱawarenessȱofȱtheȱotherȱreligion,ȱ(3)ȱtheȱemerȬ genceȱofȱaȱquestionȱfromȱthis,ȱ(4)ȱopeningȱoneselfȱupȱforȱdeeperȱ exchange,ȱ (5)ȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue,ȱ (6)ȱ findingȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ conȬ tactȱ (Anknüpfungspunkt)ȱ thatȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ linkȱ betweenȱ twoȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Whenȱ oneȱ returnsȱ toȱ one’sȱ ownȱ tradition,ȱ thisȱpointȱofȱcontactȱwillȱhelpȱoneȱ(7)ȱtoȱnetworkȱtheȱpointȱofȱconȬ tactȱinȱaȱdoubleȱwayȱbyȱrelatingȱthisȱpointȱtoȱone’sȱownȱandȱtheȱ other’sȱ religiousȱ world.ȱ Thisȱ willȱ leadȱ toȱ aȱ (8)ȱ transformation,ȱ whichȱneedsȱ(9)ȱevaluationȱbeforeȱbeingȱreadyȱtoȱrelateȱthisȱnewȱ perspectiveȱtoȱone’sȱownȱworld.ȱTheȱ(10)ȱintrareligiousȱdialogueȱ preparesȱoneȱforȱ(11)ȱaȱnewȱbecomingȱrootedȱinȱone’sȱownȱtraȬ dition.ȱ Thisȱ processȱ modelȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ offersȱ aȱ gridȱ thatȱshowsȱtheȱstructureȱandȱshapeȱofȱindividualȱlearningȱproȬ cesses.ȱButȱevenȱifȱlearningȱprocessesȱcanȱbeȱcompared,ȱoneȱhasȱ toȱtakeȱintoȱaccountȱthatȱthereȱareȱgeneralȱwaysȱofȱdealingȱwithȱ experience.ȱThisȱalsoȱwillȱhaveȱaȱstrongȱimpactȱonȱhowȱweȱdealȱ withȱtheȱother,ȱbeȱitȱinȱreligiousȱorȱculturalȱmatters.ȱInȱadditionȱ toȱtheȱaboveȱstructureȱaȱlearningȬbyȬexperienceȱtestȱdesignedȱbyȱ DavidȱA.ȱKolbȱprovidesȱadditionalȱinformationȱonȱhowȱtheȱinȬ dividualsȱinterviewedȱdealȱwithȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱother. 3ȱ

2ȱForȱtheȱgenesisȱofȱthisȱtheoryȱseeȱRöttingȱ2007:ȱ161Ȭ228.ȱAnȱinȬ troductionȱtoȱtheȱdifferentȱphasesȱisȱgivenȱonȱpp.ȱ229Ȭ38.ȱ

ȱInȱthisȱstudyȱtheȱLSIȱ3.1ȱisȱusedȱ(HayȱGroupȱDirectȱInc.).ȱForȱtheȱ developmentȱ ofȱ thisȱ testȱ andȱ anȱ introductionȱ inȱ aȱ theoryȱ ofȱ experiȬ entialȱlearningȱseeȱKolbȱ1984.ȱ 3


Twoȱ empiricalȱ researchȱ projects,ȱ oneȱ onȱ ChristianȬBudȬ dhistȱ relationsȱ (2002Ȭ2006)ȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ onȱ MuslimȬChristianȱ relationsȱ(2007Ȭca.ȱ2012),ȱandȱtheȱprocessesȱofȱlearningȱentailedȱ provideȱdataȱforȱsomeȱconcludingȱthoughts.ȱTheȱChristianȬBudȬ dhistȱprojectȱwasȱbasedȱonȱ60ȱinterviewsȱinȱGermanyȱandȱSouthȱ Korea.ȱ Theȱ MuslimȬChristianȱ projectȱ hasȱ notȱ beenȱ completedȱ yetȱandȱprovidesȱcurrentȱdataȱfromȱ15ȱinterviewsȱwithȱMuslimsȱ andȱChristiansȱinȱGermany.ȱTheȱanalysisȱofȱthisȱempiricalȱdata,ȱ togetherȱwithȱotherȱsourcesȱofȱinformation,ȱenablesȱtheȱformuȬ lationȱofȱaȱhypothesisȱonȱhowȱinterreligiousȱidentityȱisȱshaped.ȱ FutureȱprospectsȱonȱthisȱstudyȱenvisageȱextendingȱempiricalȱreȬ searchȱ toȱ ChristianȬJewish,ȱ JewishȬMuslim,ȱ BuddhistȬMuslim,ȱ andȱotherȱinterreligiousȱlearningȱrelationsȱandȱsituations.ȱ Dueȱ toȱ limitedȱ space,ȱ weȱ willȱ chooseȱ threeȱ examples,ȱ oneȱ inȱChristianȱBuddhistȱrelationsȱandȱtwoȱinȱMuslimȬChristianȱreȬ lationsȱ toȱ allowȱ usȱ aȱ glimpseȱ intoȱ theȱ empiricalȱ findingsȱ upȱ toȱ now.ȱ ExampleȱofȱInterreligiousȱLearningȱinȱChristianȬBuddhistȱRelationsȱ Mariaȱ S.4ȱ (69)ȱ isȱ aȱ formerȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ nunȱ whoȱ statesȱ thatȱ sheȱgrewȱupȱinȱanȱenvironmentȱrootedȱinȱChristianity.ȱSheȱdeȬ scribesȱherȱconceptȱofȱGodȱasȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱaspectȱofȱherȱ religiousȱandȱinterreligiousȱspiritualȱsearch.ȱMariaȱstartedȱwithȱ aȱ conceptȱ ofȱ Godȱ asȱ aȱ clearȱ opposite,ȱ aȱ Godȱ sheȱ facedȱ andȱ toȱ whomȱsheȱprayedȱasȱaȱperson.ȱDuringȱherȱinterreligiousȱlearnȬ ingȱ processȱ thisȱ changedȱ toȱ anȱ imageȱ ofȱ “Godȱ withinȱ myself.”ȱ Sheȱ becameȱ aȱ nunȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ contemplativeȱ traditionȱ andȱ theȱ longȱ periodsȱ ofȱ silenceȱ beforeȱ theȱ Blessedȱ Sacrament.ȱ DurȬ ingȱ anȱ intenseȱ personalȱ crisisȱ sheȱ leftȱ theȱ orderȱ andȱ startedȱ workingȱasȱaȱnurse.ȱTheȱteachingsȱandȱdoctrinesȱofȱtheȱchurchȱ couldȱnotȱprovideȱsufficientȱsupportȱinȱthisȱsituation,ȱsoȱMariaȱ turnedȱtoȱZenȱBuddhism.ȱSheȱnever,ȱhowever,ȱfeltȱpulledȱawayȱ fromȱ Christianity,ȱ andȱ theȱ deepȱ personalȱ searchȱ forȱ Godȱ asȱ aȱ callingȱremained:ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ theȱ rootȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ myȱ religiousȱ lifeȱ inȱ theȱ order.ȱIȱdecidedȱbyȱmyselfȱtoȱgoȱaȱcertainȱway,ȱandȱIȱwantedȱ ȱForȱanȱextendedȱanalysisȱseeȱRöttingȱ2007:ȱ320Ȭ22.ȱ

4

INTERRELIGIOUS LEARNINGȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ321ȱ toȱ continueȱ thisȱ way.ȱ Afterȱ Iȱ leftȱ theȱ convent,ȱ Iȱ couldȱ notȱ findȱ anyȱ guidanceȱ forȱ thisȱ way.ȱ Andȱ inȱ Zenȱ thereȱareȱ veryȱ clearȱsignpostsȱtoȱshowȱtheȱway.5ȱ

Afterȱ sheȱ startedȱ practicingȱ Zen,ȱ Mariaȱ S.ȱ alsoȱ joinedȱ aȱ groupȱthatȱworkedȱonȱtheȱtenȱoxherdingȱpictures.ȱThisȱancientȱ seriesȱofȱtenȱpicturesȱareȱwidespreadȱinȱZenȱBuddhismȱandȱdeȬ pictȱanȱoxȱherderȱwhoȱlostȱhisȱox.ȱHisȱsearching,ȱcatching,ȱfightȬ ing,ȱandȱtamingȱtheȱoxȱillustrateȱtheȱprocessȱofȱmeditation.ȱTheȱ reflectionsȱ andȱ evenȱ chantingȱ theȱ traditionalȱ poemsȱ thatȱ comȬ plementȱ thisȱ seriesȱ ofȱ picturesȱ helpedȱ Mariaȱ discoverȱ herȱ “grammar”ȱ ofȱ silence.ȱ Sheȱ learnedȱ toȱ understandȱ howȱ silenceȱ helpsȱ herȱ letȱ goȱ andȱ rediscoversȱ whatȱ hadȱ attractedȱ herȱ toȱ siȬ lenceȱinȱtheȱconvent.ȱUnderstandingȱandȱrelatingȱtheȱZenȱstoryȱ toȱ herȱ ownȱ experienceȱ changedȱ herȱ conceptȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Godȱ beȬ cameȱ aȱ sourceȱ ofȱ strengthȱ toȱ continueȱ onȱ herȱ wayȱ andȱ toȱ helpȱ herȱtoȱlearnȱtoȱ“letȱgo.”ȱAȱGodȱofȱreferenceȱturnedȱintoȱaȱGodȱofȱ process.ȱ Theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ 15ȱ interviewsȱ withȱ Christiansȱ whoȱ areȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Buddhismȱ orȱ Buddhistȱ ideasȱ showȱ thatȱ mostȱ learnȱtoȱdevelopȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱtermedȱprocessȱreligiosityȱ(Röttingȱ 2007:ȱ365,ȱ390Ȭ93).ȱTheyȱlearnȱthatȱtruthȱandȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱitȱ areȱnotȱstaticȱbutȱaȱdynamicȱprocess.ȱTheȱconceptȱofȱGodȱmightȱ beȱtransformedȱfromȱthatȱofȱaȱstaticȱobserverȱtoȱoneȱofȱ“lovingȱ usȱandȱbeingȱwithȱusȱonȱtheȱway.”ȱ ExamplesȱofȱInterreligiousȱLearningȱinȱMuslimȬChristianȱRelationsȱ Mehmedȱ C.ȱ (27)ȱ isȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ aȱ Turkishȱ immigrantȱ andȱ aȱ stuȬ dentȱ ofȱ economics.ȱ Theȱ requestȱ byȱ Germanȱ groupsȱ forȱ guidedȱ toursȱ ofȱ Munich’sȱ mosquesȱ ledȱ himȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ interreliȬ giousȱdialogue.ȱMehmedȱdescribesȱhisȱupbringingȱasȱtraditionȬ allyȱ Islamicȱ butȱ openȱ towardsȱ others.ȱ Heȱ grewȱ upȱ inȱ aȱ neighȬ bourhoodȱwithȱaȱCatholicȱkindergarten.ȱHisȱimageȱofȱtheȱnunsȱ workingȱ thereȱ wasȱ thatȱ theyȱ wereȱ “alwaysȱ smilingȱ andȱ reallyȱ ȱ“Ichȱdenke,ȱdieȱWurzelȱistȱschonȱimȱOrdensleben.ȱIchȱhabeȱmichȱ daȱ fürȱ einenȱ Wegȱ entschiedenȱ undȱ ichȱ wollteȱ diesenȱ Wegȱ auchȱ weiȬ tergehen.ȱNachdemȱichȱdenȱOrdenȱverlassenȱhab,ȱhatteȱichȱinȱmeinerȱ KircheȱkeineȱAnleitungȱfürȱdiesenȱWeg.ȱUndȱimȱZen,ȱdaȱgibtȱesȱganzȱ klareȱWegweiser.”ȱCitedȱinȱRöttingȱ2007:ȱ320ȱ(transl.ȱMR).ȱ 5


friendly.”ȱThisȱkindȱofȱpositiveȱcontactȱhelpedȱhimȱtoȱengageȱinȱ dialogueȱwithȱChristiansȱlater.ȱMehmed’sȱmainȱpointȱofȱcontactȱ isȱtheȱnatureȱofȱGod.ȱHeȱwasȱdrivenȱbyȱtheȱBismillahȱquestion:ȱ “BismillahȱirȬRahmanȱirȬRahim”:ȱHowȱisȱAllahȱmostȱgraciousȱandȱ mostȱcompassionate?ȱ TheȱrahimȱandȱrahmanȱaspectsȱofȱGodȱwereȱcompetingȱwithȬ inȱme.ȱInȱtheȱQur’anȱor,ȱbetter,ȱinȱtheȱsermonsȱofȱtheȱimamsȱ theȱ aspectȱ ofȱ righteousnessȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ favoured.ȱ Godȱ isȱ justȱ andȱ strict.ȱ Butȱ Christiansȱ seemȱ toȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ loveȱ ofȱ God.ȱThatȱchangedȱmyȱfocus.6ȱ

Theȱpointȱofȱreferenceȱheȱfindsȱtroubling,ȱi.e.ȱhowȱtheȱattriȬ butesȱofȱGodȱareȱrelatedȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱfindsȱaȱsolution.ȱTheȱimȬ ageȱofȱaȱcompetitionȱturnedȱintoȱanȱimageȱofȱaȱGodȱwhoȱisȱcomȬ passionate,ȱ just,ȱ andȱ strictȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ beȱ lovingȱ andȱ gracious.ȱ ThatȱGodȱisȱlovingȱmeansȱthatȱHeȱalsoȱhasȱtoȱbeȱjustȱbyȱtreatingȱ eachȱindividualȱjustly.ȱDialogueȱwithȱChristiansȱalsoȱgaveȱMehȬ medȱ theȱ impressionȱ thatȱ Christiansȱ sometimesȱ depictȱ Godȱ asȱ onlyȱ kindȱ andȱ loving,ȱ asȱ nothingȱ elseȱ thanȱ “everyone’sȱ darȬ ling.”ȱ Mehmedȱ statesȱ thatȱ Islam’sȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ distanceȱ andȱ transcendenceȱ ofȱ Godȱ mightȱ helpȱ Christiansȱ too.ȱ Thisȱ sampleȱ showsȱ thatȱ inȱ interreligiousȱ learning,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ dogmaticȱ questionȱisȱrelevantȱbutȱalsoȱthatȱofȱhowȱtheȱlearnerȱrelatesȱtoȬ wardsȱandȱexperiencesȱitȱandȱwhereȱaȱpointȱofȱcontactȱisȱfound.ȱ Markusȱ S.7ȱ isȱ aȱ practisingȱ Catholicȱ andȱ activeȱ inȱ anȱ ecuȬ menicalȱgroupȱinȱaȱMunichȱparish.ȱAfterȱ9/11,ȱhisȱgroupȱbecameȱ activeȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱaȱneighbouringȱmosqueȱandȱsetȱupȱregȬ ularȱ dialogueȱ meetingsȱ andȱ interreligiousȱ scriptureȱ reading.ȱ Markusȱ wasȱ impressedȱ byȱ theȱ Muslimȱ courageȱ toȱ interruptȱ aȱ meetingȱ andȱ stopȱ forȱ prayer.ȱ Heȱ wasȱ alsoȱ impressedȱ byȱ theȱ clearnessȱwithȱwhichȱMuslimȱdialogueȱpartnersȱreferȱtoȱGodȱasȱ 6ȱInterviewȱDM4ȱ2008:ȱ“DerȱrahimȱundȱrahmanȱaspektȱvonȱGottȱ warenȱbeiȱmirȱimȱWettlauf.ȱImȱKoreanȱoderȱbesserȱinȱdenȱPredigtenȱinȱ denȱMoscheenȱscheintȱesȱmeistȱumȱdenȱgerechtigkeitsȬAspektȱbeiȱGottȱ zuȱgehen.ȱGottȱistȱgerechtȱundȱstreng.ȱAberȱimȱChristentumȱbegegnetȱ mitȱ dieȱ Liebe,ȱ dasȱ hatȱ meinenȱ Fokusȱ verändert.”ȱ Unpublishedȱ tranȬ script.ȱAllȱinterviewȱnumbersȱreferȱtoȱanȱunpublishedȱtranscript;ȱDM4ȱ standsȱforȱDeutsch(er),ȱMuslim,ȱInterviewȱNo.ȱ4.ȱ 7ȱInterviewȱDChr10ȱ2009.ȱ


theȱoneȱwhoȱknowsȱwhatȱisȱbestȱ–ȱforȱexampleȱinȱacceptingȱtheȱ ruleȱ toȱ abstainȱ fromȱ porkȱ evenȱ thoughȱ thereȱ isȱ notȱ asȱ muchȱ medicalȱneedȱforȱthisȱruleȱtodayȱasȱthereȱwasȱinȱtheȱtimeȱofȱMuȬ hammad.ȱAnotherȱhintȱtoȱthisȱacceptanceȱofȱGod’sȱruleȱforȱMarȬ kusȱ wasȱ theȱ reasonȱ givenȱ forȱ observingȱ theȱ fastȱ ofȱ Ramadan.ȱ Fasting,ȱaccordingȱtoȱhisȱMuslimȱfriends,ȱisȱnotȱonlyȱaboutȱlosȬ ingȱ weightȱ orȱ becomingȱ aȱ betterȱ personȱ butȱ surrenderingȱ toȱ God’sȱwillȱforȱMuslimsȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱItȱwasȱmerelyȱtheȱsimplicityȱofȱ howȱMuslimsȱagreeȱtoȱobeyȱtheȱwillȱofȱGodȱthatȱimpressedȱhim.ȱ Theȱresultsȱ ofȱ theȱ projectsȱ upȱ toȱnowȱ allowȱ lookingȱ atȱtheȱ analysisȱ ofȱ 14ȱ interviewsȱ onȱ MuslimȬChristianȱ learningȱ proȬ cesses.ȱ Togetherȱ withȱ otherȱ relatedȱ sourcesȱ andȱ fieldȱ studies,8ȱ theyȱ showȱ thatȱ manyȱ Muslimsȱ becameȱ awareȱ ofȱ theirȱ religionȱ especiallyȱ afterȱ 9/11.ȱ Theirȱ ownȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ being,ȱ forȱ exȬ ample,ȱ Turkishȱ immigrantsȱ whoȱ workȱ andȱ liveȱ inȱ Germanyȱ turnedȱintoȱbeingȱseenȱasȱMuslimȱTurkishȱimmigrants.ȱAȱfeelingȱ ofȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ defendȱ Islamȱ againstȱ Islamophobiaȱ andȱ radicalȱ formsȱ ofȱ Islamȱ ledȱ manyȱ Muslimsȱ toȱ discoverȱ and,ȱ inȱ manyȱ ways,ȱrediscoverȱtheirȱownȱreligion.ȱSomeȱofȱthemȱstartedȱtoȱenȬ gageȱ inȱ dialogueȱ andȱ integrationȱ projectsȱ withȱ churchȱ comȬ munitiesȱ inȱ theirȱ neighbourhoods.ȱ Christiansȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Muslimsȱ oftenȱ seemȱ toȱ envisageȱ themselvesȱ asȱ aȱ balanceȱ toȱ aȱ growingȱantiȬMuslimȱperspective.ȱ Christiansȱoftenȱindicateȱthatȱtheyȱhaveȱtroubleȱwithȱsomeȱ passagesȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱthatȱindicateȱtheȱneedȱtoȱconvertȱorȱsupȬ pressȱ nonȬMuslimȱ formsȱ ofȱ faithȱ andȱ society.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ aȱ strictȱGodȱinȱIslamȱwhoȱdrivesȱhisȱfollowersȱtoȱradicalismȱisȱbalȬ ancedȱbyȱtheȱimpressionȱandȱexperienceȱofȱopenȬmindedȱMusȬ limsȱwhoȱengageȱinȱdialogueȱandȱfocusȱonȱotherȱpassagesȱinȱtheȱ Qur’an,ȱstatingȱthatȱAllahȱdividedȱtheȱhumanȱraceȱintoȱdifferentȱ tribesȱ soȱ thatȱ theyȱ wouldȱ learnȱ fromȱ oneȱ anotherȱ (Suraȱ 49:13).ȱ Christiansȱ sometimesȱ stateȱ thatȱ theyȱ respectȱ theȱ seriousnessȱ ofȱ howȱ Muslimsȱ tryȱ toȱ followȱ theirȱ religionȱ andȱ developȱ theirȱ faith.ȱ Theyȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ attractedȱ toȱ howȱ theȱ pointsȱ ofȱ contactȱ

ȱ Allȱ givenȱ resultsȱ reportȱ aȱ workȱ inȱ process.ȱ Resourcesȱ includeȱ participationȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ dialogueȱ meetingsȱ andȱ personalȱ encounȬ tersȱbetweenȱ1999Ȭ2009. 8


(e.g.ȱ God,ȱ Qur’an,ȱ regularȱ prayer)ȱ giveȱ meaningȱ andȱ directionȱ toȱMuslims’ȱeverydayȱlives.ȱ Muslimsȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ challengedȱ byȱ theȱ opennessȱ ofȱ someȱ Christiansȱ toȱ otherȱ religiousȱ views.ȱ Theyȱ discoverȱ thatȱ ChrisȬ tiansȱ apparentlyȱ exerciseȱ greatȱ freedomȱ inȱ interpretingȱ theȱ Bible.ȱ Muslimsȱ findȱ Christiansȱ tooȱ laxȱ sometimesȱ inȱ theirȱ reliȬ giousȱstandingȱbutȱfeelȱattractedȱbyȱtheȱimagesȱofȱlovingȱkindȬ nessȱGodȱshowsȱhisȱpeople.ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱacceptȱJeȬ susȱasȱtheȱsonȱofȱGod,ȱMuslimsȱstateȱinȱtheȱinterviewsȱthatȱtheyȱ getȱaȱbetterȱunderstandingȱofȱwhoȱJesusȱisȱbyȱtalkingȱtoȱChrisȬ tians.ȱ TwoȱSidesȱofȱOneȱCoin?ȱProcessȱReligiosityȱandȱReferenceȱReligiosityȱ Theȱ twoȱ examplesȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ showȱ whatȱ couldȱ beȱaȱtendencyȱinȱdialogueȱencounters.ȱTheȱquestionȱthatȱmattersȱ toȱpeopleȱinȱdialogueȱis:ȱHowȱdoesȱtheȱotherȱapproachȱGodȱorȱ theȱ truth?ȱ Theȱ formerȱ Christianȱ nunȱ foundȱ aȱ “grammarȱ ofȱ theȱ way,”ȱaȱstructureȱofȱanȱinnerȱspiritualȱprocess,ȱexpressedȱinȱtheȱ oxherdingȱpicturesȱofȱZenȱBuddhism,ȱchallenging.ȱTheȱMuslimȱ studentȱwasȱmovedȱbyȱhowȱChristianityȱviewsȱGodȱasȱanȱabsoȬ luteȱandȱlovingȱbeing,ȱsoȱheȱcouldȱdiscoverȱandȱbringȱnewȱemȬ phasisȱtoȱaȱlovingȱGodȱinȱIslam.ȱTheseȱexamplesȱshowȱtwoȱdifȬ ferentȱandȱyetȱrelatedȱreligiousȱquestions:ȱ(1)ȱHowȱcanȱoneȱunȬ derstandȱtheȱspiritualȱprocessȱinȱoneselfȱandȱ(2)ȱhowȱcanȱoneȱreȬ lateȱtoȱtheȱabsolute?ȱ Religiousȱpeopleȱseemȱtoȱbeȱdrawnȱeitherȱmoreȱtoȱtheȱoneȱ orȱ toȱ theȱ other.ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ forȱ thisȱ mightȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ history,ȱ culture,ȱ andȱ biography.ȱ Theseȱ questionsȱ ofȱ processȱ religiosityȱ andȱ referenceȱ religiosityȱ doȱ notȱ remainȱ unaffectedȱ inȱ interreliȬ giousȱ learningȱ processes.ȱ Interviewȱ analysesȱ ofȱ differentȱ diaȬ logueȱsituationsȱindicateȱthatȱtheȱconfrontationȱwithȱtheȱotherȱisȱ oftenȱaȱcatalyst,ȱbringingȱtheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱoneȱisȱtoȱrelateȱtoȱ theȱtruthȱrightȱtoȱtheȱheartȱofȱdialogue.ȱInȱmanyȱdifferentȱwaysȱ andȱ shapes,ȱ twoȱ archetypesȱ emerge:ȱ theȱ wanderingȱ pilgrimȱ andȱ theȱ obedientȱ servant.ȱ Theseȱ formsȱ canȱ beȱ derivedȱ byȱ tracingȱ sixȱ “motives”ȱoccurringȱinȱinterreligiousȱlearning:ȱway,ȱexperience,ȱ essence,ȱ concretization,ȱ action,ȱ andȱ reconciliation.ȱ Theȱ lastȱ twoȱ lastȱ motivesȱ identifyȱ learningȱ inȱ aȱ culturalȱ hermeneuticȱ perȬ spectiveȱasȱinculturalȱorȱtranscultural.ȱInȱaȱreligiousȱhermeneuȬ


ticȱperspective,ȱtheȱfirstȱfourȱindicateȱaȱreferenceȱorȱprocessȱreȬ ligiosityȱ(Röttingȱ2007:ȱ385Ȭ93).ȱ ȱ

Fig.ȱ1ȱInterreligiousȱLearningȱandȱIdentityȱShapingȱinȱEuropeȱ ȱAȱ hypothesisȱ ofȱ identityȱ shapingȱ interreligiousȱ dynamicsȱ inȱpluralisticȱEuropeȱrunsȱasȱfollows:ȱ 1.ȱMuslimsȱlearnȱprocessȱreligiosityȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱChrisȬ tiansȱ(i.e.ȱChristianȱinterestȱinȱSufism,ȱreligionȱasȱaȱperȬ sonal,ȱindividualȱspiritualȱway);ȱ 2.ȱ Buddhistsȱ learnȱ referenceȱ religiosityȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Christiansȱ(i.e.ȱmetta/loveȱhasȱtoȱbeȱconcrete,ȱcaritas,ȱsoȬ cialȱaction);ȱ 3.ȱ Christiansȱ learnȱ referenceȱ religiosityȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Muslimsȱ (i.e.ȱ respectȱ forȱ prayerȱ inȱ referenceȱ toȱ God,ȱ bowing,ȱreligiousȱlifeȱinȱpublic);ȱ 4.ȱChristiansȱlearnȱprocessȱreligiosityȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱBudȬ dhistsȱ (i.e.ȱ religionȱ asȱ aȱ wayȱ toȱ spiritualȱ growth,ȱ Godȱ within,ȱtransformationȱofȱone’sȱownȱsoul/psyche);ȱ 5.ȱ Newȱ religiousȱ formsȱ inȱ centralȱ Europeȱ (Buddhismȱ andȱ Islam)ȱseekȱinculturation;ȱ 6.ȱOldȱreligiousȱformȱinȱcentralȱEuropeȱ(Christianity)ȱseeksȱ transculturation.ȱ


EuropeanȱChristiansȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱBuddhism,ȱeitherȱinȱ personalȱrelationshipsȱwithȱBuddhistsȱorȱbyȱstudyingȱBuddhistȱ teachingȱ orȱ practisingȱ Buddhistȱ formsȱ ofȱ meditationȱ likeȱ Zen,ȱ showȱ aȱ clearȱ orientationȱ towardsȱ processȱ religiosity.ȱ Inȱ theirȱ childhood,ȱmanyȱChristiansȱhaveȱbeenȱtaughtȱanȱimageȱofȱGodȱ asȱ aȱ strictȱ andȱ almightyȱ observer.ȱ Inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Buddhism,ȱ Christiansȱ discoverȱ theȱ Godȱ within.ȱ Theyȱ focusȱ onȱ seeingȱ themselvesȱasȱwanderingȱpilgrims.ȱ ChristiansȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱMuslimsȱfocusȱonȱtheȱmanyȱreȬ ferencesȱtoȱGod’sȱabsolutenessȱinȱIslam.ȱTheyȱareȱchallengedȱbyȱ theȱstrictȱabsenceȱofȱpictures,ȱtheȱArabicȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱQur’an,ȱ theȱ bodyȱ languageȱ ofȱ prayerȱ orȱ theȱ directionȱ ofȱ Mecca.ȱ ChrisȬ tiansȱ reflectȱ onȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ processȱ andȱ referenceȱ inȱ Islamȱ andȱ theirȱownȱtradition.ȱTheyȱoftenȱfindȱtheȱmanyȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱ absoluteȱinȱIslamȱbothȱfrighteningȱandȱchallenging.ȱ Muslimsȱ inȱ Europeȱ oftenȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ inculturaȬ tion.ȱ Oneȱ wayȱ isȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ pointsȱ ofȱ referencesȱ likeȱ mosques.ȱThoseȱMuslimsȱwhoȱareȱinȱdialogueȱwithȱChristianityȱ andȱalsoȱinterestedȱinȱreligiousȱquestionsȱareȱtacklingȱtheȱoftenȱ greaterȱ emphasisȱ ofȱ processȱ inȱ Christianȱ spirituality.ȱ Theyȱ mightȱ notȱ agreeȱ withȱ theȱ Christianȱ viewȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ asȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ GodȱorȱtheȱTrinity,ȱbutȱtheyȱareȱwillingȱtoȱacceptȱthatȱChristiansȱ feelȱ thatȱ Godȱ wantedȱ toȱ beȱ asȱ closeȱ asȱ possibleȱ toȱ humansȱ inȱ Jesus.ȱButȱthisȱpointȱofȱreferenceȱcreatesȱaȱdynamicȱinȱtheȱabsoȬ luteȱ Godȱ whoȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ pathȱ toȱ salvation.ȱ Inȱ Christianȱtheologyȱthisȱdynamicȱisȱexpressedȱinȱtheȱteachingȱofȱ GodȱasȱTrinity.ȱTheȱspiritȱisȱviewedȱasȱaȱmovingȱpower,ȱgenerȬ ating,ȱ andȱ sustainingȱ process.ȱ Godȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ anȱ observerȱ butȱ becomesȱ aȱ pilgrim,ȱ walkingȱ togetherȱ withȱ hisȱ people.ȱ Andȱ hisȱ absoluteȱpowerȱbecomesȱpartȱofȱtheȱpilgrimȱway;ȱGodȱcouldȱbeȱ ableȱtoȱurgeȱpeopleȱtoȱbeȱloving.ȱMuslimsȱstruggleȱwithȱanȱimȬ ageȱ ofȱ Godȱ whoȱ movesȱ towardȱ orȱ isȱ movedȱ byȱ creation,ȱ butȱ God’sȱ wishȱ toȱ guideȱ peopleȱ towardsȱ truthȱ isȱ acceptedȱ andȱ enȬ ablesȱ themȱ toȱ findȱ andȱ rediscoverȱ waysȱ ofȱ processȱ theologyȱ inȱ Islam,ȱ asȱ inȱ Sufism.ȱ Butȱ evenȱ theȱ fiveȱ pillarsȱ ofȱ Islamȱ becomeȱ notȱonlyȱaȱruleȱtoȱfollowȱbutȱaȱmotivationȱforȱfaithfulȱMuslimsȱ toȱ liveȱ outȱ theirȱ faith,ȱ toȱ bringȱ theirȱ faithȱ intoȱ aȱ process,ȱ aȱ pilȬ grimageȱtoȱGod.ȱ Analysingȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ processesȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ hypothesisȱthatȱreligiousȱidentityȱinȱEuropeȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱseekingȱ


aȱbalanceȱbetweenȱtheȱwanderingȱpilgrimȱandȱtheȱobedientȱservant.ȱ TheȱreligiousȱidentityȱofȱmostȱMuslimsȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱshapedȱveryȱ stronglyȱbyȱtheȱimageȱofȱanȱobedientȱservant.ȱThereȱis,ȱhowever,ȱ processȱ orientationȱ inȱ Islamȱ too.ȱ Theȱ pilgrimageȱ toȱ Meccaȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱpillarsȱofȱ Islamȱ fosterȱaȱspiritualȱprocessȱtowardȱ surȬ renderȱtoȱGod.ȱInȱdialogueȱwithȱChristianityȱtheȱaspectȱofȱbeingȱ aȱ wanderingȱ pilgrimȱ alsoȱ becomesȱ theȱ challengingȱ question.ȱ Christiansȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Muslimsȱ areȱ oftenȱ challengedȱ byȱ theȱstrengthȱofȱreference,ȱthusȱdialogueȱwithȱIslamȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱ obedientȱservant.ȱInȱdialogueȱwithȱBuddhism,ȱChristiansȱdiscoverȱ theȱwanderingȱpilgrim,ȱtheȱGodȱwithin.ȱ Theseȱ hypotheticalȱ statementsȱ cannotȱ reflectȱ theȱ complexȱ andȱ multifacetedȱ realityȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Theirȱaimȱis,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱpointȱtoȱtheȱfactȱtheȱempiricalȱsamplesȱ ofȱ dialogueȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ topicȱ ofȱ dialogueȱ inȱEuropeȱisȱbalancingȱprocessȱandȱreferenceȱreligiosityȱwithinȱ eachȱsingleȱtraditionȱandȱwithinȱsocietyȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱSoȱfar,ȱtheȱ resultsȱonlyȱallowȱusȱtoȱformulateȱaȱhypothesis.ȱMoreȱempiricalȱ materialȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ generated,ȱ andȱ analysedȱ resultsȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ relatedȱ toȱ historical,ȱ cultural,ȱ andȱ individualȱ biographies.ȱ Butȱ findingsȱ soȱ farȱ allowȱ viewingȱ religiousȱ identityȱ asȱ shapedȱ byȱ processȱandȱreferenceȱreligiosity.ȱSomeȱtraditionalȱpointsȱofȱreȬ ferenceȱ doȱ notȱ workȱ inȱ aȱ multireligiousȱ society.ȱ Innerȱ processȬ orientedȱwaysȱandȱformsȱofȱspiritualityȱareȱsearchingȱforȱaȱnewȱ languageȱtoȱcommunicateȱtheirȱmeaningȱtoȱaȱnewȱpluralisticȱauȬ dience.ȱTheyȱtooȱneedȱpointsȱofȱreferenceȱtoȱbeȱunderstood.ȱTheȱ researchȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ processesȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ mainȱ questionȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ howȱ theȱ obedientȱ observerȱ andȱ theȱ wanderingȱ pilgrimȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ identity.ȱ Muslim,ȱChristian,ȱBuddhist,ȱandȱotherȱformsȱofȱfaithȱeachȱhaveȱ theirȱ differentȱ shapeȱ andȱ questions,ȱ butȱ theyȱ doȱ relateȱ toȱ oneȱ another.ȱ SalvificȱEndȱorȱProcessȬOrientedȱTheologyȱofȱReligions?ȱ HowȱdoesȱChristianȱtheologyȱdealȱwithȱtheseȱempiricalȱfindingsȱ inȱprocessesȱofȱinterreligiousȱlearning?ȱDoȱtheȱcategoriesȱofȱexȬ clusivist,ȱ inclusivist,ȱ andȱ pluralistȱ serveȱ asȱ hermeneuticalȱ toolsȱ toȱ understandȱ andȱ dealȱ withȱ whatȱ isȱ importantȱ inȱ dialogue?ȱ Theseȱ categoriesȱ helpedȱ toȱ developȱ whatȱ todayȱ isȱ calledȱ theoȬ logyȱofȱreligions,ȱandȱtheyȱcertainlyȱshapedȱourȱunderstandingȱ


ofȱsalvationȱandȱsalvificȱendsȱinȱreligiousȱdialogue.ȱOverȱtheȱdeȬ cades,ȱ mostȱ officialȱ positionsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ organisationsȱ haveȱ foundȱ themselvesȱ brandedȱ asȱ inclusivist.ȱ Manyȱ traditionalȱ orȱ fundamentalȱviewsȱareȱbannedȱintoȱtheȱexclusivistȱboxȱofȱtheoȬ logy,ȱ andȱ theologiansȱ whoȱ argueȱ forȱ theȱ pluralisticȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ struggleȱ withȱ theirȱ religiousȱ authoritiesȱ andȱ findȱ itȱ diffiȬ cultȱtoȱremainȱoutsideȱtheȱinclusivistȱpointȱofȱviewȱwhenȱbeingȱ askedȱforȱcategoriesȱofȱhowȱaȱreligionȱcanȱbeȱcalledȱaȱfullyȱdeȬ velopedȱwayȱtoȱtheȱtruth.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱthreefoldȱmodelȱisȱtheȱonlyȱ logicalȱ frameworkȱ (SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 2005:ȱ 66Ȭ71).ȱ Others,ȱ likeȱ PaulȱKnitter,ȱaddȱaȱfourthȱcategory:ȱtheȱacceptanceȱmodelȱ(KnitȬ terȱ2002:ȱ192Ȭ237).ȱTheȱacceptanceȱmodelȱtakesȱupȱtheȱchallengeȱ byȱMarkȱS.ȱHeimȱandȱothersȱthatȱthereȱareȱsimplyȱtrulyȱdifferȬ entȱ religionsȱ andȱ thereforeȱ alsoȱ differentȱ religiousȱ ends.ȱ Butȱ howȱisȱoneȱtoȱchooseȱoneȱmodelȱtoȱfollowȱwithoutȱfalling,ȱagain,ȱ intoȱatȱleastȱaȱpracticalȱinclusivism?ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱtriesȱ toȱacceptȱtheȱparadoxȱandȱfocusesȱonȱcomparingȱdifferentȱareasȱ inȱtheȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱButȱisȱitȱreallyȱpossibleȱnotȱtoȱtryȱtoȱ makeȱ senseȱ ofȱ whatȱ isȱ compared?ȱ Manyȱ haveȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ reachedȱ aȱ deadȱ endȱ arguȬ mentatively.ȱIȱamȱnotȱtemptedȱtoȱargueȱforȱaȱtotalȱsolution,ȱbutȱ hopefullyȱIȱcanȱprovideȱaȱdifferentȱperspective:ȱpeopleȱlearningȱ inȱdialogueȱseemsȱtoȱhintȱatȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtruthȱisȱnotȱonlyȱsomeȬ thingȱ toȱ whichȱ oneȱ points:ȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ process.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ couldȱ thenȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ findȱ pointsȱ ofȱ contact.ȱTheȱmainȱlogicalȱparadoxȱbetweenȱtheȱdifferentȱmodelsȱ isȱ theȱ following:ȱ ifȱ theȱ truthȱ isȱ one,ȱ howȱ doȱ differentȱ religiousȱ waysȱrelateȱtoȱit?ȱBut,ȱifȱtheȱtruthȱisȱmany,ȱwhichȱoneȱfollows?ȱ Interreligiousȱ learningȱ processesȱ inȱ dialogueȱ showȱ differentȱ motivesȱforȱlearning.ȱPeopleȱlearnȱtoȱfindȱreconciliation,ȱtoȱact,ȱ toȱfindȱtheȱessenceȱofȱtheirȱfaith,ȱtoȱsolidifyȱtheirȱbelief,ȱtoȱexperȬ ienceȱorȱunderstandȱtheirȱwayȱinȱrelationȱtoȱwhatȱtheyȱhopeȱisȱ truth.ȱHumanȱbeingsȱseemȱtoȱfindȱtruthȱinȱpointingȱtowardsȱitȱ asȱaȱpointȱofȱreferenceȱbutȱareȱalsoȱmovedȱbyȱitȱintoȱaȱprocess.ȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ focusedȱ mainlyȱ onȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ howȱ differentȱ religionsȱ canȱ pointȱ toȱ truth.ȱ Butȱ ifȱ truthȱisȱalsoȱseenȱasȱaȱprocess,ȱthenȱpointsȱofȱreferenceȱbecomeȱ signpostsȱhintingȱtowardsȱaȱprocessȱofȱtruth.ȱSomeȱtheologiansȱ haveȱstartedȱtoȱdevelopȱinȱthisȱdirection.ȱHeim,ȱafterȱfirstȱclaimȬ


ingȱ truthȱ toȱ beȱ many,ȱ thereforeȱ alsoȱ entailingȱ differentȱ salvaȬ tions,ȱtriesȱtoȱformulateȱaȱTrinitarianȱtheologyȱofȱreligiousȱendsȱ (Heimȱ2001).ȱKnitterȱpointsȱtoȱcommunionȱasȱanȱintegrativeȱasȬ pectȱ forȱ theȱ acceptanceȱ modelȱ (Knitterȱ 2002:192Ȭ237).ȱ Inȱ whatȬ everȱ directionȱ discoursesȱ inȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ leadsȱ us,ȱ empiricalȱ researchȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ inȱ dialogueȱ religionȱ isȱ experȬ iencedȱasȱreferenceȱandȱasȱprocess.ȱ Fromȱ Tableȱ 1ȱ (seeȱ followingȱ page)ȱ weȱ canȱ deriveȱ theȱ folȬ lowing:ȱ 1.ȱ Interreligiousȱ learningȱ worksȱ byȱ networkingȱ pointsȱ ofȱ contactȱinȱorderȱtoȱbalanceȱreferenceȱandȱprocessȱorientation.ȱ 2.ȱ Balanceȱ willȱ neverȱ beȱ reachedȱ fullyȱ butȱ isȱ aȱ moȬ tivationȱforȱcontinuingȱtheȱprocessȱofȱdialogue.ȱ 3.ȱTruth,ȱifȱseenȱnotȱonlyȱasȱaȱpointȱbutȱalsoȱasȱaȱprocess,ȱ canȱcopeȱwithȱunityȱandȱdifference.ȱ 4.ȱInterreligiousȱspiritualityȱlistensȱtoȱreligion’sȱwaysȱandȱ pointsȱ ofȱ referenceȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ enableȱ toȱ continueȱ andȱ learnȱ fromȱoneȱanother.ȱ 5.ȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ needsȱ toȱ focusȱ notȱ onlyȱ onȱ reliȬ giousȱendsȱbutȱonȱtheȱdialogueȱprocessȱitself.ȱProcessȱandȱreȬ ferenceȱreligiosityȱandȱaȱstrivingȱforȱbalanceȱcanȱserveȱasȱanȱ alternativeȱcategory.ȱ Therefore,ȱ Iȱ argueȱ thatȱ aȱ shiftȱ towardsȱ aȱ referenceȬȱ andȱ aȱ processȬorientedȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱmightȱbeȱaȱwayȱoutȱofȱtheȱ aboveȱproblemsȱandȱbeȱableȱtoȱleadȱtheȱdiscourseȱtoȱfreshȱnewȱ ground.ȱAȱreferenceȬȱandȱprocessȬorientedȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱ looksȱatȱhowȱreligiousȱidentityȱisȱshapedȱasȱaȱclueȱforȱhowȱtheȱ truthȱ isȱ incarnated.ȱ Interreligiousȱ learningȱ betweenȱ Islam,ȱ Christianity,ȱandȱBuddhismȱinȱEuropeȱindicatesȱthatȱreferenceȱreȬ ligiosityȱ andȱ processȱ religiosityȱ mightȱ beȱ keyȱ termsȱ thatȱ relateȱ toȱ both:ȱspiritualȱandȱtheologicalȱquestionsȱwithinȱreligiousȱtradeȬ tionsȱ andȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ otherȱ traditions.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ ofȱ rightȱ andȱwrongȱwaysȱtoȱtheȱtruthȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱtoȱbeȱatȱtheȱcentreȱ butȱformsȱofȱrelatednessȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtruth,ȱbeȱitȱmainlyȱasȱ anȱobedientȱservantȱorȱaȱwanderingȱpilgrim,ȱor,ȱmostȱlikely,ȱaȱmixȬ tureȱofȱbothȱinȱsearchȱofȱaȱnewȱbalance.ȱ Aȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ thatȱ takesȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ diaȬ logueȱseriouslyȱwillȱtryȱtoȱdevelopȱtheologicalȱgroundsȱtoȱhelpȱ understandȱ theȱ dynamicȱ ofȱ dialogueȱ asȱ aȱ hintȱ ofȱ aȱ dynamicȱ truth.ȱ Forȱ Christiansȱ inȱ Europe,ȱ thisȱ dynamicȱ isȱ oftenȱ experiȬ

ȬȬȬȱ

ȬȬȬȱ Ǳȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȬȬȬȱ Ǳȱ ȱȱ ȱ ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ ȱǰȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱ ǲȱ ȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ Ǳȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȬȬȬȱ Ǳȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ǲȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱ ȱ

ŗǱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ

¡ȱ ȱȱǯǯȱ ȱȱȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ǱȱȦ ȱȱǵȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ Ǳȱ ȱȱȦȱǵȱ ȱȱȱ ȱǻǼȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ Ȃȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ǳȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱǻǼȱ ǵȱ


encedȱ asȱ beingȱ pulledȱ inȱ twoȱ oppositeȱ directions:ȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Buddhismȱ theȱ processȱ aspectȱ ofȱ religiosityȱ isȱ challengedȱ andȱ fostered,ȱ whereasȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ Islamȱ theȱ referenceȱ asȬ pectȱofȱreligiosityȱisȱinȱlineȱwithȱpreviousȱthinking.ȱTheologyȱofȱ religionsȱwillȱprovideȱhelpȱinȱunderstandingȱthisȱdynamicȱandȱ helpȱtoȱintegrateȱbothȱaspectsȱintoȱaȱChristianȱidentityȱthatȱcanȱ notȱonlyȱacceptȱtheȱpluralisticȱviewsȱinȱsocietyȱbutȱalsoȱrelateȱtoȱ theȱ spiritualȱ dynamicȱ thatȱ emergesȱ onceȱ differentȱ traditionsȱ meet.ȱ Theȱ argumentsȱ thatȱ leadȱ toȱ theȱ acceptanceȱ modelȱ takeȱ upȱ differentȱ perspectives.ȱ Butȱ theyȱ tooȱ needȱ toȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ howȱdifferentȱformsȱofȱreligiosityȱmakeȱsense.ȱAȱtheologyȱofȱreȬ ligionsȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱbalanced,ȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱintegrateȱdifference,ȱ andȱtoȱshowȱandȱdescribeȱmeetingȱpointsȱwhereȱreligionsȱviewȱ truthȱandȱrelateȱtoȱit.ȱ Pluralisticȱ Europeȱ Learnsȱ andȱ Strugglesȱ withȱ Interreligiousȱ SpirituȬ alityȱ Aȱ lookȱ atȱ continuingȱ studiesȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ learningȱ showedȱ thatȱpluralisticȱEuropeȱisȱlearningȱandȱstrugglingȱwithȱwhatȱcanȱ beȱcalledȱinterreligiousȱspiritualityȱ(Röttingȱ2008).ȱInterreligiousȱ learningȱ worksȱ byȱ networkingȱ pointsȱ ofȱ contact.ȱ Itȱ isȱ neverȱ IsȬ lamȱmeetingȱChristianityȱorȱChristianityȱmeetingȱBuddhismȱbutȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ thatȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ bridgeȱ toȱ meet.ȱ Here,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ workingȱ toȱ broadenȱ possibleȱ linksȱ betweenȱ theȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Thisȱ networkingȱ ofȱ pointsȱ ofȱ contactȱ canȱ beȱ connectedȱ withȱ positiveȱ orȱ negativeȱ connotations.ȱ Religiousȱ identityȱ inȱ Europeȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ shapedȱ byȱ aȱ dynamicȱ ofȱ twoȱ forces,ȱ foundȱ inȱ differentȱ shapesȱ andȱ strengthsȱinȱreligionsȱpresentȱinȱtheȱEuropeȱofȱtoday.ȱReferenceȱ religiosityȱ andȱ processȱ religiosityȱ areȱ partȱ ofȱ Islam,ȱ Christian,ȱ andȱ Buddhistȱ formsȱ ofȱ faith.ȱ Theȱ studyȱ inȱ questionȱ willȱ tryȱ toȱ examineȱthisȱdynamicȱinȱotherȱfaithȱrelations,ȱsuchȱasȱJudaism,ȱ inȱ futureȱ projects.ȱ Religiousȱ identityȱ inȱ Europeȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ searchingȱforȱaȱnewȱformȱofȱspirituality,ȱaȱwayȱofȱfaithȱthatȱcanȱ relateȱtoȱothersȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱacceptingȱorȱdenyingȱtheirȱreligiousȱ goalsȱ butȱ alsoȱ byȱ understandingȱ differentȱ waysȱ andȱ traditionsȱ andȱhowȱtoȱrelateȱtoȱtheseȱgoals.ȱTheȱarchetypesȱobedientȱservantȱ andȱ wanderingȱ pilgrimȱ mightȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ indicateȱ andȱ helpȱ usȱ understandȱsomeȱofȱtheȱrelevantȱaspectsȱonȱhowȱreligiousȱidenȬ


tityȱisȱshaped.ȱEmpiricalȱqualitativeȱresearchȱintoȱinterreligiousȱ relationsȱ inȱ Europeȱ isȱ justȱ inȱ itsȱ infancy.ȱ Butȱ theȱ firstȱ glimpseȱ intoȱtheȱtreasureȱchestsȱofȱindividualȱlearningȱexperienceȱpromȬ iseȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱnewȱknowledgeȱonȱhowȱreligiousȱidentityȱisȱ generatedȱandȱhowȱtoȱmakeȱtheologicalȱsenseȱofȱit.ȱ Literature Heim,ȱS.ȱMark.ȱ(2001).ȱTheȱDepthȱofȱtheȱRiches:ȱAȱTrinitarianȱTheologyȱofȱ Religiousȱ Ends.ȱ Sacraȱ Doctrinaȱ Series.ȱ Grandȱ Rapids/Cambridge,ȱ UK:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱEerdmansȱPublishingȱCompany.ȱ Kolb,ȱ Davidȱ A.ȱ (1984).ȱ Experientialȱ Learning:ȱ Experienceȱ asȱ aȱ Sourceȱ ofȱ LearningȱandȱDevelopment.ȱEnglewoodȱCliffs:ȱPrenticeȬHall.ȱ Knitter,ȱ Paul.ȱ (2002).ȱ Introducingȱ Theologiesȱ ofȱ Religion.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱ Orbis.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱ Perry.ȱ (2005).ȱ Gottȱ ohneȱ Grenzen:ȱ Eineȱ christlicheȱ undȱ pluralistischeȱTheologieȱderȱReligionen.ȱGütersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerȬ lagshaus.ȱ Rötting,ȱ Martin.ȱ (2009).ȱ Interreligiösesȱ Lernenȱ imȱ christlichȬmuslimischenȱ Dialog:ȱInterviewȱTranscriptȱandȱAnalyses.ȱUnpublished.ȱ ȱ (2008).ȱInterreligiöseȱSpiritualität:ȱVerantwortungsvollerȱUmgangȱderȱ Religionen.ȱSt.ȱOttilien:ȱEOS.ȱ (2007a).ȱ “Christianȱ Processȱ andȱ Buddhistȱ Reference?ȱ InterreliȬ giousȱLearningȱinȱBuddhistȬChristianȬDialogue.”ȱIn:ȱJohnȱO’GraȬ dyȱ andȱ Peterȱ Scherleȱ (eds.).ȱ Ecumenicsȱ fromȱ theȱ Rim:ȱ Explorationsȱ inȱHonourȱofȱJohnȱD’ArcyȱMay.ȱBerlin:ȱLITȱVerlag.ȱPp.ȱ279Ȭ86.ȱ (2007b).ȱ Interreligiösesȱ Lernenȱ imȱ buddhistischȬchristlichenȱ Dialog:ȱ Lerntheoretischerȱ Zugangȱ undȱ qualitativȬempirischeȱ Untersuchungȱ inȱ DeutschlandȱundȱSüdkorea.ȱSt.ȱOttilien:ȱEOS.ȱ

InterreligiousȱHermeneuticsȱ andȱtheȱEthicalȱCritiqueȱofȱtheȱScripturesȱ ȱ ȱ OddbjørnȱLeirvikȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ Asȱreflectedȱinȱthisȱvolume,ȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱhasȱbeȬ comeȱaȱrelativelyȱwellȬestablishedȱtoposȱinȱtheorizingȱaboutȱdiaȬ logueȱbetweenȱreligions.ȱDifferencesȱarise,ȱhowever,ȱdependingȱ onȱwhetherȱtheȱnotionȱrefersȱtoȱrelationsȱbetweenȱpeopleȱorȱbeȬ tweenȱtexts,ȱandȱonȱhowȱtheȱinteractionȱbetweenȱtextsȱandȱpeoȬ pleȱ(readers)ȱisȱdiscussedȱhermeneutically.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ contribution,ȱ afterȱ indicatingȱ theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneutics,ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ (1)ȱ backȬ groundȱ problemsȱ andȱ hermeneuticalȱ outlooksȱ inȱ someȱ recentȱ examplesȱ ofȱ ChristianȬMuslimȱ readings,ȱ (2)ȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ saȬ credȱtextsȱinȱnewȱcontexts,ȱandȱ(3)ȱtheȱissueȱofȱethicalȱcritiqueȱ–ȱ orȱmoralȱenrichmentȱ–ȱofȱsacredȱtexts.ȱSinceȱtheȱlatterȱthemeȱisȱ theȱ mainȱ focusȱ ofȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ separatelyȱ howȱ someȱChristianȱandȱMuslimȱtheologiansȱdealȱwithȱtheȱquestionȱ ofȱethicalȱcritiqueȱbeforeȱraisingȱtheȱquestionȱofȱcriticalȱengageȬ mentȱwithȱsacredȱtextsȱinȱsharedȱspaces.ȱ InterreligiousȱHermeneutics:ȱBetweenȱTextsȱandȱPeopleȱ AccordingȱtoȱMarthaȱFrederiks,ȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱcanȱ eitherȱ beȱ focusedȱ onȱ “Interpretingȱ theȱ Texts”ȱ orȱ “Interpretingȱ theȱ Encounterȱ withȱ ‘theȱ Other’”ȱ (Frederiksȱ 2005).ȱ Inȱ theȱ latterȱ case,ȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ comesȱ closeȱ toȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱunderstoodȱasȱanȱinterpretiveȱapproachȱtoȱotherȱreliȬ gionsȱthatȱ(differentlyȱfromȱwhatȱisȱconventionallyȱunderstoodȱ asȱ “comparativeȱ religion”)ȱ engagesȱ theȱ selfȱ inȱ aȱ potentiallyȱ transformativeȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ religiousȱ otherȱ (cf.ȱ Francisȱ Clooney’sȱ contributionȱ inȱ thisȱ volume).ȱ Whatȱ takesȱ placeȱ inȱ suchȱdialogicalȱprocessesȱisȱaȱrepositioningȱofȱtheȱselfȱintoȱaȱlarȬ gerȱ interpretiveȱ whole.ȱ Inȱ Paulȱ Riceour’sȱ hermeneuticalȱ langȬ uage,ȱ suchȱ processesȱ couldȱ alsoȱ beȱ interpretedȱ asȱ becomingȱ “oneselfȱasȱanother”ȱ(Ricoeurȱ1994).ȱ


Anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ howȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ hermenȬ euticsȱ mayȱ beȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ broaderȱ senseȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ NorwegianȱtheologianȱBårdȱMæland’sȱinvestigationȱofȱwhatȱheȱ callsȱ“theȱinterreligiousȱhermeneutics”ȱandȱtheȱresultantȱ“comȬ parativeȱ theologies”ȱ ofȱ Kennethȱ Craggȱ andȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smithȱ(Mælandȱ2003).ȱForȱbothȱCraggȱandȱSmith,ȱtheirȱinterreȬ ligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ canȱ beȱ understoodȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theirȱ livingȱ encounterȱ withȱ Islam.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ toȱ beȱ investiȬ gatedȱ isȱ “howȱ one’sȱ selfȬunderstandingȱ isȱ formed,ȱ influenced,ȱ affected,ȱ interrogated,ȱ etc.,”ȱ entailingȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ “selfȬ change”ȱ broughtȱ aboutȱ byȱ theseȱ Christianȱ thinkers’ȱ encounterȱ withȱtheȱMuslimȱotherȱ(Mælandȱ2003:ȱ4f.).ȱ Also,ȱ inȱ theȱ Danishȱ theologianȱ Jonasȱ Adelinȱ Jørgensen’sȱ studyȱofȱsyncretisticȱJesusȱbelieversȱinȱAsia,ȱtheȱtextȱtoȱbeȱinterȬ pretedȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ otherȱ butȱ theȱ precariousȱ positionȱ ofȱ oneself.ȱ Jørgensen’sȱresearchȱdealsȱwithȱtheȱsyncretisticȱexperienceȱofȱJeȬ susȱbelieversȱwhoȱpositȱthemselvesȱinȱtheȱliminalȱspaceȱbetweenȱ IslamȱandȱChristianityȱ(Isaȱimandarsȱ–ȱ“thoseȱfaithfulȱtoȱJesus”ȱ–ȱ inȱ Bangladesh)ȱ orȱ Hinduismȱ andȱ Christianityȱ (Khristȱ Bhaktasȱ –ȱ “devoteesȱ ofȱ Christ”ȱ –ȱ inȱ India).ȱ Theȱ wayȱ Jørgensenȱ employsȱ theȱnotionȱofȱ interreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱ comesȱ closeȱ toȱ anȱ inȬ nerȱ dialogueȱ ofȱ convertsȱ who,ȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ theirȱ dedicationȱ toȱ Christ,ȱretainȱseveralȱelementsȱofȱtheirȱpreviousȱfaithȱandȱpracȬ ticeȱ(Jørgensenȱ2008,ȱ2009).ȱ Theȱnotionȱofȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱmayȱbeȱusedȱinȱaȱ similarȱ wayȱ toȱ characterizeȱ whatȱ takesȱ placeȱ inȱ ChristianȬBudȬ dhistȱencounters.ȱInȱanȱarticleȱonȱtheȱJapaneseȱChristianȱtheoloȬ gianȱS.ȱYagiȱandȱhisȱexistentialȱdialogueȱwithȱBuddhism,ȱSybilleȱ FritschȬOppermannȱ notesȱ thatȱ “aȱ hermeneuticsȱ ofȱ theȱ Other”ȱ (inȱ Levinas’ȱ sense)ȱ isȱ basicallyȱ aboutȱ anȱ understandingȱ ofȱ myȬ selfȱ asȱ provokedȱ byȱ theȱ otherȱ moreȱ thanȱ anȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱotherȱpersonȱorȱaȱtextȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱother.ȱInterreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱhasȱalwaysȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱperȬ sons,ȱnotȱonlyȱofȱtextsȱ(FritschȬOppermannȱ2003:ȱ235f.).ȱ Similarly,ȱ inȱ Frederiks’ȱ understanding,ȱ interreligiousȱ herȬ meneuticsȱinȱtheȱbroaderȱsenseȱarisesȱfromȱ“anȱencounterȱwithȱ theȱ stranger,ȱ theȱ otherȱ beingȱ theȱ textȱ toȱ beȱ interpreted”ȱ (FredȬ eriksȱ2005:ȱ105).ȱWhatȱunitesȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱasȱ“inȬ terpretingȱtheȱtexts”ȱandȱ“interpretingȱlife,”ȱaccordingȱtoȱFredȬ eriks,ȱ isȱ itsȱ beingȱ anchoredȱ inȱ everydayȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ peopleȱ

THEȱETHICALȱCRITIQUEȱOFȱTHEȱSCRIPTURESȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ335ȱ

livingȱtogetherȱinȱaȱmultireligiousȱsociety.ȱItȱisȱthisȱlivedȱexperiȬ enceȱ thatȱ mayȱ alsoȱ leadȱ toȱ sharedȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ religiousȱ scriptures:ȱ ȱ Sometimesȱ borrowingȱ fromȱ eachȱ others’ȱ interpretationȱ frames,ȱ butȱ alwaysȱ sharingȱ theȱ hopeȱ andȱ encouragementȱ weȱ receivedȱ fromȱ readingȱ theȱ sacredȱ texts;ȱ alwaysȱ living,ȱ reading,ȱinterpreting,ȱmakingȱsenseȱofȱlifeȱwithȱtheȱotherȱinȱ heartȱandȱmind.ȱ(Frederiksȱ2005:ȱ106)ȱ

Inȱwhatȱfollows,ȱIȱwillȱconcentrateȱonȱtwoȱaspectsȱofȱwhatȱhapȬ pensȱwhenȱpeopleȱofȱdifferentȱfaithsȱengageȱinȱdialogueȱonȱsaȬ credȱtexts.ȱFirst,ȱIȱwillȱreflectȱonȱtheȱdifferentȱcontextsȱinȱwhichȱ scripturesȱcanȱbeȱreadȱinterreligiously.ȱSecond,ȱIȱwillȱdiscussȱtheȱ questionȱofȱtheȱethicalȱcritiqueȱofȱscripturesȱ–ȱrelatedȱtoȱcommonȬ lyȱ acknowledgedȱ problemsȱ inȱ particularȱ contextsȱ andȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱwhichȱproblematicȱreligiousȱpracticesȱmayȱbeȱlegitimatedȱbyȱ referenceȱtoȱsacredȱscripture.ȱ BackgroundȱProblemsȱinȱInterreligiousȱReadingsȱ Asȱ indicatedȱ byȱ theȱaboveȱ quoteȱ fromȱ Frederiks,ȱinterreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱinȱtheȱsenseȱofȱreadingȱtextsȱtogetherȱacrossȱreliȬ giousȱ differencesȱ isȱ moreȱ oftenȱ associatedȱ withȱ religiousȱ “enȬ couragement”ȱ thanȱ withȱ moralȱ critique.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ obviousȱ exȬ ceptionȱ wouldȱ beȱ criticalȱ feministȱ readings,ȱ whichȱ mayȱ alsoȱ shedȱ criticalȱ lightȱ onȱ interreligiousȱ dialoguesȱ aboutȱ scripturesȱ (cf.ȱ Grungȱ 2011ȱ andȱ Egnell’sȱ contributionȱ toȱ thisȱ volume).ȱ AnȬ otherȱ equallyȱ criticalȱ questionȱ emergingȱ fromȱ interreligiousȱ readingsȱconcernsȱtheȱimageȱofȱtheȱreligiousȱotherȱinȱscripturesȱ andȱ itsȱ possibleȱ functionȱ asȱ fuelȱ forȱ violentȱ confrontationsȱ (cf.ȱ Chesworth’sȱcontributionȱinȱthisȱvolume).ȱInȱwhatȱcontextsȱareȱ suchȱcriticalȱquestionsȱtoȱtheȱscripturesȱallowedȱtoȱsurface,ȱandȱ howȱareȱ“problematicȱtexts”ȱ(problematicȱwithȱregardȱtoȱgenderȱ models,ȱ enemyȱ images,ȱ andȱ violence)ȱ dealtȱ withȱ inȱ differingȱ formsȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogue?ȱ Ifȱ aȱ generalȱ reluctanceȱ toȱ beȱ openȱ toȱ moralȱ critiqueȱ whenȱ discussingȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱ canȱ beȱ observed,ȱ thisȱ doesȱnotȱimplyȱthatȱdialoguesȱaboutȱsacredȱscriptureȱgenerallyȱ eschewȱproblems.ȱWhenȱlookingȱatȱsomeȱbooksȱfromȱtheȱlastȱdeȬ cadesȱ aboutȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Muslimsȱ readingȱ theirȱ sacredȱ textsȱ together,ȱ oneȱ willȱ easilyȱ seeȱ thatȱ certainȱ problemsȱ relatedȱ toȱ


actualȱusesȱofȱscripturesȱlurkȱinȱtheȱbackground.ȱInȱtheȱgroundȬ breakingȱbookȱTheȱChallengeȱofȱtheȱScriptures,ȱbyȱaȱFrenchȬNorthȱ Africanȱ researchȱ groupȱ ofȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Muslims,ȱ theȱ backȬ groundȱproblemȱisȱclearlyȱtheȱlackȱofȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱother’sȱ scripturesȱandȱtheirȱintegrityȱamongȱmainstreamȱChristiansȱandȱ Muslimsȱ(MuslimȬChristianȱResearchȱGroupȱ1989).ȱInȱScripturesȱ inȱDialogue,ȱaȱbookȱemergingȱfromȱtheȱongoingȱAnglicanȬMusȬ limȱdialogue,ȱalongȱwithȱtheȱaboveȬmentionedȱissueȱofȱhowȱtheȱ religiousȱotherȱisȱdepictedȱinȱtheȱBibleȱandȱtheȱQur’an,ȱtheȱcritȬ icalȱ questionȱ ofȱ genderȱ relationsȱ alsoȱ shinesȱ throughȱ inȱ theȱ seȬ lectionȱofȱtopicsȱandȱtextsȱ(Ipgraveȱ2004).ȱ InȱaȱmoreȱrecentȱbookȱasȱwellȱfromȱtheȱGermanȱcontextȱonȱ scripturalȱinterpretationȱinȱChristianityȱandȱIslam,ȱ“Näheȱistȱdirȱ dasȱWortȱ…,”ȱfeministȱreadingsȱareȱpartȱofȱtheȱhorizonȱbutȱinȱaȱ moreȱgeneralȱframeworkȱofȱcriticalȱhermeneuticsȱ(Schmidȱetȱal.ȱ 2010).ȱ Theȱ problemȬorientedȱ andȱ radicalȱ hermeneuticalȱ apȬ proachesȱ ofȱ thisȱ particularȱ bookȱ shineȱ throughȱ inȱ theȱ titlesȱ ofȱ theȱMuslimȱandȱChristianȱchaptersȱthatȱdealȱwithȱfeministȱreadȬ ings:ȱ“GenderȱJusticeȱandȱGenderȱJihad:ȱPossibilitiesȱandȱLimiȬ tationsȱofȱWomenȬLiberatingȱInterpretationsȱofȱtheȱQur’an”ȱandȱ “TheȱFemaleȱReaderȱDecides!ȱChancesȱandȱLimitationsȱofȱFemȬ inistȱ Interpretiveȱ Paradigms”ȱ (Schmidȱ etȱ al.ȱ 2010:ȱ 129ff.ȱ [myȱ translation]).ȱ Inȱ aȱ Swedishȱ bookȱ onȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ JewishȬChristianȱ Bibleȱandȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ Attȱ tolkaȱ Bibelnȱ ochȱ KorȬ anen,ȱchaptersȱonȱfeministȱinterpretationȱdoȱinȱfactȱdominateȱtheȱ discussionȱ –ȱ hereȱ tooȱ inȱ theȱ generalȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ criticalȱ herȬ meneuticsȱ(Stenströmȱ2009).ȱ Asȱ forȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ andȱ itsȱ correȬ spondingȱ movementȱ ofȱ Jews,ȱ Christians,ȱandȱMuslimsȱ readingȱ scripturesȱ togetherȱ (cf.ȱ Nicholasȱ Adams’ȱ contributionȱ toȱ thisȱ volume),ȱitsȱproponentsȱexplicitlyȱpositȱtheirȱprojectȱasȱanȱantiȬ doteȱtoȱschismogeneticȱprocessesȱinȱgeneralȱsociety.ȱTheȱgeneralȱ lackȱ ofȱ wisdomȬseekingȱ conversationȱ betweenȱ theȱ childrenȱ ofȱ Abrahamȱ andȱ antagonisticȱ discoursesȱ inȱ theȱ publicȱ sphereȱ areȱ partȱofȱtheȱnegativeȱbackgroundȱforȱtheȱmovement’sȱ“mutuallyȱ criticalȱengagementȱ…ȱaimedȱatȱtransformingȱtheȱpublicȱsphereȱ forȱ theȱ betterȱ …ȱ seekingȱ theȱ publicȱ goodȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱGod’sȱpeacefulȱpurposes”ȱ(Fordȱ2006:ȱ20).ȱTheȱproponentsȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ doȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Jews,ȱ Christians,ȱ andȱ Muslimsȱ useȱ theirȱ scripturesȱ mayȱ justȱ asȱ


muchȱbeȱpartȱofȱtheȱproblemȱasȱaȱpotentialȱresourceȱforȱpeacefulȱ coexistence:ȱ EachȱofȱtheseȱscripturesȱhasȱtextsȱthatȱcanȱbeȱusedȱtoȱlegitȬ imateȱ violence,ȱ claimsȱ toȱ superiority,ȱ blanketȱ condemnaȬ tions,ȱ cruelȱ punishments,ȱ suspicions,ȱ oppressiveȱ morality,ȱ andȱhostilityȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱnotȱbelieversȱofȱGodȱasȱidenȬ tifiedȱbyȱone’sȱownȱtradition.ȱ(Fordȱ2006:ȱ2)ȱ

Theȱ questionȱ ofȱ howȱ theseȱ insightsȱ areȱ dealtȱ withȱ inȱ aȱ criticalȱ hermeneuticalȱperspectiveȱstillȱremains:ȱareȱsuchȱinterpretationsȱ referredȱtoȱonlyȱasȱ“misuses”ȱofȱreligiousȱtexts?ȱOrȱmayȱScripȬ turalȱ Reasoningȱ leadȱ toȱ criticalȱ conversationȱ aboutȱ theȱ scripȬ turesȱ themselves,ȱ asȱ literaryȱ conveyorsȱ ofȱ problematicȱ mesȬ sages?ȱ SacredȱTextsȱinȱNewȱSocialȱContextsȱ Theȱ historicalȱ backgroundȱ forȱ contemporaryȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ interȬ religiousȱhermeneuticsȱisȱtheȱfactȱthatȱpeopleȱwhoȱbelongȱtoȱdifȬ ferentȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ interpretationȱ byȱ birthȱ mayȱ createȱ newȱ hermeneuticalȱspacesȱawayȱfromȱ“home.”ȱThisȱimpliesȱthatȱeverȱ newȱcontextsȱforȱscripturalȱinterpretationȱevolve.ȱCriticalȱquesȬ tionsȱ regardingȱ theȱ basicȱ messagesȱ ofȱ theȱ scripturesȱ andȱ theirȱ actualȱinterpretationȱmayȱariseȱbothȱinȱtheirȱrespectiveȱreligiousȱ communitiesȱandȱinȱnewȱcontextsȱwhereȱscripturesȱfromȱdifferȬ entȱtraditionsȱareȱdealtȱwithȱinȱsharedȱspaces.ȱ Inȱaȱglobalȱperspective,ȱsacredȱscripturesȱandȱreligiousȱtraȬ ditionsȱareȱnoȱlongerȱtheȱexclusiveȱpropertyȱofȱtheirȱreligionȱofȱ originȱandȱitsȱestablishedȱauthorities.ȱSacredȱscripturesȱhaveȱinȬ creasinglyȱ comeȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ worldȱ scriptures,ȱ inȱ analogyȱ withȱ worldȱmusic.ȱTheȱconceptȱofȱ“worldȱscripture”ȱmayȱbeȱseenȱasȱ anȱ offshootȱofȱ theȱ academicȱdisciplineȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ religion,ȱ includingȱitsȱmoreȱpopularȱexpressionsȱ(Wilsonȱ1991),ȱandȱhasȱ alsoȱ beenȱ pickedȱ upȱ inȱ aȱ pamphletȱ byȱ Ursulaȱ Kingȱ whichȱ speaksȱofȱ“theȱworld’sȱscripturesȱasȱresourcesȱforȱdialogueȱandȱ renewal”ȱ (Kingȱ 1999).ȱ Inȱ theȱ Norwegianȱ context,ȱ aȱ bookȱ seriesȱ entitledȱTheȱWorld’sȱSacredȱScripturesȱ(VerdensȱHelligeȱSkrifter)ȱ wasȱ launchedȱ inȱ 2000.ȱ Theȱ seriesȱ soonȱ becameȱ aȱ veritableȱ sucȬ cess,ȱexpandingȱtheȱnotionȱofȱsacredȱscriptureȱandȱcomprisingȱaȱ seeminglyȱneverȬendingȱchainȱofȱvolumes.ȱItȱisȱhardȱtoȱjudgeȱifȱ suchȱ aȱ wealthȱ ofȱ worldȱ scripturesȱ isȱ actuallyȱ readȱ orȱ merelyȱ


shelvedȱasȱaȱtokenȱofȱculturalȱcapital.ȱButȱmoreȱthanȱbefore,ȱsaȬ credȱscripturesȱ areȱ readȱ andȱdiscussedȱ acrossȱtraditionalȱbounȬ dariesȱ–ȱasȱpersonalȱinspirationȱorȱinȱconversationȱwithȱothers.ȱ Asȱ forȱ socialȱ contextsȱ ofȱ interpretation,ȱ theȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ speakȱ ofȱ interpretativeȱ practicesȱ carriedȱ outȱ inȱ theȱ threefoldȱ contextȱ ofȱ houses,ȱ campuses,ȱ andȱ tentsȱ reȬ spectivelyȱ(Fordȱ2006:ȱ7Ȭ13).ȱHouseȱstandsȱforȱhome.ȱButȱpeopleȱ seldomȱ liveȱ theirȱ entireȱ livesȱ atȱ home.ȱ Parallelȱ toȱ theȱ herȬ meneuticalȱ workȱ thatȱ isȱ carriedȱ outȱ inȱ churches,ȱ synagogues,ȱ andȱmosquesȱ(inȱtheȱreligions’ȱownȱhouses)ȱthereȱisȱalsoȱ(espeȬ ciallyȱ inȱ northernȱ Europe)ȱ aȱ strongȱ legacyȱ ofȱ interpretingȱ theȱ sacredȱ scripturesȱ andȱ exploringȱ theȱ relevanceȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱonȱcampuses,ȱi.e.ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱacademia.ȱAsȱotherȱ religiousȱtraditionsȱbecomeȱrootedȱinȱEuropeanȱacademia,ȱposȬ sibilitiesȱ alsoȱ openȱ forȱ criticalȱ andȱ constructiveȱ engagementȱ withȱsacredȱscripturesȱonȱanȱinterreligious,ȱacademicȱbasis.ȱ InȱconnectionȱwithȱDavidȱFord’sȱdiscussionȱofȱcampusesȱasȱ aȱ shared,ȱ interpretativeȱ space,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ suggestȱ thatȱ primaryȱ andȱsecondaryȱschoolsȱshouldȱalsoȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱsimilarȱconȬ textȱforȱinterreligiousȱhermeneutics.ȱInȱsomeȱcountriesȱthatȱhaveȱ developedȱinclusiveȱformsȱofȱreligiousȱeducationȱinȱschool,ȱsaȬ credȱ scripturesȱ haveȱ evenȱ becomeȱ textbooksȱ inȱ theȱ classroom.ȱ DealingȱwithȱtheȱBibleȱandȱtheȱQur’anȱinȱtheȱclassroomȱisȱsomeȬ thingȱdifferentȱfromȱdealingȱwithȱtheȱBibleȱorȱtheȱQur’anȱinȱparȬ allelȱoptionsȱofȱChristianȱorȱIslamicȱeducation.ȱHowȱcanȱsacredȱ textsȱ beȱ dealtȱ withȱ inȱ aȱ classroomȱ whereȱ manyȱ differentȱ tradiȬ tionsȱ(includingȱsecularȱones)ȱareȱvividlyȱrepresented?ȱAccordȬ ingȱ toȱ theȱ curriculumȱ forȱ religiousȱ educationȱ inȱ upperȱ secondȬ aryȱschoolsȱinȱNorway,ȱstudentsȱareȱnowȱexpectedȱtoȱlearnȱhowȱ toȱinterpretȱsacredȱscriptures.ȱWhatȱdoesȱthatȱimplyȱwithȱregardȱ toȱ establishedȱ notionsȱ ofȱ authorityȱ thatȱ implyȱ thatȱ onlyȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ wellȱ versedȱ inȱ traditionalȱ exegesisȱ canȱ interpretȱ theȱ scriptures?ȱ Howȱ doesȱ oneȱ approachȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ hermeneuticsȱinȱaȱsituationȱwhereȱeveryoneȱcanȱholdȱinstantanȬ eousȱ authority,ȱ beȱ itȱ inȱ inspiredȱ bidsȱ forȱ interpretationȱ inȱ theȱ classroomȱorȱinȱmoreȱinformalȱsettings?ȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱwhatȱtakesȱplaceȱinȱinstitutionalizedȱsettingsȱ ofȱhousesȱandȱcampusesȱ(andȱschools),ȱbelieversȱmayȱoccasionȬ allyȱ pitchȱ tentsȱ inȱ theȱ openȱ spacesȱ betweenȱ theȱ religiousȱ tradiȬ tions.ȱ Aȱ tentȱ inȱ thisȱ senseȱ meansȱ aȱ temporaryȱ placeȱ meantȱ forȱ


sharingȱ –ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ byȱ readingȱ oneȱ another’sȱ sacredȱ scripȬ turesȱtogetherȱinȱdialogueȱgroups.ȱAccordingȱtoȱDavidȱFord,ȱtheȱ metaphorȱofȱtheȱtentȱrefersȱtoȱ whatȱ happensȱ inȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ spaceȱ betweenȱ theȱ threeȱ scripturesȱ[ofȱJudaism,ȱChristianityȱandȱIslam];ȱinȱtheȱsocialȱ spaceȱbetweenȱmosque,ȱchurchȱandȱsynagogue;ȱinȱtheȱintelȬ lectualȱ spaceȱ betweenȱ “houses”ȱ andȱ “campuses;”ȱ andȱ beȬ tweenȱdisciplinesȱonȱtheȱcampuses;ȱinȱtheȱreligiousȱandȱsecuȬ larȱ spaceȱ betweenȱ theȱ housesȱ andȱ theȱ variousȱ spheresȱ andȱ institutionsȱofȱsociety;ȱandȱinȱtheȱspiritualȱspaceȱbetweenȱinȬ terpretersȱofȱscriptureȱandȱGod.ȱ(Fordȱ2006:ȱ12)ȱ

Asȱ Fordȱ indicates,ȱ scripturalȱ andȱ theologicalȱ reasoningȱ acrossȱ religiousȱtraditionsȱhasȱbothȱaȱsecularȱandȱaȱspiritualȱdimensionȱ toȱit.ȱAsȱforȱtheȱspiritualȱaspect,ȱMartinȱBuberȱinȱhisȱphilosophyȱ ofȱ dialogueȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ everythingȱ thatȱ takesȱ placesȱ inȱ theȱ “realmȱ ofȱ between”ȱ hasȱ theȱ potentialȱ ofȱ becomingȱ aȱ dwellingȱ placeȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱ(Buberȱ2002:ȱ24Ȭ42).ȱ Butȱtheȱsecularȱdimensionȱofȱinterreligiousȱhermeneuticsȱisȱ equallyȱimportant.ȱAsȱmentioned,ȱtheȱproponentsȱofȱScripturalȱ Reasoningȱ emphasizeȱ thatȱ hermeneuticalȱ praxisȱ inȱ theȱ spacesȱ betweenȱ theȱ religionsȱ shouldȱ beȱ publicȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ addresȬ singȱsharedȱchallengesȱinȱsociety.ȱ TheȱEthicalȱCritiqueȱofȱSacredȱTextsȱ Whereasȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ worldȱ scripturesȱ seemsȱ toȱ connoteȱ inȬ spirationȱ andȱ spiritualȱ enrichmentȱ acrossȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoningȱ relatesȱ (asȱ noted)ȱ moreȱ clearlyȱtoȱcommonlyȱacknowledgedȱproblemsȱwithȱregardȱtoȱinȬ terreligiousȱ coexistenceȱ inȱ widerȱ society.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theseȱ probȬ lemsȱ clearlyȱ reflectȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ religiousȱ otherȱ isȱ deȬ pictedȱ (orȱ stereotyped)ȱ inȱ theȱ sacredȱ textsȱ themselves.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ clear,ȱhowever,ȱifȱScripturalȱReasoningȱwouldȱbeȱopenȱtoȱcriticalȱ hermeneuticsȱ thatȱ allowȱ theȱ readersȱ toȱ challengeȱ suchȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱsacredȱtextsȱonȱmoralȱandȱreligiousȱgrounds.ȱ Whereȱdoesȱtheȱnotionȱofȱethicalȱcritiqueȱofȱscriptureȱcomeȱ from?ȱAlthoughȱtheȱnotionȱitselfȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱrecentȱ(cf.ȱbelow),ȱ theȱideaȱthatȱreligionȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱcriticizedȱonȱmoralȱgroundsȱisȱ ofȱ courseȱ muchȱ older.ȱ Withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ JewishȬChristianȱ tradition,ȱitȱcouldȱbeȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱBibleȱitselfȱisȱcharacterizedȱ


byȱ aȱ criticalȱ dialogueȱ betweenȱ differentȱ scriptures,ȱ oftenȱ withȱ moralȱissuesȱatȱtheȱforeȱ(cf.ȱpropheticȱcritiqueȱofȱnationalistȱreliȬ gion,ȱasȱexpressedȱinȱtheȱbooksȱofȱtheȱJewishȱBible).ȱAsȱforȱtheȱ Europeanȱ Enlightenment,ȱ Immanuelȱ Kant’sȱ ethicalȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ storyȱ aboutȱ Abrahamȱ andȱ Isaacȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ moralȱ lawȱ couldȱbeȱcitedȱasȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱaȱmoralȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱBibleȱ onȱaȱmodernȱfoundationȱ(Giljeȱ2009:ȱ69f.;ȱcf.ȱKant’sȱDieȱReligionȱ innerhabȱderȱGrenzenȱderȱblossenȱVernunft).ȱInȱbothȱtheȱBibleȱandȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Enlightenmentȱ weȱ mayȱ alsoȱ observeȱ howȱ moralȱ critiqueȱisȱessentiallyȱaȱformȱofȱselfȬcritique.ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱtheȱ moralȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱother’sȱtexts,ȱasȱinȱcontemporaryȱChristianȱ orȱ secularȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ isȱ aȱ totallyȱ differentȱ projectȱ thatȱdoesȱnotȱinvolveȱanyȱformȱofȱselfȬchange.ȱ Inȱ theȱ twentiethȬcenturyȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ religion,ȱ oneȱ mayȱ obȬ serveȱaȱgeneralȱshiftȱfromȱintellectualȱtoȱmoralȱcriticismȱ(beforeȱ theȱreturnȱofȱrationalȱcritiqueȱwithȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱnewȱatheismȱofȱ Richardȱ Dawkins,ȱ Christopherȱ Hitchens,ȱ andȱ othersȱ atȱ theȱ beȬ ginningȱofȱtheȱtwentyȬfirstȱcentury).ȱTheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱinȬ tellectualȱ andȱ moralȱ critiqueȱ isȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ secularȱ humanistȱ Bertrandȱ Russellȱ inȱ hisȱ 1930ȱ essayȱ “Hasȱ Religionȱ Madeȱ Usefulȱ ContributionsȱtoȱCivilisation?”:ȱ Theȱobjectionsȱtoȱreligionȱareȱofȱtwoȱsortsȱ–ȱintellectualȱandȱ moral.ȱTheȱintellectualȱisȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱsupposeȱ anyȱ religionȱ true;ȱ theȱ moralȱ objectionȱ isȱ thatȱ religiousȱ preȬ ceptsȱdateȱfromȱaȱtimeȱwhenȱmenȱwereȱmoreȱcruelȱthanȱtheyȱ are,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ tendȱ toȱ perpetuateȱ inhumanitiesȱ whichȱ theȱ moralȱ conscienceȱ ofȱ theȱ ageȱ wouldȱ otherwiseȱ outgrowȱ .…ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ intellectually,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ morally,ȱ thatȱ reliȬ gionȱisȱpernicious.ȱ(Russellȱ1967:ȱ31,ȱ28)ȱ

Inȱtheȱlatterȱhalfȱofȱtheȱlastȱcentury,ȱaȱsimilarȱethicalȱturnȱcan,ȱinȱ fact,ȱbeȱseenȱinȱChristianȱtheologyȱandȱbiblicalȱstudies,ȱinȱitsȱdeȬ velopmentȱfromȱhistoricalȱcriticismȱtoȱbiblicalȱhermeneuticsȱfoȬ cusedȱonȱtheȱethicsȱofȱinterpretation.ȱInȱherȱpresidentialȱaddressȱ toȱ theȱ Societyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ Literatureȱ inȱ 1987ȱ Elisabethȱ Schüsslerȱ Fiorenzaȱcalledȱforȱ“aȱparadigmȱshiftȱinȱtheȱethosȱandȱrhetoricalȱ practicesȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ scholarship”ȱ (Schüsslerȱ Fiorenzaȱ 1988:ȱ 16).ȱ StressingȱtheȱpoliticalȱresponsibilityȱofȱbiblicalȱscholarsȱwithȱreȬ gardȱ toȱ theirȱ “rhetorical”ȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ publicȱ sphere,ȱ sheȱ calledȱ forȱ anȱ increasedȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ “theȱ ethicsȱ ofȱ biblicalȱ interpreȬ tation”ȱ–ȱsuggestingȱthatȱ“raisingȱethicalȬpoliticalȱandȱreligiousȬ


theologicalȱquestions”ȱshouldȱbeȱseenȱ“asȱconstitutiveȱofȱtheȱinȬ terpretiveȱ process”ȱ (Schüsslerȱ Fiorenzaȱ 1988:ȱ 13).ȱ Sheȱ sumȬ monedȱ biblicalȱ scholarsȱ toȱ takeȱ publicȱ responsibilityȱ notȱ onlyȱ forȱtheirȱchoiceȱofȱinterpretiveȱmethodsȱbutȱalsoȱ“forȱtheȱethicalȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ theȱ biblicalȱ textȱ andȱ itsȱ meanings”ȱ (Schüsslerȱ Fiorenzaȱ 1988:ȱ 15).ȱ Developingȱ herȱ argument,ȱ sheȱ approximatȬ edȱaȱpositionȱthatȱcouldȱinȱfactȱbeȱcalledȱanȱ“ethicalȱcritiqueȱofȱ theȱBible”ȱasȱsheȱlocatedȱtheȱethicalȱproblemȱnotȱonlyȱinȱtheȱactȱ ofȱ interpretationȱ butȱ inȱ theȱ authorialȱ constructionȱ ofȱ theȱ textsȱ themselves:ȱ Ifȱscripturalȱtextsȱhaveȱservedȱnotȱonlyȱnobleȱcausesȱbutȱalsoȱ toȱlegitimateȱwar,ȱtoȱnurtureȱantiȬJudaismȱandȱmisogynism,ȱ toȱ justifyȱ theȱ exploitationȱ ofȱ slavery,ȱ andȱ toȱ promoteȱ coȬ lonialȱ dehumanization,ȱ thenȱ biblicalȱ scholarshipȱ mustȱ takeȱ theȱresponsibilityȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱinterpretȱbiblicalȱtextsȱinȱtheirȱ historicalȱ contextsȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ evaluateȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ theirȱhistoricalȱworldsȱandȱsymbolicȱuniversesȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱ religiousȱscaleȱofȱvalues.ȱ(SchüsslerȱFiorenzaȱ1988:ȱ15)ȱ

WhereasȱRussell’sȱmoralȱchallengeȱcameȱfromȱoutsideȱtheȱestabȬ lishedȱ interpretiveȱ communityȱ (similarȱ toȱ Ibnȱ Warraq’sȱ sequelȱ WhyȱIȱamȱnotȱaȱMuslimȱ[Warraqȱ1995]),ȱSchüsslerȱFiorenzaȱraisesȱ herȱconcernȱfromȱwithin.ȱHerȱcritiqueȱisȱvoicedȱfromȱwithinȱtheȱ Christianȱ“home”ȱasȱwellȱasȱfromȱwithinȱaȱ“campus”ȱofȱuniverȬ sityȱtheology,ȱwhichȱremainsȱ(inȱtheȱWest)ȱstronglyȱinfluencedȱ byȱtheȱdomesticȱconcernsȱofȱChristianity.ȱ Alsoȱ atȱ theȱ nexusȱ betweenȱ homeȱ andȱ campus,ȱ Schüsslerȱ Fiorenza’sȱ challengeȱ fromȱ 1988ȱ hasȱ beenȱ takenȱ upȱ byȱ feministȱ theologiansȱ andȱ byȱ biblicalȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ haveȱ calledȱ forȱ aȱ “moral”ȱorȱ“ethical”ȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱdominanceȱandȱ violenceȱ inȱ theȱ Bible.ȱ Michaelȱ Prior’sȱ bookȱ Theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ CoȬ lonialismȱ(1997)ȱandȱhisȱarticleȱ“EthicalȱCleansingȱandȱtheȱBible”ȱ (2002)ȱbothȱcontainȱtheȱsubtitle:ȱ“AȱMoralȱCritique”ȱ(Priorȱ1997,ȱ 2002).ȱ Prior’sȱ projectȱ isȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ legitimatingȱ functionȱ biblicalȱ textsȱ haveȱ hadȱ forȱ colonialȱ politicsȱ inȱ Latinȱ America,ȱ Southȱ Africa,ȱ andȱ Palestine.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Prior,ȱ theseȱ caseȱ studiesȱ highlightȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ moralȱ problemsȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ itselfȱ ….ȱ [S]everalȱ traditionsȱ withinȱ theȱ Bibleȱ lendȱ themselvesȱ toȱ oppressiveȱ interpretationsȱ andȱ applicationsȱ

342ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ preciselyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ inherentlyȱ oppressiveȱ nature.ȱ (Priorȱ2002:ȱ46)ȱ

Inȱ theȱ Nordicȱ context,ȱ severalȱ biblicalȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ takenȱ upȱtheȱimpulsesȱfromȱPriorȱandȱpursuedȱhisȱconcernȱinȱaȱwiderȱ thematicȱ framework.ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ Norwegianȱ Newȱ TestaȬ mentȱscholarȱHalvorȱMoxnesȱhasȱdiscussedȱPalestinianȱandȱhoȬ mosexualȱ minorityȱ concernsȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ criticalȱ biblicalȱ textsȱ andȱtheirȱdominantȱinterpretationȱ(Moxnesȱ1999).ȱ Impulsesȱ fromȱ bothȱ Schüsslerȱ Fiorenzaȱ andȱ Priorȱ wereȱ takenȱupȱbyȱtheȱFinnishȱNewȱTestamentȱscholarȱHeikkiȱRäisänȬ enȱwhoȱhasȱalsoȱpublishedȱwidelyȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱ(inter)religiousȱ studies.ȱHisȱcallȱforȱ“anȱethicalȱcritique”ȱofȱtheȱBibleȱinȱaȱlectureȱ inȱUppsalaȱinȱ1999ȱ(Räisänenȱ2000)ȱshouldȱbeȱseenȱinȱlightȱofȱhisȱ earlierȱcollectionȱofȱessaysȱentitledȱMarcion,ȱMuhammad,ȱandȱtheȱ Mahatmaȱ(Räisänenȱ1997).ȱInȱthisȱbook,ȱRäisänenȱsetsȱoutȱtoȱdeȬ monstrateȱ howȱ Marcionȱ (andȱ hisȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ TestaȬ ment),ȱMuhammadȱandȱtheȱQur’an,ȱJosephȱSmithȱandȱtheȱBookȱ ofȱMormon,ȱandȱMahatmaȱGandhi’sȱeclecticȱreadingȱofȱtheȱGosȬ pelsȱcouldȱallȱbeȱseenȱasȱexamplesȱofȱintendedȱ“improvements”ȱ onȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ and/orȱ Christianȱ Bible.ȱ Asȱ forȱ ethicalȱ critique,ȱ RäisänenȱunderlinesȱtheȱstrongȱmoralȱindignationȱinȱMarcion’sȱ biblicalȱ exegesisȱ andȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ hisȱ reactionȱ toȱ theȱ allegedȱ violenceȱ ofȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ “resemblesȱ theȱ reactionȱ ofȱ radicalȱ feministȱinterpretersȱtoȱaȱBibleȱexperiencedȱasȱaȱhopelesslyȱpaȬ triarchalȱbook”ȱ(Räisänenȱ1997:ȱ69;ȱcf.ȱRäisänenȱ2000).ȱ InȱhisȱcallȱforȱanȱethicalȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱBible,ȱRäisänenȱaddsȱ aȱprofessionalȱconcernȱforȱtheȱexegete’sȱresponsibilityȱforȱ“conȬ frontingȱtheȱtextsȱwithȱourȱethicalȱvalues”ȱ(Räisänenȱ2000:ȱ239).ȱ Inȱhisȱtenȱcommandmentsȱforȱethicalȱcritique,ȱRäisänenȱrealizesȱ thatȱ noȱ universalȱ agreementȱ onȱ ethicalȱ principlesȱ (byȱ whichȱ toȱ confrontȱtheȱtexts)ȱcanȱbeȱpresupposedȱandȱthatȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ “whoseȱ values”ȱ alwaysȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ asked.ȱ Heȱ neverthelessȱ reȬ fersȱ toȱ generalȱ valuesȱ suchȱ asȱ “love,ȱ justiceȱ andȱ humanity”ȱ inȱ hisȱ callȱ forȱ aȱ confrontationȱ ofȱ allȱ kindsȱ ofȱ violence,ȱ physicalȱ asȱ wellȱasȱsymbolic,ȱinȱtheȱbiblicalȱtextsȱ(Räisänenȱ2000:ȱ240,ȱ242).ȱ Pickingȱ upȱ onȱ Räisänen’sȱ concernȱ forȱ anȱ ethicalȱ critique,ȱ theȱSwedishȱNewȱTestamentȱscholarȱHannaȱStenströmȱcriticizesȱ Räisänenȱforȱbeingȱtooȱvagueȱinȱdefiningȱtheȱvaluesȱuponȱwhichȱ anȱ ethicalȱ critiqueȱ shouldȱ beȱ based.ȱ Informedȱ byȱ postmodernȱ andȱpowerȬcriticalȱsensibilities,ȱsheȱcallsȱforȱtransparencyȱinȱtheȱ


choiceȱ ofȱ valuesȱ andȱ alsoȱ stressesȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ combineȱ ethicalȱ critiqueȱwithȱpoliticalȱcritiqueȱofȱdominantȱideologiesȱ–ȱnotȱleastȱ genderedȱonesȱ(Stenströmȱ2001,ȱ2002).ȱ ȱ Theȱ examplesȱ citedȱ areȱ allȱ relatedȱ toȱ Westernȱ contexts,ȱ theȱinterpretiveȱtraditionȱofȱChristianity,ȱandȱaȱuniversityȱtheoȬ logyȱ stillȱ conductedȱ withinȱ aȱ largelyȱ Christianȱ horizon.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ isȱ howȱ ethicalȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ scripturesȱ canȱ beȱ dealtȱ withȱ inȱ theologicalȱ facultiesȱ bentȱ onȱ wideningȱ theirȱ scopeȱ toȱ otherȱtraditionsȱandȱdevelopingȱdifferentȱformsȱofȱinterreligiousȱ studies.ȱOnȱmyȱownȱ“campus,”ȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱOslo’sȱFacultyȱ ofȱ Theology,ȱ newȱ coursesȱ withinȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ studiesȱ haveȱ alsoȱ approachedȱ theȱ issuesȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ herȬ meneuticsȱandȱethicalȱcritiqueȱofȱsacredȱscriptures.ȱExamplesȱofȱ courseȱ titlesȱ wouldȱ beȱ “Problematicȱ Biblicalȱ Texts,”ȱ “InterreliȬ giousȱ Hermeneutics:ȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ theȱ Qur’an,”ȱandȱ“ModernȱCritiqueȱofȱReligion.”ȱAsȱtheȱFacultyȱhasȱ graduallyȱ becomeȱ moreȱ multireligiousȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ stuȬ dentȱbody,ȱtheseȱcoursesȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱcreateȱanȱinterreligiousȱ spaceȱ forȱ strugglingȱ withȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ issueȱ ofȱ moralȱ orȱ ethicalȱcritiqueȱ–ȱinȱaȱshared,ȱacademicȱspace.ȱSimilarȱdevelopȬ mentsȱcouldȱbeȱcitedȱinȱotherȱtheologicalȱfaculties.ȱ MoralȱCritiqueȱorȱMoralȱEnrichment?ȱSomeȱMuslimȱPerspectivesȱ HowȱhasȱtheȱquestionȱofȱmoralȱcritiqueȱbeenȱdealtȱwithȱbyȱMusȬ limȱacademics?ȱInȱrespondingȱtoȱinternalȱandȱexternalȱcallsȱforȱaȱ moralȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ textsȱ andȱ theirȱ interpretations,ȱ severalȱ examȬ plesȱofȱintellectualȱconvergenceȱwithȱChristianȱcounterpartsȱcanȱ beȱcitedȱ–ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱtheȱwayȱMuslimȱfeministȱtheologiansȱ haveȱ criticallyȱ elaboratedȱ onȱ Christianȱ feministȱ approachesȱ toȱ theȱscripturesȱ(Roaldȱ1998).ȱAsȱAnneȱSofieȱRoaldȱdemonstratesȱ inȱtheȱpresentȱvolume,ȱissuesȱrelatedȱtoȱgenderȱmodelsȱandȱtheȱ positionȱofȱwomenȱinȱfamily,ȱfaithȱcommunities,ȱandȱsocietyȱareȱ oftenȱ theȱ triggeringȱ factorsȱ forȱ newȱ interpretiveȱ approachesȱ toȱ sacredȱ scripturesȱ (beȱ itȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ orȱ Hadith).ȱ Theseȱ are,ȱofȱcourse,ȱcommonȱchallengesȱforȱChristiansȱandȱMuslims,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ hermeneuticalȱ responsesȱ varyȱ bothȱ betweenȱandȱwithinȱtheȱtwoȱinterpretiveȱcommunities.ȱ Inȱ currentȱ discussions,ȱ atȱ leastȱ inȱ theȱ West,ȱ criticismȱ ofȱ genderȱ inequality,ȱ discriminationȱ againstȱ religiousȱ minorities,ȱ andȱreligiouslyȱinspiredȱviolenceȱisȱincreasinglyȱarticulatedȱasȱaȱ


critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anicȱ messageȱ itself,ȱ i.e.ȱ notȱ merelyȱ asȱ quesȬ tionȱofȱhowȱreligiousȱtextsȱcanȱbeȱ“misused.”ȱWhereasȱtheȱdisȬ courseȱofȱmisuseȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱdominantȱoneȱamongȱMuslimȱ believers,ȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱsacredȱtextȱisȱmostȱoftenȱlaunchedȱfromȱ outsideȱ ofȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ communityȱ –ȱ byȱ selfȬproclaimedȱ apostatesȱ (cf.ȱ Ibnȱ Warraq’sȱ Whyȱ Iȱ amȱ Notȱ aȱ Muslim,ȱ mentionedȱ above),ȱ representativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Christianȱ Rightȱ (cf.ȱ Markȱ Gabriel’sȱ Islamȱ andȱ Terrorism:ȱ Whatȱ theȱ Quranȱ Reallyȱ Teachesȱ Aboutȱ Christianity,ȱ Violenceȱ andȱ theȱ Goalsȱ ofȱ theȱ Islamicȱ Jihad,ȱ 2002),ȱorȱneoconservativeȱcriticsȱofȱIslamȱ(cf.ȱGeertȱWilders’ȱfilmȱ Fitna,ȱ2008).ȱ AȱcontroversialȱvoiceȱisȱtheȱCanadianȱlesbianȱauthorȱIrshadȱ Manjiȱ who,ȱ inȱ herȱ bookȱ Theȱ Troubleȱ withȱ Islamȱ (2003),ȱ criticizesȱ dominantȱviewsȱofȱsexuality,ȱtheȱauthoritarianȱblockingȱofȱcritȬ icalȱ questions,ȱ andȱ antiȬJewishȱ attitudesȱ inȱ Muslimȱ circles.ȱ InȬ sistingȱ(likeȱAminaȱWadudȱandȱotherȱIslamicȱfeminists)ȱthatȱdifȬ ferentȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ areȱ possible,ȱ Manjiȱ goesȱ aȱ stepȱ furtherȱ byȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ itselfȱ mightȱ notȱ beȱ entirelyȱ“perfect”:ȱ Theȱ Koranȱ isȱ notȱ transparentlyȱ egalitarianȱ forȱ women.ȱ It’sȱ notȱtransparentlyȱanythingȱexceptȱenigmatic.…ȱFarȱfromȱbeȬ ingȱ perfect,ȱ theȱ Koranȱ isȱ soȱ profoundlyȱ atȱ warȱ withȱ itselfȱ thatȱMuslimsȱwhoȱ“liveȱbyȱtheȱbook”ȱhaveȱnoȱchoiceȱwhatȱ toȱemphasizeȱandȱwhatȱtoȱdownplay.ȱ(Manjiȱ2003:ȱ39f.)ȱ

Declaredȱ anȱ apostateȱ byȱ some,ȱ Manjiȱ herselfȱ insistsȱ onȱ beingȱ heardȱasȱaȱcriticalȱvoiceȱfromȱwithinȱtheȱinterpretiveȱcommunityȱ ofȱMuslims.ȱHerȱownȱmessageȱisȱhermeneuticallyȱquiteȱsimple:ȱ stopȱpretendingȱthatȱdecisionsȱmadeȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱ areȱ dictatedȱ byȱ Godȱ –ȱ theyȱ areȱ madeȱ byȱ “freeȱ humanȱ will”ȱ (Manjiȱ2003:ȱ39).ȱ Someȱ Muslimȱ academicsȱ haveȱ respondedȱ toȱ callsȱ forȱ aȱ moralȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ scripturesȱ byȱ developingȱ theirȱ own,ȱ conȬ genialȱ approachesȱ toȱ Qur’anicȱ hermeneutics.ȱ Theȱ EgyptianȬ AmericanȱKhaledȱAbouȱElȱFadlȱisȱanȱinterestingȱexample.ȱWhenȱ criticizingȱ authoritarianȱ structures,ȱ genderȱ inequalityȱ (Speakingȱ inȱGod’sȱName:ȱIslamicȱLaw,ȱAuthority,ȱandȱWomen,ȱ2001),ȱandȱtheȱ intoleranceȱofȱotherȱfaithsȱ(TheȱPlaceȱofȱToleranceȱinȱIslam,ȱ2002),ȱ Abouȱ Elȱ Fadlȱ criticizesȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ traditionȱ ofȱ courseȱ butȱ alsoȱopensȱtheȱdoorȱtoȱaȱcritical,ȱdialogicalȱhermeneuticsȱofȱtheȱ Qur’an.ȱ Asȱ forȱ interreligiousȱ relations,ȱ heȱ admitsȱ thatȱ Islamicȱ


puritansȱorȱmilitantȱIslamistsȱmayȱinȱfactȱmusterȱ“aȱsetȱofȱtextȬ ualȱ referencesȱ inȱ supportȱ ofȱ theirȱ exclusionaryȱ andȱ intolerantȱ theologicalȱ orientation”ȱ (Abouȱ Elȱ Fadlȱ etȱ al.ȱ 2002:ȱ 11).ȱ Abouȱ Elȱ Fadlȱ doesȱ not,ȱ however,ȱ speakȱ ofȱ anȱ ethicalȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ saȬ credȱtextȱbutȱinsteadȱintroducesȱtheȱnotionȱofȱmoralȱenrichment.ȱ NotingȱthatȱtheȱQur’anȱrepeatedlyȱappealsȱtoȱtheȱmoralȱsenseȱofȱ itsȱ reader,ȱ byȱ useȱ ofȱ generalȱ termsȱ suchȱ asȱ “justice”ȱ ofȱ theȱ ArȬ abicȱnotionȱofȱalȬma‘rufȱ(whatȱisȱcommonlyȱknownȱtoȱbeȱgood),ȱ heȱsuggestsȱthatȱ …theȱ Qur’anicȱ textȱ assumesȱ thatȱ readersȱ willȱ bringȱ aȱ preȬ existing,ȱinnateȱmoralȱsenseȱtoȱtheȱtext.ȱHenceȱtheȱtextȱwillȱ morallyȱ enrichȱ theȱ reader,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ ifȱ theȱ readerȱ willȱ morȬ allyȱenrichȱtheȱtext.ȱTheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱreligiousȱtextȱisȱnotȱ fixedȱ simplyȱ byȱ theȱ literalȱ meaningȱ ofȱ itsȱ words,ȱ butȱ deȬ pends,ȱ too,ȱ onȱ theȱ moralȱ constructionȱ givenȱ toȱ itȱ byȱ theȱ reader.ȱ(AbouȱElȱFadlȱetȱal.ȱ2002:ȱ15)ȱ

Aȱ similarȱ approachȱ isȱ developedȱ byȱ Ebrahimȱ Moosaȱ inȱ aȱ chapterȱonȱ“TheȱDebtsȱandȱBurdensȱofȱCriticalȱIslam”ȱinȱtheȱanȬ thologyȱ Progressiveȱ Muslims:ȱ Onȱ Justice,ȱ Gender,ȱ andȱ Pluralismȱ (2002).ȱInȱhisȱview,ȱ“criticalȱIslam”ȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱabandonȱapoloȬ geticȱresponsesȱtoȱlegitimateȱcriticism,ȱsinceȱ“theȱfalseȱutopiasȱofȱ idealȱandȱperfectȱMuslimȱsocietiesȱinȱtheȱpast,ȱwidelyȱtoutedȱbyȱ ideologuesȱofȱauthoritarianism,ȱwillȱnotȱsurviveȱtheȱscrutinyȱofȱ history”ȱanywayȱ(Moosaȱ2002:ȱ117).ȱHeȱalsoȱnotesȱthatȱaȱnumȬ berȱofȱpracticesȱseeminglyȱsanctionedȱbyȱtheȱnormativeȱsourcesȱ haveȱ inȱ factȱ beenȱ abandonedȱ byȱ modernȱ Muslimȱ sensibilities:ȱ “Forȱaȱwholeȱsetȱofȱreasons,ȱweȱnoȱlongerȱconsiderȱmarriageȱtoȱ whatȱourȱmodernȱcultureȱdeemsȱminors,ȱcorporealȱpunishment,ȱ andȱtheȱdeathȱpenaltyȱtoȱbeȱacceptableȱpractices”ȱ(Moosaȱ2002:ȱ 122).ȱLikeȱAbouȱElȱFadl,ȱMoosaȱmovesȱaȱstepȱfurtherȱfromȱhisȬ toricalȱ critiqueȱ towardsȱ aȱ criticalȱ conversationȱ withȱ theȱ sacredȱ textȱitselfȱbyȱsuggestingȱthatȱallȱkindsȱofȱ“textȱfundamentalism”ȱ mustȱbeȱavoidedȱandȱtheȱcriticalȱresponseȱofȱtheȱreaderȱmustȱbeȱ takenȱ seriouslyȱ –ȱ evenȱ inȱ “inȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ revelation.”ȱ ReferȬ ringȱ toȱ indisputableȱ patriarchalȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ heȱ writes:ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beȱ preferableȱ toȱ hearȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ inȱ itsȱ patriarchalȱ voiceȱ butȱ toȱ understandȱ itȱ withȱ theȱ sensibilityȱ ofȱ anȱ actor/ȱ reader/listener/reciterȱ immersedȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ revelaȬ

346ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ tion.ȱItȱisȱthatȱlistener/reciterȱwhoȱdiscoversȱthroughȱherȱorȱ hisȱ history,ȱ experience,ȱ andȱ transformedȱ innerȱ sensibilityȱ thatȱgenderȱjustice,ȱequality,ȱandȱfairnessȱisȱaȱnormȱforȱourȱ time,ȱandȱnotȱpatriarchy.ȱ(Moosaȱ2002:ȱ125)ȱ

WhatȱshinesȱthroughȱinȱMoosa’sȱreasoningȱisȱanȱethicalȱhermenȬ euticsȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱreader’sȱresponse.ȱInvolvingȱtheȱreaderȱinȱ theȱ veryȱ processȱ ofȱ revelation,ȱ heȱ evenȱ formulatesȱ aȱ theologicalȱ hermeneuticsȱ characterizedȱ byȱ interactivity.ȱ Criticizingȱ thoseȱ whoȱexclusivelyȱseekȱauthorityȱinȱsomeȱfoundingȱtextȱforȱfailingȱ “toȱengageȱtheȱtextȱinȱanȱinteractiveȱmanner,”ȱheȱclaimsȱthatȱ Itȱisȱpreciselyȱsuchȱinteractivityȱthatȱtransformsȱtheȱhumanȱ beingȱ whoȱ isȱ ultimatelyȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ revelation,ȱ andȱ whoȱ hasȱtoȱembodyȱtheȱqualitiesȱthatȱcombatȱpatriarchyȱandȱenȬ dorseȱ justiceȱ andȱ equality.…ȱ Theȱ truthȱ isȱ thatȱ weȱ “make”ȱ theȱnormsȱinȱconversationȱwithȱtheȱrevelatoryȱtext.ȱ(Moosaȱ 2002:ȱ125)ȱ

CriticalȱEngagementȱwithȱSacredȱTextsȱ–ȱinȱSharedȱSpaces?ȱ Theȱcitedȱ examplesȱ ofȱ howȱ toȱ dealȱwithȱethicalȱ conflictsȱ inȱ theȱ encounterȱ betweenȱ sacredȱ textsȱ andȱ contemporaryȱ readersȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ internalȱ processesȱ amongȱ (Scandinavian)ȱ Christianȱ andȱ(USȬbased)ȱMuslimȱtheologians.ȱCrossȬreligiousȱchallengesȱ mayȱ beȱ stillȱ impliedȱ whenȱ theologiansȱ discussȱ theȱ relationȱ beȬ tweenȱ ethicsȱ andȱ hermeneuticsȱ atȱ homeȱ (inȱ theirȱ respectiveȱ “houses”),ȱ especiallyȱ whenȱ suchȱ reflectionsȱ areȱ articulatedȱ inȱ theȱ sharedȱ spaceȱ ofȱ theȱ universityȱ increasinglyȱ pluralisticȱ “campuses.”ȱ Inȱ tentȬlikeȱ forumsȱ forȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue,ȱ readingȱ saȬ credȱ scripturesȱ togetherȱ hasȱ increasinglyȱ becomeȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ agenda.ȱ Althoughȱ suchȱ attemptsȱ (asȱ describedȱ above)ȱ mayȱ ofȬ tenȱ beȱ problemȬrelated,ȱ fewȱ examplesȱ canȱ beȱ citedȱ ofȱ how,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Muslimsȱ engageȱ togetherȱ inȱ aȱ criticalȱ dialogueȱ notȱ onlyȱ aboutȱ butȱ alsoȱ withȱ theȱ sacredȱ textsȱ –ȱ asȱ aȱ jointȱ interpretiveȱ community.ȱ Oneȱ exampleȱ mightȱ beȱ Anneȱ Hegeȱ Grung’sȱ studyȱ ofȱ whatȱ takesȱ placeȱ whenȱ Christianȱ andȱ Muslimȱ womenȱ sitȱ downȱ togetherȱ tryingȱ toȱ makeȱ meaningȱ (fromȱ aȱ woman’sȱ pointȱ ofȱ view)ȱ ofȱ problematicȱ textsȱ fromȱ theȱ Bible,ȱtheȱQur’an,ȱandȱHadithȱ(Grungȱ2011).ȱ


Scripturalȱ Reasoning’sȱ tentȱ metaphorȱ signalsȱ theȱ proviȬ sionalȱ characterȱ ofȱ suchȱ attempts.ȱ Canȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ moreȱ stableȱinterreligious,ȱinterpretiveȱcommunitiesȱawayȱfromȱhomeȱ alsoȱbeȱforeseen?ȱCriticalȱengagementȱwithȱsacredȱscripturesȱinȱ theȱcontextȱofȱuniversitiesȱ(universityȱtheologyȱratherȱthanȱreliȬ giousȱstudies)ȱisȱperhapsȱtheȱmostȱpromisingȱpossibility.ȱButȱinȱ countriesȱ thatȱ haveȱ developedȱ commonȱ subjectsȱ ofȱ religiousȱ educationȱinȱprimaryȱandȱsecondaryȱschoolsȱ(asȱinȱEnglandȱandȱ Scandinavia),ȱ theȱ phenomenonȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ interpretiveȱ communitiesȱ (here,ȱ onȱ aȱ nonȬscholarlyȱ basis)ȱ mayȱ alsoȱ takeȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ classroom.ȱ Asȱ citedȱ above,ȱ theȱ curriculumȱ forȱ theȱ subjectȱ “Religionȱ andȱ Ethics”ȱ inȱ upperȱ secondaryȱ educationȱ inȱ NorwayȱpresupposesȱthatȱtheȱstudentȱwillȱlearnȱtoȱinterpretȱsaȬ credȱ scripturesȱ inȱ anȱ increasinglyȱ multireligiousȱ settingȱ whereȱ criticalȱapproachesȱtoȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱareȱlikelyȱtoȱbeȱheardȱ onȱ aȱ regularȱ basis.ȱ Theȱ sameȱ mayȱ happenȱ inȱ lowerȱ secondaryȱ schoolsȱ (inȱ theȱ correspondingȱ subjectȱ “Religion,ȱ Lifeȱ Stances,ȱ andȱEthics”)ȱifȱtheȱcurriculum’sȱreferenceȱtoȱmodernȱcritiqueȱofȱ religionȱ isȱ relatedȱ (byȱ textbooks,ȱ teachers,ȱ and/orȱ students)ȱ toȱ sacredȱtraditions.ȱ Toȱ prepareȱ teachersȱ forȱ suchȱ scenarios,ȱ aȱ Norwegianȱ textȬ bookȱaboutȱnarrativeȱpedagogyȱintendedȱforȱteacherȱtrainingȱinȱ religionȱ includesȱ chaptersȱ onȱ “storiesȱ inȱ conflict”ȱ (conflictingȱ storiesȱ aboutȱ Jesus,ȱ etc.)ȱ andȱ “problematicȱ stories.”ȱ Theȱ latterȱ chapterȱ discussesȱ howȱ toȱ handleȱ storiesȱ fromȱ theȱ greatȱ tradiȬ tionsȱthatȱareȱfeltȱtoȱbeȱproblematicȱwithȱregardȱtoȱgenderȱmodȬ els,ȱethicalȱsensibilitiesȱ(particularlyȱinȱrelationȱtoȱidealizedȱvioȬ lenceȱinȱtheȱtexts),ȱandȱbrutalizedȱimagesȱofȱGodȱ(Breidlidȱandȱ Nicolaisenȱ2000:ȱ303Ȭ415).ȱ Whereasȱ Breidlidȱ andȱ Nicolaisenȱ tackleȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ problematicȱ textsȱ headȱ onȱ inȱ theirȱ didacticalȱ reflections,ȱ aȱ colȬ lectionȱofȱreligiousȱsourceȱtextsȱpreparedȱforȱreligiousȱeducationȱ inȱ Norwegianȱ schoolsȱ seemsȱ ratherȱ toȱ avoidȱ theȱ problem.ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱunderȱtheȱheadingsȱofȱ“religiousȱtolerance”ȱandȱ“warȱ andȱpeace”ȱinȱIslam,ȱtheȱresourceȱbookȱselectsȱonlyȱ(sectionsȱof)ȱ Qur’anicȱ versesȱ thatȱ wouldȱ seemȱ toȱ supportȱ aȱ tolerantȱ andȱ peacefulȱinterpretation,ȱsimplyȱignoringȱmoreȱproblematicȱpasȬ sagesȱinȱtheȱsameȱliteraryȱcontextsȱ(RasmussenȱandȱThomassenȱ 1999:ȱ268;ȱcf.ȱmyȱcritiqueȱinȱLeirvikȱ1999).ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱaȱ recentȱtextbookȱforȱreligiousȱeducationȱinȱlowerȱsecondaryȱeduȬ


cationȱ tacklesȱ problematicȱ textsȱ fromȱ theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ (regardingȱ genderȱ issues,ȱ interreligiousȱ relations,ȱ enemyȱ images,ȱ warȱ andȱ peace)ȱ headȱ on.ȱ Oneȱ sectionȱ actuallyȱ hasȱ theȱ headingȱ“CritiqueȱofȱReligiousȱModelsȱandȱSacredȱScripturesȱinȱ theȱReligions”ȱ(HolthȱandȱKallevikȱ2008:ȱ113Ȭ27).ȱ Whatȱ mayȱ comeȱ outȱ ofȱ suchȱ criticalȱ conversationsȱ inȱ theȱ classroomȱisȱhardȱtoȱjudge.ȱOnȱtheȱlongȱterm,ȱitȱcouldȱcontributeȱ toȱ creatingȱ anȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ inȱ generalȱ societyȱ thatȱ isȱ notȱ vilifyingȱ thisȱ orȱ thatȱ traditionȱ overȱ againstȱ theȱ otherȱ butȱ treatsȱinsteadȱtheȱproblemȱofȱanȱethicalȱreadingȱofȱsacredȱtextsȱ asȱaȱsharedȱchallenge.ȱ ConcludingȱReflectionsȱ Althoughȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ ethicalȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ sacredȱ scripturesȱ hasȱbeenȱraisedȱwithȱaȱnewȱmomentumȱinȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱdecades,ȱ itȱisȱofȱcourseȱnotȱaȱnewȱquestionȱinȱeitherȱbiblicalȱorȱQur’anicȱ hermeneutics.ȱ InȱaȱProtestantȱperspective,ȱtheȱneedȱforȱanȱethicalȱcritiqueȱ couldȱeasilyȱdrawȱonȱtheȱLutheranȱprincipleȱofȱreadingȱtheȱBiȬ bleȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ itsȱ postulatedȱ centre,ȱ Christ.ȱ Althoughȱ thisȱ herȬ meneuticȱ wasȱ originallyȱ formulatedȱ byȱ Lutherȱ toȱ protectȱ theȱ theologicalȱmessageȱofȱsalvationȱbyȱfaithȱaloneȱagainstȱlegalistȱinȬ terpretations,ȱ itȱ hasȱ provedȱ flexibleȱ andȱ hasȱ alsoȱ beenȱ usedȱ toȱ defineȱ theȱ ethicalȱ centreȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament.ȱ Theȱ hermenȬ euticalȱkeyȱwouldȱthenȱbeȱtoȱestablishȱaȱperceivedȱcentreȱwithinȱ theȱ messageȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ asȱ reflectedȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ Gospelsȱ butȱ alsoȱ inȱ antiȬlegalisticȱ partsȱ ofȱ Paul’sȱ ethics.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Churchȱ ofȱ Norway’sȱrecentȱdiscussionsȱaboutȱhomosexualȱpartnershipȱthisȱ hermeneuticalȱprincipleȱhasȱbeenȱstronglyȱactivatedȱ(Kirkerådetȱ 2006).ȱ Similarlyȱ inȱ Islamicȱ contexts,ȱ theȱ oldȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ Meccanȱ andȱ Medinanȱ surasȱ hasȱ beenȱ activatedȱ byȱ modernȱ thinkersȱ whoȱ haveȱ soughtȱ toȱ reconcileȱ theȱ Qur’anicȱ messageȱ withȱhumanȱrightsȱstandards.ȱForȱinstanceȱinȱAbullahiȱAhmedȱ anȬNa’im’sȱTowardȱanȱIslamicȱReformation:ȱCivilȱLiberties,ȱHumanȱ Rights,ȱ andȱ Internationalȱ Lawȱ (1990),ȱ heȱ drawsȱ onȱ hisȱ Sudaneseȱ teacherȱMahmoudȱMohamedȱTaha’sȱreformȱmethodologyȱbasedȱ onȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “Islam’sȱ secondȱ message.”ȱ Similarȱ toȱ ChrisȬ tianȱ liberalȱ theology’sȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ Jesusȱ andȱ Paul,ȱ anȬ Na’imȱ (inspiredȱ byȱ Taha)ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ principleȱ ofȱ abroȬ


gationȱ (naskh)ȱ shouldȱ beȱ reversedȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ generalȱ admoniȬ tionsȱofȱtheȱMeccanȱsurasȱshouldȱbeȱgivenȱpriorityȱoverȱagainstȱ theȱdetailedȱprescriptionsȱofȱtheȱMedinanȱones:ȱ …ȱ Muslimsȱ shouldȱ shiftȱ theȱ legalȱ principleȱ ofȱ Islamicȱ lawȱ fromȱ oneȱ textȱ [Medinan]ȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ toȱ theȱ otherȱ [MecȬ can],ȱfromȱaȱtextȱthatȱwasȱsuitableȱtoȱgovernȱinȱtheȱseventhȱ century,ȱ andȱ wasȱ implemented,ȱ toȱ aȱ textȱ thatȱ was,ȱ atȱ theȱ time,ȱtooȱadvancedȱandȱthereforeȱhadȱtoȱbeȱabrogatedȱinȱefȬ fectiveȱlegalȱterms.ȱ(anȬNa’imȱ1990:ȱ66f.)ȱ

AnȬNa’imȱ alsoȱ leansȱ onȱ Fazlurȱ Rahman’sȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ basicȱ valuesȱ andȱ concreteȱ prescriptionsȱ inȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ anotherȱ hermeneuticalȱ principleȱ paralleledȱ byȱ similarȱ distinctionsȱ inȱ modernȱ Christianȱ hermeneuticsȱ aimedȱ atȱ reconcilingȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱwithȱmodernȱmoralȱsensibilities.ȱ Whyȱ thenȱ haveȱ otherȱ scholars,ȱ bothȱ inȱ Christianityȱ andȱ Islam,ȱfoundȱitȱnecessaryȱtoȱmoveȱbeyondȱtheȱcitedȱhermeneutȬ icalȱapproachesȱtowardsȱaȱmoreȱdirect,ȱethicalȱdialogueȱwithȱtheȱ scriptures?ȱ Oneȱ reasonȱ isȱ theȱ recognitionȱ thatȱ theȱ recognizedȱ moralȱ problemsȱ cannotȱ beȱ confinedȱ toȱ specificȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱ scriptures.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ isȱ moreȱ comprehensive,ȱ andȱ theȱ forȬ eignnessȱofȱtheȱscripturesȱmoreȱfundamental.ȱIfȱso,ȱtheȱquestionȱ ofȱ moralȱ critiqueȱ canȱ beȱ tackledȱ onlyȱ byȱ takingȱ moreȱ global,ȱ hermeneuticalȱ insightsȱ –ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ byȱ leaningȱ onȱ readerȱ reȬ sponseȱ theories.ȱ Anotherȱ reasonȱ whyȱ easyȱ escapesȱ mustȱ beȱ abandonedȱ isȱ theȱ insightȱ thatȱ thereȱ willȱ neverȱ beȱ anyȱ globalȱ agreementȱonȱwhichȱethicalȱvaluesȱthatȱshouldȱcountȱasȱfundaȬ mentalȱinȱtheȱscriptures.ȱThisȱis,ȱinȱfact,ȱalsoȱtheȱproblemȱwithȱaȱ soȬcalledȱ ethicalȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ scriptures:ȱ Whoȱ decidesȱ whatȱ theȱ basicȱ moralȱ problemsȱ shouldȱ beȱ againstȱ whichȱ theȱ scripȬ turesȱshouldȱbeȱmeasured,ȱwhatȱtheȱmoralȱvaluesȱbyȱwhichȱtheȱ scripturesȱshouldȱbeȱenrichedȱare?ȱ Transparencyȱaboutȱwhoȱdefinesȱwhatȱisȱaȱmoralȱproblemȱ isȱprobablyȱtheȱonlyȱwayȱaheadȱthatȱmightȱleadȱtoȱanȱenlightenedȱ moralȱdialogueȱwithȱtheȱscriptures,ȱjustȱasȱmultipleȱinterpretiveȱ spaceȱisȱtheȱonlyȱwayȱtoȱavoidȱnewȱformsȱofȱauthoritarianȱinterȬ pretationsȱ(includingȱliberalȱones).ȱMultipleȱinterpretationsȱcorȬ respondȱ withȱ theȱ polysemicȱ natureȱ ofȱ scripture.ȱ Asȱ modernȱ pluralismȱ hasȱ blurredȱ theȱ bordersȱ betweenȱ theȱ religionsȱ andȱ challengedȱestablishedȱstructuresȱofȱauthority,ȱsacredȱscripturesȱ


tooȱ haveȱ revealedȱ theirȱ polysemyȱ andȱ (asȱ Jacquesȱ Derridaȱ hasȱ it)ȱtheirȱ–ȱmoralȱorȱreligiousȱ–ȱcracks.ȱ Cracksȱ mayȱ beȱ seenȱ toȱ beȱ dangerous.ȱ Butȱ asȱ Leonardȱ CoȬ henȱputȱitȱinȱhisȱsongȱ“Anthem,”ȱ“Forgetȱyourȱperfectȱoffering.ȱ Thereȱisȱaȱcrackȱinȱeverything.ȱThatȇsȱhowȱtheȱlightȱgetsȱin.”ȱ Literatureȱ AbouȱElȱFadl,ȱKhaled.ȱ(2001)ȱSpeakingȱinȱGod’sȱName:ȱIslamicȱLaw,ȱAuȬ thority,ȱandȱWomen.ȱOxford:ȱOneworldȱPublications.ȱ etȱal.ȱ(2002).ȱTheȱPlaceȱofȱToleranceȱinȱIslam.ȱBoston:ȱBeaconȱPress.ȱ AnȬNa‘im,ȱ Abdullahiȱ Ahmed.ȱ (1990).ȱ Towardȱ anȱ Islamicȱ Reformation:ȱ CivilȱLiberties,ȱHumanȱRights,ȱandȱInternationalȱLaw.ȱSyracuse:ȱSyrȬ acuseȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Breidlid,ȱHalldis,ȱandȱToveȱNicolaisen.ȱ(2000).ȱIȱbegynnelsenȱvarȱfortelȬ lingen:ȱFortellingȱiȱKRL.ȱOslo:ȱUniversitetsforlaget.ȱ Buber,ȱMartin.ȱ(2002).ȱBetweenȱManȱandȱMan.ȱWithȱanȱintroductionȱbyȱ MauriceȱFriedman.ȱTransl.ȱR.G.ȱSmith.ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱRoutȬ ledge.ȱ Fiorenza,ȱElisabethȱSchüssler.ȱ(1988).ȱ“TheȱEthicsȱofȱBiblicalȱInterpreȬ tation.”ȱJournalȱofȱBiblicalȱLiteratureȱ107:ȱ3Ȭ17.ȱ Ford,ȱDavid.ȱ(2006).ȱ“AnȱInterfaithȱWisdom:ȱScripturalȱReasoningȱbeȬ tweenȱJews,ȱChristiansȱandȱMuslims.”ȱIn:ȱD.ȱFordȱandȱC.C.ȱPeckȬ noldȱ (eds.).ȱ Theȱ Promiseȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ Oxfordȱ etȱ al.:ȱ BlackwellȱPublishing.ȱ Frederiks,ȱMartha.ȱ(2005).ȱ“HermeneuticsȱfromȱanȱInterȬreligiousȱPerȬ spective?”ȱExchangeȱ9:ȱ102Ȭ10.ȱ FritschȬOppermann,ȱSybille.ȱ(2003).ȱ“ChristianȱExistenceȱinȱaȱBuddhistȱ Context:ȱTheȱTheologyȱofȱYagiȱasȱaȱContributionȱtoȱanȱInterreliȬ giousȱ Hermeneuticsȱ ofȱ theȱ ‘Other’.”ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Interreligiousȱ DiaȬ logueȱ13:ȱ215Ȭ39.ȱ Gabriel,ȱ Markȱ S.ȱ (2002).ȱ Islamȱ andȱ Terrorism:ȱ Whatȱ theȱ Quranȱ Reallyȱ TeachesȱAboutȱChristianity,ȱViolenceȱandȱtheȱGoalsȱofȱtheȱIslamicȱJihad.ȱ LakeȱMary:ȱCharismaȱHouse.ȱ Gilje,ȱNils.ȱ(2009).ȱ“Filosofiskȱteologiȱogȱreligiøsȱerfaring,ȱetȱkantianskȱ perspektiv.”ȱIn:ȱArveȱBrunvollȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.).ȱReligionȱogȱkultur:ȱEinȱ fleirfaglegȱsamtale.ȱOslo:ȱUniversitetsforlaget.ȱ Grung,ȱAnneȱHege.ȱ(2011).ȱGenderȱJusticeȱinȱMuslimȬChristianȱReadings:ȱ Christianȱ andȱ Muslimȱ Womenȱ inȱ Norwayȱ Makingȱ Meaningȱ ofȱ Textsȱ

THEȱETHICALȱCRITIQUEȱOFȱTHEȱSCRIPTURESȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ351ȱ fromȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ theȱ Koranȱ andȱ theȱ Hadith.ȱ Ph.D.ȱ Dissertation,ȱ Oslo:ȱ Unipub.ȱ Holth,ȱ Gunnar,ȱ andȱ Kjellȱ Arneȱ Kallevik.ȱ (2008).ȱ Horisontar:ȱ RLEȱ forȱ ungdomstrinnet.ȱOslo:ȱGyldendal.ȱ IbnȱWarraq.ȱ(1995).ȱWhyȱIȱamȱnotȱaȱMuslim.ȱAmherst,ȱNewȱYork:ȱProȬ metheusȱBooks.ȱ Ipgrave,ȱ Michaelȱ (ed.).ȱ (2004).ȱ Scripturesȱ inȱ Dialogue:ȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Muslimsȱ Studyingȱ theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ Together.ȱ London:ȱ ChurchȱHouseȱPublishing.ȱ Jørgensen,ȱ Jonasȱ Adelin.ȱ (2009).ȱ “Theologyȱ ofȱ Religionsȱ asȱ InterreliȬ giousȱ Hermeneutics.ȱ Presentationȱ andȱ Discussionȱ ofȱ aȱ TypoȬ logicalȱModelȱforȱTheologyȱofȱReligionsȱonȱtheȱBasisȱofȱTwoȱFieldȱ StudiesȱofȱSyncretisticȱReligiousȱMovements.”ȱKerygmaȱundȱDogȬ maȱ55:ȱ117Ȭ40.ȱ (2008).ȱJesusȱImandarsȱandȱChristȱBhaktas:ȱTwoȱCaseȱStudiesȱofȱInterȬ religiousȱHermeneuticsȱandȱIdentityȱinȱGlobalȱChristianity.ȱFrankfurtȱ amȱMainȱetȱal.:ȱPeterȱLang.ȱ King,ȱUrsula.ȱ(1999).ȱ“TheȱWorldȇsȱScriptures:ȱResourcesȱforȱDialogueȱ andȱ Renewal.”ȱ Calgary:ȱ Departmentȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Studies,ȱ Theȱ UniversityȱofȱCalgary.ȱ Kirkerådet.ȱ (2006).ȱ Skriftforståelseȱ ogȱ skriftbrukȱ medȱ særligȱ henblikkȱ påȱ homofilisaken:ȱUttalelseȱfraȱDenȱnorskeȱkirkesȱlærenemndȱiȱsakȱreistȱavȱ Møreȱbiskop.ȱOslo:ȱKirkerådet.ȱ Leirvik,ȱ Oddbjørn.ȱ (1999).ȱ “‘Islamskeȱ tekstar’:ȱ Omȱ Koranenȱ somȱ heiȬ lagtekstȱ ogȱ skulebok.”ȱ http://folk.uio.no/leirvik/tekster/islamskeȱ tekstar.html.ȱ Manji,ȱ Irshad.ȱ (2003).ȱ Theȱ Troubleȱ withȱ Islam:ȱ Aȱ WakeȬUpȱ Callȱ forȱ HonȬ estyȱandȱChange.ȱToronto:ȱRandomȱHouseȱCanada.ȱ MuslimȬChristianȱ Researchȱ Group.ȱ (1989).ȱ Theȱ Challengeȱ ofȱ theȱ ScripȬ tures:ȱTheȱBibleȱandȱtheȱQurȇan.ȱFaithȱMeetsȱFaith.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrȬ bisȱBooks.ȱ Moosa,ȱ Ebrahim.ȱ (2002).ȱ “Theȱ Debtsȱ andȱ Burdensȱ ofȱ Criticalȱ Islam.”ȱ In:ȱO.ȱSafiȱ(ed.).ȱProgressiveȱMuslimsȱonȱJustice,ȱGender,ȱandȱPluralȬ ism.ȱOxford:ȱOneworld.ȱ Moxnes,ȱ Halvor.ȱ (1999).ȱ “Trengerȱ Bibelenȱ moralskȱ kritikk?”ȱ In:ȱ T.B.ȱ Pettersenȱ andȱ S.E.ȱ Horjenȱ (eds.).ȱ Overȱ alleȱ grenser:ȱ Festskriftȱ vedȱ Norgesȱ Kristeligeȱ Studentforbundsȱ 100ȱ årsjubileum.ȱ Oslo:ȱ Verbumȱ forlag/NorgesȱKristeligeȱStudentforbund.ȱ

352ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Mæland,ȱBård.ȱ(2003).ȱRewardingȱEncounters:ȱIslamȱandȱtheȱComparativeȱ Theologiesȱ ofȱ Kennethȱ Craggȱ andȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smith.ȱ London:ȱ Melisende.ȱ Prior,ȱ Michael.ȱ (2002).ȱ “Ethnicȱ Cleansingȱ andȱ theȱ Bible.”ȱ Holyȱ Landȱ Studiesȱ1:ȱ37Ȭ59.ȱ (1997).ȱTheȱBibleȱandȱColonialism:ȱAȱMoralȱCritique.ȱSheffield:ȱShefȬ fieldȱAcademicȱPress.ȱ Rasmussen,ȱ Tarald,ȱ andȱ Einarȱ Thomassenȱ (eds.).ȱ (1999).ȱ Kildesamlingȱ tilȱKristendomskunnskapȱmedȱreligionsȬȱogȱlivssynsorientering.ȱVol.ȱ1:ȱ Kristendommen.ȱIslam.ȱOslo:ȱNasjonaltȱLæremiddelsenter.ȱ Ricoeur,ȱ Paul.ȱ (1994).ȱ Oneselfȱ asȱ Another.ȱ Transl.ȱ K.ȱ Blamey.ȱ Chicago:ȱ TheȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress.ȱ Roald,ȱ Anneȱ Sofie.ȱ (1998).ȱ “Feministȱ Reinterpretationȱ ofȱ Islamicȱ Sources:ȱMuslimȱFeministȱTheologyȱinȱtheȱLightȱofȱtheȱChristianȱ Traditionȱ ofȱ Feministȱ Thought.”ȱ In:ȱ K.ȱ Askȱ andȱ M.ȱ Tjomslandȱ (eds.).ȱ Womenȱ andȱ Islamization:ȱ Contemporaryȱ Dimensionsȱ ofȱ DisȬ courseȱonȱGenderȱRelations.ȱOxford/NewȱYork:ȱBergȱPublications.ȱ Russell,ȱBertrand.ȱ(1967).ȱWhyȱIȱamȱnotȱaȱChristianȱandȱOtherȱEssaysȱonȱ ReligionȱandȱRelatedȱSubjects.ȱLondon:ȱUnwinȱBooks.ȱ Räisänen,ȱHeikki.ȱ(2000).ȱ“Påȱvägȱmotȱenȱetiskȱbibelkritik.”ȱSvenskȱExeȬ getiskȱÅrsbokȱ65:ȱ227Ȭ42.ȱ (1997).ȱ Marcion,ȱ Muhammadȱ andȱ theȱ Mahatma.ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press.ȱ Schmid,ȱHansjörgȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.).ȱ2010.ȱ“NäheȱisȱdirȱdasȱWortȱ...”ȱSchriftausȬ legungȱ inȱ Christentumȱ andȱ Islam.ȱ Regensburg:ȱ Verlagȱ Friedrichȱ Pustet.ȱ Stenström,ȱHannaȱ(ed.).ȱ(2009).ȱAttȱtolkaȱBiblenȱochȱKoranen:ȱKonfliktȱochȱ förhandling.ȱLund:ȱStudentlitteratur.ȱ (2002).ȱ“Grandma,ȱRäisänen,ȱandȱtheȱGlobalȱVillage:ȱAȱFeministȱ Approachȱ toȱ Ethicalȱ Criticism.”ȱ In:ȱ I.ȱ Dunderberg,ȱ C.ȱ Tuckett,ȱ andȱ K.ȱ Syreeniȱ (eds.).ȱ Fairȱ Play:ȱ Pluralismȱ andȱ Conflictȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Christianity.ȱEssaysȱinȱHonourȱofȱHeikkiȱRäisänen.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill.ȱ ȱ (2001).ȱ “Enȱ bitȱ tillȱ påȱ vägȱ motȱ enȱ etiskȱ bibelkritik.”ȱ Svenskȱ ExeȬ getiskȱÅrsbokȱ66:177Ȭ196.ȱ Wilson,ȱAndrewȱ(ed.).ȱ(1991).ȱWorldȱScripture:ȱAȱComparativeȱAnthologyȱ ofȱ Sacredȱ Texts.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Paragonȱ House/Internationalȱ ReliȬ giousȱFoundation.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ PartȱVȱ

PolemicalȱRevivalȱ

PolemicalȱRevivalȱ ȱ AttackingȱtheȱOther’sȱTextsȱ

ȱ ȱ

JohnȱChesworthȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ Anȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ interrelationshipȱ betweenȱ differentȱ faithsȱisȱbecomingȱmoreȱimportantȱasȱweȱliveȱinȱanȱincreasinglyȱ pluralisticȱsociety.ȱIfȱfaithȱgroupsȱareȱtoȱliveȱtogetherȱharmoniȬ ously,ȱ itȱ isȱ necessaryȱ forȱ themȱ toȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ understandȱ oneȱ another.ȱ Whenȱ twoȱ faithsȱ suchȱ asȱ Islamȱ andȱ Christianityȱ existȱ sideȱ byȱ side,ȱ bothȱ ofȱ whichȱ areȱ “missionaryȱ religions”ȱ withȱ scripturalȱimperativesȱtoȱshareȱtheirȱfaithȱwithȱothers,ȱitȱisȱuseȬ fulȱtoȱexamineȱhowȱtheyȱconductȱthatȱoutreachȱtowardsȱoneȱanȬ other.ȱ Muslimsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ bothȱ haveȱ sacredȱ textsȱ thatȱ areȱ centralȱtoȱtheirȱfaith.ȱTheseȱtextsȱhaveȱbeenȱusedȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱ polemicalȱ material,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ attackȱ “theȱ other,”ȱ sinceȱ theȱ eighthȱ century.ȱ Theȱ writingsȱ ofȱ twoȱ nineteenthȬcenturyȱ menȱ continueȱtoȱbeȱinfluential:ȱMizanȱulȬHaqqȱ(TheȱBalanceȱofȱTruth)ȱ byȱ Karlȱ Pfanderȱ (1803Ȭ1865),ȱ firstȱ publishedȱ inȱ 1829,ȱ andȱ Izharȱ ulȬHaqqȱ (Theȱ Demonstrationȱ ofȱ Truth)ȱ byȱ Rahmatȱ Allahȱ alȬ Kairanawiȱ (1818Ȭ1891),ȱ whichȱ wasȱ publishedȱ inȱ 1864.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ menȱdebatedȱinȱAgra,ȱIndia,ȱinȱ1854,ȱandȱKairanawiȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱ toȱhaveȱ“won”ȱtheȱdebates.ȱBothȱbooksȱareȱstillȱinȱprintȱandȱareȱ widelyȱ available.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ latterȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ twentiethȱ cenȬ tury,ȱ populistȱ polemicalȱ discourseȱ usingȱ sacredȱ textsȱ wasȱ reȬ vivedȱamongstȱbothȱMuslimsȱandȱChristians.ȱThisȱcontributionȱ comesȱ fromȱ myȱ studyȱ ofȱ Muslimȱ andȱ Christianȱ speakersȱ andȱ writersȱwhoȱhaveȱsoughtȱtoȱfulfilȱtheȱmissionaryȱimperativeȱtoȱ tellȱothersȱorȱtoȱcallȱthemȱtoȱtheȱfaith.ȱ Kateȱ Zebiri,ȱ inȱ Muslimsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ Faceȱ toȱ Faceȱ (1997),ȱ gaveȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ Muslimȱ writingsȱ onȱ ChrisȬ tianityȱ andȱ contemporaryȱ Christianȱ writingsȱ onȱ Islamȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱexploreȱtheȱissuesȱcentralȱtoȱChristianȬMuslimȱrelations.ȱOneȱ particularȱ commentȱ ofȱ hers,ȱ concerningȱ populistȱ writing,ȱ wasȱ influentialȱ inȱ myȱ settingȱ outȱ onȱ thisȱ study.ȱ Itȱ explainedȱ herȱ

356ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ

exclusionȱofȱtheȱwritingsȱofȱAhmedȱDeedatȱ(1918Ȭ2005)ȱandȱtheȱ reasonsȱwhyȱsheȱhadȱnotȱincorporatedȱTractsȱinȱherȱsurvey:ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ soberingȱ thoughtȱ thatȱ Deedatȱ gainsȱ moreȱ exposureȱ thanȱanyȱofȱtheȱwritersȱcitedȱinȱthisȱchapter,ȱalthoughȱstrictȬ lyȱ speakingȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ hisȱ work,ȱ whichȱ afterȱ allȱ hardlyȱ aspiresȱtoȱgoȱbeyondȱtheȱlevelȱofȱrhetoricȱandȱapologetic,ȱisȱ poorȱevenȱbyȱtheȱstandardsȱofȱreligiousȱpolemic.ȱ Itȱ isȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ bothȱ qualityȱ andȱ genreȱ (asȱ withȱ Christianȱ missionaryȱ literature,ȱ tractsȱ wereȱ notȱ incorporatȬ ed)ȱthatȱhisȱworksȱhaveȱnotȱbeenȱincludedȱ….ȱ(Zebiriȱ1997:ȱ 47Ȭ48)ȱ

Thisȱhighlightedȱaȱgapȱinȱtheȱstudyȱofȱsuchȱliterature,ȱbothȱMusȬ limȱ andȱ Christian.ȱ Itȱ demonstratedȱ thatȱ veryȱ littleȱ academicȱ studyȱ hasȱ beenȱ carriedȱ outȱ onȱ practitionersȱ ofȱ popularȱ polemȬ icalȱmaterial.ȱ Paulȱ Giffordȱ reportingȱ onȱ ralliesȱ inȱ Zimbabweȱ andȱ Kenyaȱ duringȱ theȱ lateȱ 1980sȱ andȱ earlyȱ 1990sȱ raisedȱ concernsȱ atȱ theȱ stanceȱ thatȱ Reinhardȱ Bonnkeȱ wasȱ takingȱ inȱ hisȱ “crusades.”ȱ Heȱ commentedȱ onȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ sensitivityȱ towardsȱ otherȱ faithsȱ inȱ Bonnke’sȱpreaching:ȱ Givenȱ Muslimȱ sensibilities,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ needȱ forȱ sensitivityȱ inȱ thisȱ area.ȱ Butȱ thereȱisȱ noȱ sensitivityȱ possibleȱ inȱ Bonnke’sȱ apȬ proach.ȱIfȱMuslimsȱmakeȱupȱpartȱofȱSatan’sȱempire,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱ placeȱforȱrespect,ȱcooperationȱorȱdialogue.ȱAggressiveȱproseȬ lytismȱbecomesȱtheȱwillȱofȱGod.ȱ(Giffordȱ1992:ȱ170)ȱ

Theseȱ twoȱpeopleȱ andȱ theirȱorganizations,ȱ Ahmedȱ Deedatȱandȱ Islamicȱ Propagationȱ Centreȱ Internationalȱ (IPCI)ȱ andȱ Reinhardȱ BonnkeȱandȱChristȱforȱAllȱNationsȱ(CfAN),ȱhaveȱhadȱaȱtremenȬ dousȱimpactȱthroughȱtheirȱministries.ȱTheyȱhaveȱalsoȱcausedȱaȱ greatȱdealȱofȱoffenceȱtoȱmanyȱofȱtheȱotherȱfaithȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱpeoȬ pleȱofȱtheirȱownȱfaith.ȱ Itȱ isȱ outȱ ofȱ aȱ desireȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ popularityȱ ofȱ theseȱ methodsȱ andȱ toȱ critiqueȱ theȱ effectȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ onȱ relationȬ shipsȱbetweenȱMuslimsȱandȱChristiansȱthatȱthisȱstudyȱhasȱbeenȱ carriedȱout.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ATTACKINGȱTHEȱOTHER’SȱTEXTSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ357ȱ

Kano,ȱNorthernȱNigeriaȱ1991ȱ Duringȱ 1991ȱ bothȱ Ahmedȱ Deedatȱ andȱ Reinhardȱ Bonnkeȱ hadȱ beenȱplanningȱtoȱspeakȱinȱKanoȱinȱnorthernȱNigeria,ȱyetȱneitherȱ ofȱ themȱ succeeded.ȱ Ahmedȱ Deedatȱ hadȱ beenȱ invitedȱ byȱ theȱ MuslimȱForumȱtoȱspeakȱinȱKano,ȱbutȱtheȱNigerianȱgovernmentȱ deniedȱhimȱanȱentryȱvisa.ȱReinhardȱBonnkeȱwasȱinvitedȱbyȱtheȱ Christianȱ Associationȱ ofȱ Nigeriaȱ andȱ hisȱ teamȱ preparedȱ forȱ aȱ Crusadeȱ inȱ October:ȱ duringȱ theȱ runȬup,ȱ theȱ cityȱ wasȱ plasteredȱ withȱpostersȱsayingȱ“KanoȱforȱJesus,”ȱandȱ“CapturingȱKanoȱforȱ Christ.”ȱTwoȱdaysȱbeforeȱtheȱstartȱofȱtheȱcrusade,ȱBonnkeȱenterȬ edȱKanoȱinȱaȱtriumphantȱmotorcade.ȱ TheȱMuslimȱcommunityȱwasȱconcernedȱatȱwhatȱappearedȱtoȱ beȱ happening,ȱ i.e.ȱ thatȱ theȱ governmentȱ wasȱ activelyȱ promotingȱ ChristianityȱinȱaȱMuslimȱmajorityȱcity,ȱwhilstȱdenyingȱaȱMuslimȱ speakerȱtheȱopportunityȱtoȱvisit.ȱTheȱnextȱdayȱaȱlargeȱcrowdȱfromȱ theȱMuslimȱcommunityȱwentȱtoȱtheȱEmir’sȱPalaceȱtoȱofferȱaȱspeȬ cialȱprayerȱsalatȱalȬkhawfȱ(fearȱprayer)ȱandȱtoȱaskȱforȱtheȱcrusadeȱtoȱ beȱcancelled.ȱTheȱemir’sȱrepresentativeȱisȱreportedȱtoȱhaveȱsaidȱ thatȱthatȱtheȱissueȱwouldȱbeȱdealtȱwith.ȱ Mostȱofȱtheȱcrowdȱdispersedȱpeacefully,ȱbutȱaȱsmallȱgroupȱ wentȱ intoȱ Gabinȱ Soba,ȱ theȱ Christianȱ quarterȱ andȱ violenceȱ andȱ destructionȱensued.ȱUpȱtoȱtwoȱhundredȱpeopleȱareȱreportedȱtoȱ haveȱ beenȱ killedȱ andȱ Churchesȱ andȱ Mosquesȱ burntȱ (Walshȱ 1999;ȱBoerȱ2003:ȱ41Ȭ46).ȱTheȱBonnkeȱCrusadeȱwasȱcancelledȱandȱ heȱ andȱ hisȱ entourageȱ wereȱ flownȱ outȱ ofȱ Kanoȱ byȱ theȱ police.ȱ BonnkeȱhasȱgivenȱhisȱownȱaccountȱofȱtheȱeventsȱinȱKanoȱinȱhisȱ autobiographyȱ(2009:ȱ469Ȭ481).ȱ WeȱstartȱwithȱtheseȱtragicȱeventsȱthatȱconnectȱDeedatȱandȱ Bonnke.ȱ Weȱ nowȱ turnȱ toȱ discoverȱ somethingȱ aboutȱ theseȱ twoȱ people.ȱ AhmedȱDeedatȱ(1918Ȭ2005)ȱ Ahmedȱ Hoosenȱ Deedat,ȱ theȱ founderȱ ofȱ Islamicȱ Propagationȱ Centreȱ Internationalȱ (IPCI),ȱ developedȱ theȱ Comparativeȱ ReliȬ gionsȱApproach.ȱItȱusesȱtheȱBibleȱtoȱattackȱChristianity,ȱseekingȱ toȱ proveȱ theȱ truthȱ ofȱ Islam.ȱ Hisȱ approachȱ canȱ beȱ describedȱ asȱ “ApologeticsȱthroughȱPolemics”ȱ(Westerlundȱ2003:ȱ263).ȱ DeedatȱexplainedȱthatȱhisȱzealȱtoȱattackȱChristianityȱbeganȱ inȱ 1939.ȱ Whilstȱ workingȱ inȱ aȱ storeȱ atȱ Adamsȱ Mission,ȱ heȱ wasȱ stungȱbyȱtheȱinsultsȱtoȱIslamȱthrownȱatȱhimȱbyȱtraineeȱChristianȱ


missionaries.ȱHeȱwasȱlookingȱinȱtheȱbackȱofȱtheȱstoreȱforȱreadȬ ingȱmatter,ȱwhenȱheȱ“discoveredȱbyȱpureȱchance”ȱaȱdustyȱcopyȱ ofȱIzharȱulȬHaqqȱ(TheȱDemonstrationȱofȱTruth)ȱbyȱRahmatȱAllahȱ alȬKairanawi.ȱHeȱusedȱtheȱbook’sȱargumentsȱtoȱdebateȱwithȱtheȱ traineeȱ missionariesȱ andȱ itȱ becameȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ apȬ proachȱ(Deedatȱ1992a:ȱ62).ȱ Deedatȱ beganȱ speakingȱ publiclyȱ inȱ 1942.ȱ Hisȱ firstȱ addressȱ wasȱ“Muhammad:ȱMessengerȱofȱPeace,”ȱtoȱanȱaudienceȱofȱ15ȱinȱ Durban.ȱSoonȱheȱmovedȱtoȱDurban’sȱCityȱHall,ȱwithȱaudiencesȱ ofȱupȱtoȱ2000.ȱInȱ1957,ȱDeedat,ȱandȱtwoȱfriendsȱestablishedȱtheȱ IslamicȱPropagationȱCentreȱ(IPC),ȱ(addingȱInternationalȱinȱ1982)ȱ inȱDurban,ȱwhichȱpublishedȱhisȱbooklets.ȱHeȱwroteȱoverȱtwentyȱ ofȱ these,ȱ basedȱ onȱ hisȱ talks;ȱ titlesȱ include:ȱ Isȱ theȱ Bibleȱ God’sȱ Word?ȱ (1992a),ȱ Whatȱ theȱ Bibleȱ saysȱ aboutȱ Muhummedȱ [sic]ȱ (pbuh)ȱ (2005),ȱMuhummedȱ(pbuh):ȱTheȱNaturalȱSuccessorȱtoȱChristȱ(1997).ȱ Fromȱ1973ȱDeedatȱconcentratedȱhisȱeffortsȱonȱIPCȱandȱbeȬ ganȱanȱinternationalȱministry,ȱgivingȱlectures,ȱrunningȱtrainingȱ sessionsȱbasedȱonȱhisȱCombatȱKitȱagainstȱBibleȱThumpersȱ(1992b),ȱ preparingȱ“theȱnextȱgenerationȱofȱDeedats”ȱandȱconductingȱdeȬ batesȱ withȱ prominentȱ Christianȱ speakers,ȱ includingȱ Americanȱ teleȬevangelistȱJimmyȱSwaggartȱandȱPalestinianȱChristianȱAnisȱ Shorrosh.ȱ Deedat’sȱ approachȱ gainedȱ popularityȱ andȱ receivedȱ finanȬ cialȱ support,ȱ enablingȱ IPCIȱ toȱ distributeȱ copiesȱ ofȱ hisȱ bookletsȱ freely.ȱ Recordingsȱ ofȱ hisȱ lecturesȱ andȱ debatesȱ wereȱ widelyȱ availableȱandȱveryȱpopular.ȱDeedatȱwasȱawardedȱtheȱKingȱFaisalȱ InternationalȱAwardȱinȱ1986ȱforȱ“ServiceȱtoȱIslam”;ȱthisȱrecogniȬ tionȱ furtherȱ boostedȱ hisȱ popularityȱ andȱ increasedȱ demandsȱ onȱ himȱasȱaȱspeakerȱ(Vahedȱ2005:ȱ90).ȱ Inȱ1996ȱDeedatȱsufferedȱaȱmassiveȱstrokeȱandȱwasȱbedridȬ denȱuntilȱhisȱdeathȱinȱ2005.ȱDuringȱthisȱperiodȱheȱwasȱcaredȱforȱ byȱhisȱfamilyȱandȱonlyȱableȱtoȱcommunicateȱbyȱmovementȱofȱanȱ eyelid.ȱ ReinhardȱBonnkeȱ(bornȱ1940)ȱ ReinhardȱBonnkeȱwasȱbornȱinȱKönigsberg,ȱEastȱPrussia,ȱwhereȱ hisȱfather,ȱHermann,ȱwasȱinȱtheȱmilitary.ȱHermannȱBonnkeȱthenȱ becameȱaȱPentecostalȱpastor.ȱAtȱtheȱageȱofȱten,ȱasȱheȱlistenedȱtoȱ aȱmissionaryȱtalk,ȱReinhardȱBonnkeȱ“heardȱaȱvoiceȱclearlyȱtellȬ


ingȱ himȱ thatȱ oneȱ dayȱ heȱ wouldȱ preachȱ theȱ Gospelȱ inȱ Africa”ȱ (Whittakerȱ1998:ȱ32).ȱ Inȱ1959,ȱBonnkeȱattendedȱtheȱBibleȱCollegeȱofȱWales,ȱSwanȬ sea,ȱ whereȱ heȱ studiedȱ forȱ twoȱ years,ȱ includingȱ threeȱ monthsȱ learningȱ English.ȱ Heȱ returnedȱ toȱ Germanyȱ inȱ 1961ȱ andȱ servedȱ asȱ anȱ evangelistȱ andȱ wasȱ ordainedȱ asȱ aȱ pastorȱ inȱ theȱ Germanȱ PentecostalȱFellowshipȱ(BFP)ȱinȱ1964,ȱtheȱsameȱyearȱheȱmarriedȱ Ani.ȱHeȱledȱaȱcongregationȱnearȱHamburgȱforȱthreeȱyears,ȱandȱ thenȱinȱ1967ȱheȱandȱAniȱsetȱoffȱforȱLesotho,ȱworkingȱwithȱVelȬ berterȱMission,ȱtheȱForeignȱMissionȱarmȱofȱBFP.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ sevenȱ yearsȱ Bonnkeȱ spentȱ inȱ Lesothoȱ heȱ heldȱ evangelisticȱ ralliesȱ andȱ setȱ upȱ aȱ mailȬorderȱ Bibleȱ school,ȱ usingȱ bicyclesȱ toȱ makeȱ deliveries.ȱ Byȱ theȱ timeȱ theyȱ leftȱ Lesotho,ȱ heȱ hadȱalreadyȱfoundedȱChristȱforȱAllȱNationsȱ(CfAN)ȱ(Leaseȱ1995:ȱ 62).ȱ Inȱ 1974,ȱ Bonnkeȱ movedȱ toȱ Johannesburgȱ andȱ builtȱ theȱ headquartersȱ forȱ hisȱ organisationȱ atȱ Witsfield.ȱ Heȱ devisedȱ hisȱ overallȱstrategyȱtoȱreachȱAfricaȱforȱChrist:ȱ Bonnkeȱ formulatedȱ threeȱ stepsȱ toȱ reachȱ hisȱ goal:ȱ “Fromȱ CapeȱtoȱCairoȱforȱJesus!”ȱ First,ȱheȱwishedȱtoȱcarpetȱEasternȱAfrica,ȱfromȱSouthȱAfricaȱ toȱKenya.ȱ Second,ȱ heȱ plannedȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ ‘Fireȱ Conferences’,ȱ teachingȱ forȱpastors.ȱ Third,ȱhisȱfinalȱtargetȱWestȱAfrica,ȱwithȱhisȱheadquartersȱinȱ Lagos.ȱ(Leaseȱ1995:ȱ62;ȱadapted)ȱ

Inȱ 1975,ȱ heȱ heldȱ theȱ firstȱ ofȱ hisȱ “crusades”ȱ inȱ Gabarone,ȱ Botswana,ȱinȱtheȱfootballȱstadium.ȱSinceȱthenȱheȱhasȱconcentratȬ edȱonȱmassȱevangelism.ȱBetweenȱ1976ȱandȱ1986,ȱheȱusedȱeverȬ largerȱtentsȱforȱhisȱcrusades,ȱbeginningȱwithȱaȱ10,000ȱseaterȱandȱ endingȱwithȱaȱ34,000ȱone.ȱSinceȱthenȱheȱhasȱmovedȱonȱtoȱopenȱ airȱsitesȱandȱclaimsȱattendancesȱofȱoverȱ500,000ȱatȱmeetings.ȱ Inȱ 1986ȱ heȱ movedȱ hisȱ headquartersȱ fromȱ Johannesburgȱ toȱ Frankfurtȱ inȱ Germany,ȱ whilstȱ maintainingȱ officesȱ inȱ Africa.ȱ CfANȱ conductsȱ aroundȱ eightȱ majorȱ ralliesȱ aȱ year,ȱ theȱ majorityȱ inȱAfricaȱbutȱalsoȱinȱEurope,ȱAsia,ȱandȱNorthȱAmerica.ȱ PublicȱMeetings:ȱAhmedȱDeedatȱ Theȱ shortȱ bookletsȱ thatȱ Deedatȱ hasȱ writtenȱ areȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ hisȱ publicȱ talksȱ andȱ haveȱ beenȱ extremelyȱ influential,ȱ withȱ manyȱ othersȱusingȱhisȱapproach.ȱTheȱcombinedȱeditionȱofȱhisȱpamphȬ


letsȱ wasȱ publishedȱ asȱ Theȱ Choice:ȱ Islamȱ andȱ Christianity,ȱ inȱ twoȱ volumesȱ(1993Ȭ1994).ȱTheseȱcontainȱtheȱfullȱversionsȱofȱeightȱofȱ hisȱbooklets.ȱThese,ȱtogetherȱwithȱmostȱofȱhisȱotherȱbookletsȱareȱ nowȱavailableȱasȱdownloadableȱfilesȱfromȱtheȱinternet.ȱ Weȱ canȱ divideȱ Deedat’sȱ meetingsȱ intoȱ threeȱ types.ȱ Firstȱ isȱ theȱPublicȱLecture,ȱwhereȱDeedatȱhimselfȱgaveȱaȱlectureȱofȱupȱtoȱ anȱhourȱinȱlength,ȱfollowedȱbyȱaȱquestionȱtime.ȱTheȱtitleȱofȱtheȱ lectureȱ wasȱ usuallyȱ takenȱ fromȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ booklets,ȱ suchȱ asȱ WhatȱtheȱBibleȱsaysȱaboutȱMuhammed.ȱ SecondȱwasȱtheȱPublicȱDebateȱwithȱaȱwellȬknownȱChristianȱ figure,ȱbothȱspeakingȱonȱtheȱsameȱtitleȱsuchȱasȱIsȱtheȱBibleȱGod’sȱ Word?ȱEachȱspeakerȱwasȱgivenȱaȱsetȱtimeȱtoȱspeakȱonȱtheȱsubȬ ject,ȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱspeakerȱbeingȱgivenȱtimeȱtoȱrespondȱafterȱtheȱ secondȱspeaker.ȱTheȱmoderatorȱofȱtheȱdebateȱtoldȱtheȱaudienceȱ toȱlistenȱrespectfullyȱandȱnotȱtoȱbeȱpartisanȱbyȱcheeringȱforȱoneȱ speakerȱorȱtheȱother.ȱOnceȱtheȱspeakersȱhadȱfinishedȱthereȱwasȱ timeȱforȱquestionsȱfromȱtheȱaudience.ȱ ThirdȱwasȱCombatȱKitȱClasses,ȱusuallyȱheldȱinȱtheȱmorningsȱ duringȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ publicȱ lectures.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ restrictedȱ toȱ aȱ smallȱ group,ȱ withȱ aȱ separateȱ classȱ forȱ women.ȱ Eachȱ participantȱ wasȱ givenȱaȱBibleȱandȱDeedatȱtookȱthemȱthroughȱtheȱbookletȱCombatȱ KitȱagainstȱBibleȱThumpers.ȱ AnȱexampleȱfromȱMuhummedȱ(pbuh):ȱTheȱNaturalȱSuccessorȱ toȱ Christȱ (pbuh)ȱ usingȱ Matthewȱ 15:21Ȭ26ȱ showsȱ howȱ theȱ Bibleȱ wasȱusedȱbyȱDeedat.ȱ BIBLICALȱCONFIRMATIONȱ Remember,ȱ thatȱ inȱ theȱ sixthȱ centuryȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ Era,ȱ whenȱMuhummedȱ(pbuh)ȱwasȱchantingȱGod’sȱwordsȱwhichȱ wasȱsystematicallyȱ“putȱintoȱhisȱmouth,”ȱtheȱArabicȱBibleȱhadȱ notȱyetȱbeenȱtranslated.ȱHeȱcouldȱneverȱhaveȱknownȱthatȱheȱ wasȱfulfillingȱandȱconfirmingȱtheȱutterancesȱofȱhisȱpredecesȬ sorȱ(Jesusȱpbuh)ȱtoȱtheȱletter.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ONLYȱFORȱTHEȱISRAELITESȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ATTACKINGȱTHEȱOTHER’SȱTEXTSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ361ȱ ȱ

ȱ JESUSȱFORȱJEWSȱONLYȱ Theseȱ twelveȱ Jesusȱ sentȱ forth,ȱ andȱ commandedȱ themȱ sayȬ ing,ȱ GoȱyeȱnotȱintoȱtheȱwayȱofȱtheȱGentiles,ȱandȱintoȱanyȱcityȱofȱ theȱ Samaritansȱ enterȱ yeȱ not:ȱ Butȱ goȱ ratherȱ untoȱ Theȱ Lostȱ SheepȱofȱTheȱHouseȱofȱIsrael.ȱ (HOLYȱBIBLE)ȱMatthewȱ10:5Ȭ6ȱ NOTȱFORȱDOGSȱ Andȱ beholdȱ aȱ womanȱ ofȱ Canaanȱ cameȱ ...ȱ andȱ criedȱ untoȱ himȱsaying,ȱHaveȱmercyȱonȱmeȱ...ȱmyȱdaughterȱisȱseriouslyȱ possessedȱwithȱaȱdevil.ȱButȱheȱansweredȱherȱnotȱaȱword.ȱ Andȱ hisȱ disciplesȱ cameȱ andȱ beggedȱ him,ȱ saying,ȱ Sendȱ herȱ away:ȱforȱsheȱcriethȱafterȱus.ȱ Butȱ heȱ answeredȱ andȱ said,ȱ Iȱ Amȱ Notȱ Sentȱ Butȱ Untoȱ Theȱ LostȱSheepȱofȱTheȱHouseȱofȱIsrael.ȱ Butȱsheȱcameȱandȱkneltȱbeforeȱhim,ȱsaying,ȱLord,ȱhelpȱme.ȱ Butȱ heȱ answeredȱ andȱ said,ȱ Itȱ Isȱ Notȱ fairȱ Toȱ Takeȱ Theȱ ChildrenȇsȱBreadȱAndȱCastȱItȱToȱTheȱDogs.ȱ (HOLYȱBIBLE)ȱMatthewȱ15:22Ȭ26ȱ ItȱgoesȱtoȱtheȱcreditȱofȱthisȱJewishȱprophet,ȱthatȱheȱpractisedȱ whatȱheȱpreached.ȱInȱhisȱlifetimeȱheȱneverȱconvertedȱaȱsinȬ gleȱ Gentileȱ (nonȬJew).ȱ Andȱ ofȱ hisȱ handȬpickedȱ electȱ (hisȱ twelveȱ disciples),ȱ heȱ madeȱ sureȱ thatȱ theyȱ belongedȱ toȱ hisȱ tribeȱsoȱthatȱhisȱotherȱprophecyȱmightȱfindȱfulfilment:ȱ“whenȱ theȱsonȱofȱmanȱ(Jesusȱpbuhȱreferringȱtoȱhimself)ȱshallȱsitȱonȱtheȱ throneȱ ofȱ hisȱglory,ȱyeȱ (theȱ disciples)ȱ alsoȱ shallȱsitȱ uponȱ twelveȱ thrones,ȱ judgingȱ theȱ twelveȱ tribesȱ ofȱ Israel”ȱ (Matthewȱ 19:28).ȱ (Deedatȱ1997:ȱ16Ȭ18)ȱ

InȱthisȱextractȱDeedatȱusesȱaȱquotationȱgivenȱinȱArabic,ȱwithoutȱ givingȱitsȱsource.ȱHeȱthenȱquotesȱfromȱtheȱGospelȱofȱMatthew,ȱ usingȱtheȱquotationsȱtoȱemphasiseȱthatȱJesusȱbroughtȱaȱmessageȱ forȱtheȱJewsȱandȱthatȱnonȬJewsȱwereȱspecificallyȱexcludedȱfromȱ Jesus’ȱremit.ȱ Highlightingȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ phraseȱ “Lostȱ Sheepȱ ofȱ theȱ HouseȱofȱIsrael,”ȱandȱtheȱimplicationȱthatȱnonȬJewsȱareȱdogs,ȱisȱ toȱemphasiseȱthatȱJesusȱisȱsentȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱJews.ȱHisȱuseȱofȱtheȱ passageȱ aboutȱ theȱ womanȱ ofȱ Canaanȱ illustratesȱ aȱ frequentlyȱ usedȱ method:ȱ theȱ omissionȱ ofȱ theȱ finalȱ twoȱ versesȱ ofȱ theȱ passȬ


age,ȱwhereȱtheȱwoman’sȱresponseȱtoȱJesusȱcausesȱhimȱtoȱrelentȱ andȱtoȱhealȱtheȱdaughter.ȱ TheȱcomparativeȱreligionsȱapproachȱdevelopedȱbyȱDeedat,ȱ usingȱtheȱBibleȱtoȱdiscreditȱChristianity,ȱhasȱbecomeȱveryȱpopuȬ larȱandȱ isȱ usedȱ byȱ MuslimȱPreachers’ȱgroupsȱ inȱmanyȱ partsȱ ofȱ theȱworldȱ(Chesworthȱ2006:ȱ168Ȭ75;ȱAhmedȱ2008a:ȱ3Ȭ18;ȱ2008b:ȱ 347Ȭ50).ȱ “Crusades”:ȱReinhardȱBonnkeȱ Bonnke’sȱ “crusades”ȱ usuallyȱ lastȱ aȱ week,ȱ withȱ eveningȱ meetȬ ingsȱandȱteachingȱsessionsȱduringȱtheȱdayȱforȱdelegates.ȱHeȱreȬ gardsȱ “Africaȱ asȱ aȱ fieldȱ ripeȱ forȱ harvest.”ȱ Friederȱ Ludwigȱ comȬ mentsȱonȱhisȱapproach:ȱ“[it]ȱdoesȱnotȱleaveȱmuchȱroomȱforȱdiaȬ logueȱ withȱ otherȱ religions.ȱ Inȱ Tanzaniaȱ [Bonnke]ȱ hasȱ toȱ refrainȱ fromȱdirectȱattacks,ȱbutȱneverthelessȱheȱusesȱaȱ‘powerful’ȱmilitantȱ language”ȱ(Ludwigȱ1996:ȱ223).ȱ Bonnkeȱ hasȱ spokenȱ outȱ againstȱ Islam,ȱ andȱ crusadesȱ haveȱ beenȱcancelledȱinȱNigeriaȱandȱMaliȱbecauseȱofȱfearsȱofȱviolenceȱ arisingȱfromȱhisȱviews.ȱPaulȱGiffordȱdiscussesȱBonnke’sȱattitudeȱ toȱIslamȱandȱMuslimsȱinȱAfrica:ȱ Bonnkeȱ isȱ quiteȱ openȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ conductingȱ aȱ campaignȱ againstȱ Islam,ȱ movingȱ againstȱ theȱ Muslimȱ landsȱ ofȱ Northȱ Africa.ȱOfȱhisȱJosȱcrusade,ȱRevivalȱReportȱsays:ȱ“Muslimsȱvieȱ militantlyȱ forȱ controlȱ ofȱ theȱ city.ȱ Thatȱ factȱ …ȱ madeȱ theȱ Josȱ crusadeȱcrucialȱforȱCfANȱinȱitsȱevangelisticȱcommitmentȱtoȱ driveȱupwardȱintoȱAfrica.”ȱAndȱelsewhere:ȱ“Josȱwasȱoneȱofȱ CfAN’sȱ mostȱ strategicallyȱ importantȱ [crusades]ȱ forȱ advanȬ cingȱnorthȱintoȱNigeria’sȱMoslemȱstrongholds.”ȱThisȱheȱconȬ sidersȱ hisȱ divineȱ mandate:ȱ “Weȱ areȱ evenȱ knockingȱ onȱ theȱ gatesȱ ofȱ theȱ Islamicȱ fortresses,ȱ becauseȱ Jesusȱ hasȱ saidȱ ‘Knockȱandȱitȱshallȱbeȱopenedȱuntoȱyou’.”ȱEveryoneȱunderȬ standsȱexactlyȱwhomȱheȱisȱreferringȱtoȱwhenȱheȱwrites:ȱ“Weȱ areȱgrippedȱbyȱaȱholyȱdeterminationȱtoȱcarryȱoutȱtheȱGreatȱ CommissionȱofȱourȱLord,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱcommandȱtoȱattackȱtheȱ strongholdsȱ ofȱ Satan.ȱ Theȱ widelyȬheralded,ȱ seeminglyȱ unȬ stoppableȱ advanceȱ ofȱ Christianity,ȱ exemplifiedȱ byȱ Bonnkeȱ andȱ hisȱ seeminglyȱ limitlessȱ resources,ȱ personnelȱ andȱ techȬ nology,ȱappearsȱasȱtheȱultimateȱthreatȱtoȱMuslims.ȱToȱMusȬ lims,ȱBonnke’sȱaimȱisȱtheȱeliminationȱofȱeveryȱMosqueȱfromȱ Africaȱinȱtheȱshortestȱpossibleȱtime.ȱThisȱeliminationȱisȱtoȱbeȱ

ATTACKINGȱTHEȱOTHER’SȱTEXTSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ363ȱ achievedȱthroughȱevangelisationȱandȱnotȱthroughȱarsonȱbutȱ inȱMuslimȱeyesȱtheȱultimateȱeffectȱisȱtheȱsame,ȱtheirȱculturalȱ annihilation.ȱ(Giffordȱ1992:ȱ157Ȭ82)ȱ

Bonnkeȱ andȱ hisȱ approachȱ toȱ evangelismȱ isȱ questionedȱ byȱ Christiansȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ complainedȱ ofȱ byȱ Muslims.ȱ Whittaker’sȱ bookȱ onȱ Bonnkeȱ refersȱ toȱ himȱ asȱ theȱ “Combineȱ Harvester,”ȱ reȬ flectingȱ onȱ hisȱ massȱ approachȱ toȱ evangelismȱ (Whittakerȱ 1998:ȱ 125).ȱInȱdiscussingȱBonnke’sȱralliesȱwithȱKenyans,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱ localȱchurchesȱhelpȱtoȱprepareȱforȱhisȱcampaignsȱandȱfollowȬupȱ isȱarranged,ȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱprofessedȱChrist.ȱ Followingȱtheȱeruptionȱofȱviolence,ȱandȱcomplaintsȱagainstȱ him,ȱ Bonnkeȱ hasȱ avoidedȱ makingȱ directȱ attacksȱ onȱ Islam,ȱ butȱ hisȱ languageȱ isȱ stillȱ aggressive,ȱ withȱ frequentȱ referencesȱ toȱ “strongholdsȱ ofȱ Satan.”ȱ Duringȱ 2008ȱ Bonnkeȱ visitedȱ Nigeriaȱ eightȱ times;ȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ “crusades”ȱ haveȱ beenȱ inȱ theȱ southȱ orȱ theȱ west,ȱ areasȱ ofȱ Nigeriaȱ whereȱ thereȱ areȱ fewerȱ Muslims.ȱ Inȱ Februaryȱ2009ȱheȱheldȱaȱmajorȱrallyȱatȱMubiȱinȱAdamawaȱStateȱ inȱtheȱnorth,ȱborderingȱCameroon.ȱThisȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱfewȱnorthȬ ernȱstatesȱthatȱhasȱnotȱreintroducedȱShari’a,ȱbutȱstillȱhasȱaȱlargeȱ Muslimȱpresence.ȱTheȱCfANȱwebsiteȱgaveȱdailyȱupdatesȱofȱtheȱ rally:ȱ Mubiȱ Theȱ townȱ ofȱ Mubiȱ inȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ Adamawaȱ inȱ easternȱ NiȬ geriaȱisȱonȱtheȱborderȱwithȱCameroon.ȱ Mubi,ȱwhichȱhasȱaȱpopulationȱofȱ250,000,ȱisȱaȱregionalȱcenȬ treȱandȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱmeltingȱpotȱforȱpeopleȱfromȱtheȱmanyȱ smallȱ surroundingȱ tribalȱ regionsȱ andȱ particularlyȱ fromȱ theȱ MandaraȱMountains.ȱMuslimsȱmakeȱupȱ40%ȱofȱtheȱpopulaȬ tionȱ andȱ Christiansȱ accountȱ forȱ roughlyȱ theȱ sameȱ percentȬ age.ȱThereȱareȱaȱconsiderableȱnumberȱofȱtraditionalȱanimistsȱ inȱ theȱ surroundingȱ area.ȱ Anȱ emir,ȱ aȱ traditionalȱ Muslimȱ ruler,ȱresidesȱ inȱ Uba,ȱ someȱ 20ȱ kilometresȱ away.ȱ Hisȱ palaceȱ andȱtheȱmainȱmosqueȱformȱaȱsingleȱunit.ȱ Theȱfirstȱday:ȱ TheȱfirstȱmeetingȱofȱtheȱGospelȱCrusadeȱinȱMubiȱjustȱfinishȬ edȱ andȱ weȱ returnedȱ toȱ theȱ Lodge.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ aȱ gloriousȱ start.ȱ 350,000ȱ peopleȱ attendedȱ tonight!ȱ …ȱ Miraclesȱ happenedȱ nonȬstop!ȱ Soȱ manyȱ blindȱ receivedȱ theirȱ sight.ȱ Seeȱ theȱ picȬ

364ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ tureȱofȱtheȱMuslimȱgentlemanȱwithȱtheȱyellowȱhat.ȱHeȱwasȱ8ȱ yearsȱtotallyȱblind,ȱbutȱJesusȱhealedȱhim!ȱ Noteȱ thatȱ onlyȱ oneȱ personȱ isȱ specificallyȱ identifiedȱ asȱ havingȱ beenȱ healed,ȱ “Theȱ Muslimȱ gentlemanȱ withȱ theȱ yelȬ lowȱhat”;ȱseveralȱphotographsȱshowȱhim,ȱsmiling.ȱ Atȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱweek,ȱweȱgetȱaȱreportȱofȱitsȱsuccess.ȱ OneȱshouldȱcallȱitȱTHEȱMUBIȬMIRACLE!ȱItȱisȱbeyondȱ description.ȱ Tonight’sȱ meetingȱ wasȱ attendedȱ byȱ 500,000ȱ peopleȱ–ȱandȱthatȱinȱNorthȱNigeria!ȱ…ȱTheȱtotalȱattendanceȱ overȱtheȱ5ȱdaysȱofȱGospelȬCrusadeȱhereȱstandsȱatȱ2,445,000ȱ people.…ȱSecondȱitȱisȱtheȱmostȱunlikelyȱofȱallȱplacesȱinȱNiȬ geriaȱtoȱhaveȱseenȱsuchȱaȱgloriousȱheavenȱquake!ȱTonight’sȱ miraclesȱwereȱnoȱexceptionȱ…ȱtheȱblindȱsawȱandȱmoreȱcripȬ plesȱ walked.ȱ …ȱ Inȱ aȱ fewȱ weeksȱ ourȱ “wheelsȱ ofȱ fire”ȱ willȱ takeȱusȱbackȱtoȱanotherȱsuchȱplace,ȱthisȱtimeȱtheȱtownȱofȱBaȬ liȱinȱTabaraȱState,ȱNigeria.ȱPleaseȱcontinueȱtoȱstandȱwithȱusȱ andȱprayȱforȱus.ȱ ThenȱtheȱfollowȬupȱreport:ȱ 1,401,837ȱpeopleȱreceivedȱJesusȱasȱtheirȱSaviourȱinȱourȱ MubiȬGospelȱ Crusade,ȱ asȱ perȱ countȱ ofȱ theȱ Decisionȱ Cards!ȱ 2.4ȱ Millionȱ personsȱ attendedȱ inȱ totalȱ (upȱ toȱ 630,000ȱ inȱ oneȱ service)ȱ andȱ innumerableȱ sickȱ andȱ sufferingȱ receivedȱ theirȱ healingȬmiracles.ȱWeȱareȱblessedlyȱshocked!ȱ(CfANȱ2009b)ȱ

Thisȱisȱremarkable,ȱevenȱwithȱaverageȱattendancesȱofȱ500,000,ȱitȱ mustȱbeȱsupposedȱthatȱmanyȱpeopleȱattendedȱonȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱ occasion.ȱ Thisȱ impliesȱ thatȱ eitherȱ virtuallyȱ everyoneȱ whoȱ atȬ tendedȱmadeȱaȱcommitment,ȱorȱthatȱpeopleȱcompletedȱDecisionȱ Cardsȱonȱsuccessiveȱnights.ȱ Whilstȱ Bonnkeȱ doesȱ notȱ quoteȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ hisȱ persistentȱ polemicalȱ attacksȱ onȱ Islamȱ frequentlyȱ raiseȱ tensionsȱ betweenȱ MuslimsȱandȱChristians.ȱ EastȱAfrica:ȱMihadhara,ȱNgaribaȱandȱKawembaȱandȱBibliaȱniȱJibuȱ BothȱDeedatȱandȱBonnkeȱhaveȱhadȱanȱinfluenceȱonȱmethodsȱofȱ proselytisationȱ inȱ Eastȱ Africa.ȱ Deedat’sȱ pamphletsȱ wereȱ availȬ ableȱinȱEastȱAfricaȱfromȱtheȱ1960s,ȱtranslatedȱintoȱSwahili,ȱandȱ heȱ visitedȱ Tanzaniaȱ inȱ 1981ȱ andȱ Kenyaȱ inȱ 1993.ȱ Bonnkeȱ hasȱ beenȱaȱregularȱvisitorȱtoȱEastȱAfricaȱandȱinȱ1990ȱinȱJinja,ȱUgandaȱ aȱrallyȱwasȱclosedȱdownȱbyȱtheȱlocalȱpoliceȱchief;ȱinȱTanzaniaȱheȱ


wasȱtoldȱtoȱrefrainȱfromȱanyȱreferenceȱtoȱIslam,ȱorȱheȱwouldȱbeȱ noȱlongerȱwelcome.ȱ Inȱtheȱearlyȱ1960s,ȱtheȱwritingsȱofȱAhmedȱDeedatȱbeganȱtoȱ appearȱinȱEastȱAfrica.ȱOneȱexample,ȱprintedȱinȱSouthȱAfricaȱinȱ EnglishȱandȱavailableȱinȱMombasaȱis:ȱMuhammadȱ(PBUH)ȱinȱtheȱ Oldȱ andȱ Newȱ Testaments.ȱ Lacunzaȱ Baldaȱ (1997:101)ȱ refersȱ toȱ aȱ Swahiliȱ translationȱ ofȱ thisȱ text,ȱ Mtumeȱ Muhammadȱ katikaȱ Bibliaȱ (TheȱApostleȱMuhammadȱinȱtheȱBible),ȱdatedȱ1965.ȱAdamȱTradȬ ersȱofȱMombasaȱlistsȱseveralȱtitles,ȱincludingȱUislamuȱkatikaȱBibȬ liaȱ(IslamȱinȱtheȱBible)ȱandȱJe!ȱYesuȱAlisulubiwa?ȱ(WasȱJesusȱCruȬ cified?).ȱAudioȱcassettesȱand,ȱmoreȱrecently,ȱvideosȱofȱDeedat’sȱ debatesȱandȱtalksȱareȱpopularȱandȱhaveȱbeenȱwidelyȱdistributedȱ inȱbothȱKenyaȱandȱTanzania.ȱ AȱvisitȱtoȱTanzaniaȱbyȱDeedatȱisȱdescribedȱbyȱH.M.ȱNjozi.ȱ Heȱreportsȱhow,ȱinȱJuneȱ1981,ȱasȱsecretaryȬgeneralȱofȱtheȱMusȬ limȱ Students’ȱ Associationȱ ofȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Darȱ esȱ Salaamȱ (MSAUD),ȱheȱinvitedȱAhmedȱDeedatȱtoȱspeakȱatȱaȱconferenceȱinȱ DarȱesȱSalaam,ȱwhereȱDeedatȱgaveȱaȱlectureȱonȱ“Muhammadȱinȱ theȱBible”.ȱFurther,ȱNjoziȱreportsȱthatȱafterȱtheȱfirstȱlecture,ȱsixȱ youngȱ Christians,ȱ ofȱ whomȱ threeȱ wereȱ describedȱ asȱ Catholicȱ seminarians,ȱ embracedȱIslam.ȱ Pressureȱ wasȱputȱ onȱ MSAUDȱ toȱ cancelȱtheȱsecondȱlecture,ȱfollowingȱaȱletterȱtoȱtheȱleadershipȱofȱ BarazaȱKuuȱlaȱWaislamuȱwaȱTanzaniaȱ(SupremeȱCouncilȱofȱMusȬ limsȱ ofȱ Tanzania,ȱ BAKWATA),ȱ byȱ bothȱ Tanzanianȱ Episcopalȱ Conferenceȱ (TEC)ȱ andȱ Christianȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Tanzaniaȱ (CCT).ȱ TheȱsecretaryȬgeneralȱofȱBAKWATAȱwentȱtoȱtheȱviceȬpresidentȱ toȱ askȱ himȱ toȱ allowȱ theȱ meetingȱ toȱ goȱ ahead.ȱ Njoziȱ furtherȱ reȬ portsȱ thatȱ fourȱ Christiansȱ embracedȱ Islamȱ atȱ thatȱ meetingȱ (Njoziȱ2000:ȱ11Ȭ12).ȱ Inȱ 1993,ȱ Deedatȱ visitedȱ Kenyaȱ andȱ gaveȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ publicȱ lecturesȱinȱmosquesȱinȱNairobiȱandȱMombasa.ȱWhilstȱthere,ȱheȱ alsoȱconductedȱsomeȱCombatȱKitȱClasses.ȱTheseȱtalksȱwereȱfilmȬ edȱandȱtheȱvideosȱcanȱbeȱviewedȱonlineȱ(Deedatȱ2008).ȱ TheȱvisitȱbyȱDeedatȱtoȱTanzaniaȱinȱ1981ȱbeganȱtheȱMuslimȱ PreachersȱofȱtheȱBibleȱmovementȱ(Chesworthȱ2006:ȱ168Ȭ75;ȱAhȬ medȱ 2008:3Ȭ18)ȱ andȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theȱ Comparativeȱ ReliȬ giousȱStudiesȱapproach,ȱusingȱmihadharaȱ(publicȱdebates).ȱ Fromȱ 1984ȱ onwardsȱ aȱ teamȱ ofȱ speakers,ȱ sponsoredȱ byȱ BAKWATA,ȱtouredȱtheȱcountryȱgivingȱlecturesȱonȱIslamȱinȱtheȱ Bible.ȱ “Oneȱ God,ȱ Oneȱ Religion”ȱ wasȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ theseȱ talks.ȱ


MussaȱFundiȱNgaribaȱ(diedȱ1993)ȱandȱMohammedȱAliȱKawemȬ ba,ȱfromȱUjiji,ȱwesternȱTanzania,ȱareȱManyemaȱinȱorigin,ȱinȱthatȱ theirȱgrandfathersȱwereȱbroughtȱtoȱUjijiȱfromȱtheȱManyemaȱdisȬ trictȱofȱtheȱCongo.ȱNgaribaȱstudiedȱunderȱShaykhȱMussaȱHusȬ seinȱinȱUjijiȱ(Chandeȱ1998:ȱ153).ȱTheyȱbecameȱwellȱknownȱdurȬ ingȱtheȱ1980sȱwhenȱtheyȱtravelledȱextensivelyȱthroughȱTanzaniaȱ andȱ Kenyaȱ withȱ Jumuiyaȱ yaȱ Wahubiriȱ waȱ Kiislamuȱ Tanzaniaȱ (JUWAKITA:ȱ Societyȱofȱ MuslimȱPreachersȱ ofȱ Tanzania)ȱ speakȬ ingȱaboutȱ“comparativeȱreligiousȱstudy”ȱ(Chesworthȱ2006:ȱ170).ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ conductedȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ mihadharaȱ (publicȱ debates),ȱ whereȱtheȱtwoȱspeakersȱwouldȱuseȱtheȱBibleȱtoȱpresentȱreasonsȱ whyȱChristiansȱhadȱbeenȱmisled.ȱ Eachȱwouldȱspeakȱinȱturn,ȱoneȱwouldȱdiscussȱtheȱpresenceȱ ofȱtheȱFiveȱPillarsȱofȱIslamȱinȱtheȱBibleȱandȱchallengeȱChristiansȱ asȱtoȱwhoȱfollowedȱwhatȱtheȱBibleȱtaughtȱ–ȱChristiansȱorȱMusȬ lims?ȱ Theȱ otherȱ wouldȱ thenȱ launchȱ anȱ attackȱ onȱ theȱ Apostleȱ PaulȱasȱtheȱperverterȱofȱJesus’ȱmessage:ȱIfȱChristiansȱhadȱreallyȱ receivedȱ theȱ trueȱ messageȱ thatȱ Jesusȱ hadȱ broughtȱ theyȱ wouldȱ becomeȱMuslims.ȱPaulȱhadȱtwistedȱtheȱmessage.ȱ Ngaribaȱ andȱ Kawembaȱ wroteȱ aȱ tractȱ Uislamuȱ katikaȱ Bibliaȱ (IslamȱinȱtheȱBible)ȱ(1987)ȱthatȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheirȱmihadharaȱpreȬ sentations.ȱ Theȱ approachȱ becameȱ veryȱ popularȱ andȱ Muslimȱ Preachers’ȱ groupsȱ continueȱ toȱ speakȱ atȱ mihadharaȱ inȱ manyȱ townsȱinȱKenyaȱandȱTanzania.ȱ Christianȱ groupsȱ feltȱ thatȱ theyȱ wereȱ notȱ equippedȱ toȱ reȬ spond.ȱThen,ȱinȱ1992,ȱoneȱgroupȱbasedȱinȱDarȱesȱSalaam,ȱBibliaȱ niȱ Jibuȱ (Theȱ Bibleȱ isȱ theȱ Answer)ȱ wasȱ startedȱ byȱ Cecilȱ SimbauȬ langaȱ andȱ aȱ fewȱ friends.ȱ Cecilȱ Simbaulangaȱ wasȱ bornȱ inȱ 1954ȱ andȱ comesȱ fromȱ Songeaȱ inȱ southernȱ Tanzaniaȱ butȱ isȱ basedȱ inȱ DarȱesȱSalaam.ȱBibliaȱniȱJibuȱdescribesȱitselfȱasȱanȱ“organisationȱ foundedȱasȱaȱfellowshipȱ…ȱworkingȱforȱEvangelizationȱofȱMusȬ limsȱinȱTanzania”ȱ(BibliaȱniȱJibuȱ2003:ȱ1).ȱItȱwasȱfoundedȱasȱaȱreȬ sponseȱtoȱMuslimȱPreachersȱinȱDarȱesȱSalaam.ȱInȱBibliaȱniȱJibu:ȱ BriefȱHistoryȱtheȱorganisationȱexplainsȱitsȱorigins:ȱ [In]ȱ Octoberȱ 1992ȱ atȱ Mnaziȱ Mmojaȱ Groundsȱ inȱ DarȬesȬSaȬ laamȱ...ȱMuslimȱpreachersȱhadȱbeenȱconductingȱopenȬairȱdeȬ bateȱ withȱ Christiansȱ aimedȱ atȱ ridiculingȱ theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ Christianity.ȱ Theȱ preachingȱ wasȱ aimedȱ atȱ distortingȱ ChrisȬ tianȱDoctrines,ȱBiblicalȱMessagesȱandȱChristianȱHistory.ȱItȱisȱ

ATTACKINGȱTHEȱOTHER’SȱTEXTSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ367ȱ saidȱthatȱitsȱimpactȱwasȱgraveȱasȱmanyȱChristiansȱwereȱconȬ vertedȱtoȱIslam.ȱ(BibliaȱniȱJibuȱ2003:ȱ1)ȱ

OnceȱBibliaȱniȱJibuȱwasȱformed,ȱtheyȱcollectedȱtheȱquestionsȱusȬ edȱ byȱ Muslimȱ preachersȱ toȱ ridiculeȱ theȱ Bibleȱ andȱ Christianity,ȱ inȱorderȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱthem.ȱTheyȱgatheredȱ150ȱquesȬ tions,ȱ thenȱ usedȱ theȱ Bibleȱ toȱ answerȱ them,ȱ givingȱ riseȱ toȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ groupȱ (Bibliaȱ niȱ Jibuȱ 2003:ȱ 1).ȱ Becauseȱ ofȱ religiousȱ tensionsȱinȱ1993ȱfollowingȱattacksȱonȱporkȱbutchers’ȱshops,ȱmiȬ hadharaȱwereȱbanned,ȱandȱBibliaȱniȱJibuȱdidȱnotȱbeginȱpreachingȱ untilȱ1996.ȱThen,ȱ [a]fterȱ theȱ 1998ȱ Mwembechaiȱ Killingsȱ inȱ DarȬesȬSalaam,ȱ “Bibliaȱ niȱ Jibu”ȱ stoppedȱ itsȱ activitiesȱ andȱ wentȱ intoȱ hidingȱ forȱ fearȱ ofȱ beingȱ torturedȱ byȱ stateȱ machineryȱ asȱ policeȱ roundedȱ upȱ manyȱ militantȱ preachers.ȱ Cecilȱ Simbaulangaȱ andȱ Mosesȱ Ndimboȱ wereȱ alsoȱ remanded.ȱ Theyȱ stayedȱ unȬ derȱ policeȱ custodyȱ forȱ 17ȱ days.ȱ Inȱ Mayȱ 1999,ȱ Cecilȱ wasȱ reȬ mandedȱ[again]ȱforȱ11ȱdaysȱ(BibliaȱniȱJibuȱ2003:1).ȱ

Simbaulangaȱandȱhisȱcolleaguesȱhaveȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱwatchedȱ closelyȱbyȱtheȱpolice.ȱ Fromȱ 1999,ȱ Simbaulangaȱ preparedȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ worksheets,ȱ toȱbeȱusedȱtoȱtrainȱmembersȱofȱBibliaȱniȱJibu,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱ onȱtheirȱwebȬsiteȱhttp://biblianijibu.netfirms.com/.ȱ LetȱusȱlookȱatȱhowȱtheseȱtwoȱgroupsȱuseȱtheȱBibleȱandȱtheȱ Qur’an.ȱTheȱmaterialȱusedȱbyȱbothȱgroupsȱisȱwrittenȱinȱSwahili,ȱ theȱEnglishȱtranslationȱisȱmyȱown.ȱ NgaribaȱandȱKawemba’sȱUseȱofȱtheȱBibleȱ Theȱ exampleȱ fromȱ Uislamuȱ katikaȱ Bibliaȱ (Islamȱ inȱ theȱ Bible)ȱ byȱ FundiȱMussaȱNgaribaȱandȱMohammedȱAliȱKawembaȱusesȱMatȬ thewȱ15:21Ȭ28,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱsameȱpassageȱthatȱisȱusedȱinȱtheȱexȬ ampleȱfromȱDeedat.ȱVersesȱ21Ȭ28ȱareȱquotedȱinȱfull,ȱatȱtheȱendȱ ofȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ passagesȱ fromȱ theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Paul.ȱ Theȱ wholeȱ seȬ quenceȱ isȱ anȱ attackȱ onȱ Paul’sȱ deviationȱ fromȱ theȱ messageȱ thatȱ wasȱbroughtȱbyȱMosesȱandȱJesus:ȱ ȱ ȱ PAULȱ…ȱNowȱletȱusȱseeȱwhatȱJesusȱsaysȱandȱcompareȱ itȱwithȱtheȱteachingȱofȱPaul.ȱ ȱ ȱ Matthewȱ15:21Ȭ28ȱ “Jesusȱ leftȱ thereȱ andȱ wentȱ toȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ Tyreȱ andȱ Sidon,ȱandȱbehold,ȱaȱCanaaniteȱwomanȱfromȱthoseȱbordersȱ cameȱmakingȱaȱnoiseȱandȱsaying,ȱHaveȱMercyȱonȱme,ȱLord,ȱ

368ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ SonȱofȱDavid,ȱmyȱdaughterȱisȱseverelyȱpossessedȱbyȱaȱspirit.ȱ Butȱheȱdidȱnotȱanswerȱherȱaȱword.ȱThenȱhisȱfollowersȱwentȱ toȱ himȱ andȱ askedȱ him,ȱ sayingȱ sendȱ herȱ home;ȱ forȱ sheȱ isȱ shoutingȱafterȱus.ȱHeȱanswered,ȱandȱsaid;ȱIȱwasȱsentȱonlyȱtoȱ theȱ lostȱ sheepȱ ofȱ theȱ houseȱ ofȱ Israel.ȱ Andȱ sheȱ cameȱ andȱ prostratedȱ herself,ȱ andȱ said,ȱ Lordȱ Helpȱ me.ȱ Heȱ answeredȱ andȱsaid,ȱitȱisȱnotȱrightȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱchildren’sȱfoodȱandȱthrowȱ itȱtoȱtheȱdogs.ȱSheȱsaid,ȱYes,ȱLord,ȱbutȱevenȱtheȱdogsȱeatȱtheȱ crumbsȱthatȱfallȱfromȱtheirȱlords’ȱtable.ȱThenȱJesusȱanswerȬ edȱher,ȱWoman,ȱyourȱfaithȱisȱgreat;ȱletȱitȱbeȱdoneȱasȱyouȱask.ȱ Herȱdaughterȱwasȱhealedȱfromȱthatȱhour.”ȱ JesusȱpreachedȱtheȱfaithȱofȱOneȱGodȱasȱdidȱtheȱProphetȱ MosesȱandȱotherȱApostles.ȱInȱpreservingȱrightȱreligionȱandȱ beliefȱofȱoneȱAlmightyȱGod,ȱheȱforboreȱtoȱpreachȱtoȱpeopleȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ tribeȱ ofȱ theȱ Jews.ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ beȱ likeȱ throwingȱ pearlsȱbeforeȱpigs.ȱHeȱfollowedȱtheȱcommandsȱandȱlawsȱofȱ Almightyȱ God.ȱ Paulȱ brokeȱ allȱ ofȱ them.ȱ Byȱ takingȱ theȱ reliȬ gionȱofȱfaithȱinȱoneȱAlmightyȱGodȱandȱbringingȱitȱtoȱthoseȱ whoȱ hadȱ noȱ religion,ȱ thoseȱ thatȱ believedȱ inȱ variousȱ godsȱ andȱ whoȱ knewȱ nothingȱ aboutȱ theȱ lawsȱ ofȱ Almightyȱ God,ȱ Paulȱ openedȱ theȱ doorȱ ofȱfaithȱ forȱ thoseȱ withoutȱ religionȱ toȱ enterȱ intoȱ theȱ trueȱ religionȱ andȱ thereforeȱ anotherȱ newȱ reliȬ gionȱ wasȱ constructedȱ thatȱ wasȱ farȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ Prophetȱ Mosesȱ andȱ evenȱ ofȱ Jesus.ȱ Withoutȱ theȱ religionȱ ofȱ Paul,ȱ theȱ IslamȱofȱMosesȱwouldȱhaveȱcontinuedȱwithoutȱanyȱobstacleȱ inȱ theȱ Islamȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ toȱ reachȱ theȱ Islamȱ asȱ wasȱ taughtȱ byȱ ProphetȱMuhammadȱ(s.a.w.).ȱ ItȱisȱclearȱthatȱitȱwasȱPaulȱwhoȱbroughtȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱ religion,ȱasȱitȱisȱtoday.ȱThereȱisȱnowhereȱinȱtheȱBibleȱwhereȱ JesusȱtoldȱanyoneȱthatȱheȱisȱGodȱandȱshouldȱbeȱworshipped.ȱ Ratherȱ contraryȱ toȱ thisȱ heȱ saidȱ manyȱ timesȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ anȱ Apostleȱ sentȱ byȱ Almightyȱ Godȱ whoȱ indeedȱ isȱ Supreme.ȱ Likewise,ȱ whenȱ heȱ wasȱ hereȱ onȱ earthȱ heȱ preachedȱ toȱ theȱ Jewsȱ notȱ toȱ anyȱ otherȱ peopleȱ becauseȱ heȱ wasȱ broughtȱ forȱ “theȱlostȱsheepȱofȱIsrael.”ȱ(NgaribaȱandȱKawembaȱ1987:ȱ11Ȭ 12)ȱ

NgaribaȱandȱKawembaȱdoȱnotȱsetȱtheȱpassageȱinȱitsȱcontextȱofȱ Jesus’ȱinitialȱrefusalȱtoȱhelpȱtheȱCanaaniteȱwoman.ȱRatherȱtheyȱ useȱtheȱpassageȱinȱorderȱtoȱdemonstrateȱthatȱJesusȱcontinuedȱinȱ theȱtraditionȱofȱMosesȱinȱteachingȱ“theȱfaithȱofȱOneȱGod,”ȱandȱ


refusingȱtoȱpreachȱtoȱanyoneȱotherȱthanȱJews.ȱInȱdoingȱthis,ȱJeȬ susȱhadȱ“followedȱtheȱcommandsȱandȱlawsȱofȱAlmightyȱGod.”ȱ TheȱtractȱsaysȱthatȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱmessageȱbeyondȱtheȱtribeȱofȱIsraelȱ “wouldȱ beȱ likeȱ throwingȱ pearlsȱ beforeȱ pigs,”ȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ Matthewȱ 7:6.ȱ Itȱ isȱ interestingȱ toȱ noteȱ that,ȱ unlikeȱ Deedat,ȱ theyȱ doȱincludeȱtheȱfinalȱtwoȱversesȱofȱtheȱpassageȱinȱwhichȱthatȱJeȬ susȱdoesȱhealȱtheȱwoman’sȱdaughter.ȱ Paul,ȱbyȱtakingȱtheȱreligionȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱnotȱJews,ȱisȱ portrayedȱasȱhavingȱgoneȱagainstȱallȱtheȱteachingsȱofȱMosesȱandȱ Jesus.ȱ Byȱ introducingȱ nonȬJewsȱ toȱ theȱ religion,ȱ itȱ wasȱ exposedȱ toȱ alienȱ ideasȱ andȱ soȱ aȱ separateȱ religionȱ wasȱ created.ȱ Deedatȱ usesȱ theȱ passageȱ toȱ emphasiseȱ thatȱ Jesusȱ wasȱ onlyȱ sentȱ toȱ theȱ Jews,ȱwhilstȱNgaribaȱandȱKawembaȱuseȱitȱasȱaȱpartȱofȱanȱattackȱ onȱPaulȱasȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱpervertedȱtheȱ“trueȱreligion”ȱthatȱJesusȱ hadȱbrought.ȱ BibliaȱniȱJibu’sȱUseȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱ ExtractsȱfromȱtwoȱofȱtheirȱworksheetsȱillustrateȱhowȱtheyȱinterȬ pretȱtheȱQur’an,ȱinȱbothȱcasesȱtheȱmostȱreadilyȱavailableȱversionȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ inȱ Swahiliȱ isȱ quoted.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ isȱ fromȱ Maanaȱ yaȱ Diniȱ(TheȱMeaningȱofȱReligion):ȱ WeȱshouldȱstartȱwithȱtheȱwordȱRELIGIONȱ[Dini]ȱitself.ȱ DINIȱ isȱ anȱ Arabicȱ wordȱ whoseȱ correctȱ Swahiliȱ meaningȱ ISȱ WAYȱ WHATȱISȱTHEȱMEANINGȱOFȱRELIGION[?]ȱ 1. BELIEFȱ WHICHȱ RELATESȱ TOȱ SPIRITUALȱ MATȬ TERSȱ BETWEENȱ HUMANITYȱ ANDȱ ALMIGHTYȱ GODȱ 2. THEȱWAYȱTOȱRELATEȱTOȱALMIGHTYȱGODȱ AfterȱknowingȱwhatȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱRELIGIONȱisȱandȱthatȱ thisȱ wordȱ Diniȱ isȱ Arabicȱ andȱ hasȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ WAY,ȱ thereforeȱ MUJAHIDUN,ȱ aȱ Muslimȱ whenȱ heȱ saysȱ thatȱ weȱ haveȱnoȱWAYȱitȱisȱanȱamazingȱthingȱandȱsomethingȱtoȱsymȬ pathiseȱ withȱ Muslimsȱ asȱ theirȱ Quranȱ confirmsȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱnoȱteachingȱconcerningȱSPIRITUALȱthings.ȱ BaniȱIsrailȱ(17):85ȱ “Andȱtheyȱaskȱyouȱaboutȱtheȱspirit”,ȱsayȱthatȱ[theȱspirit]ȱisȱaȱ thingȱthatȱconcernsȱmyȱGodȱ(AlmightyȱGod)ȱandȱyouȱhaveȱ notȱbeenȱgivenȱveryȱmuchȱEducationȱ(knowledge)ȱconcernȬ

370ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ ingȱ itȱ (andȱ thisȱ isȱ educationȱ ofȱ thingsȱ thatȱ doȱ notȱ concernȱ theȱspirit).ȱ FollowingȱfromȱthisȱverseȱthatȱtellsȱMuslimsȱthatȱtheyȱ doȱnotȱknowȱthingsȱofȱtheȱspiritȱnorȱhaveȱtheyȱbeenȱgivenȱit.ȱ Ratherȱtheyȱwereȱgivenȱeducationȱaboutȱthingsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱ concernȱ theȱ spirit.ȱ Soȱ whereȱ willȱ theyȱ knowȱ thingsȱ ofȱ theȱ spiritȱ andȱ howȱ humanityȱ relatesȱ toȱ Almightyȱ God?ȱ (SimȬ baulangaȱ1999:ȱ1Ȭ2)ȱ

Theȱ approachȱ isȱ insulting,ȱ withȱ Muslimsȱ beingȱ referredȱ toȱ asȱ Mujahidunȱ(warriorsȱofȱjihad).ȱInaccurateȱinformationȱbeingȱgivȬ en,ȱ Dinȱ beingȱ interpretedȱ asȱ WAYȱ ratherȱ thanȱ reflectingȱ theȱ rangeȱofȱmeaningsȱofȱtheȱArabicȱwordȱthatȱincludes:ȱjudgement,ȱ custom,ȱandȱreligion,ȱtakingȱaȱverseȱfromȱtheȱQur’anȱoutȱofȱconȬ textȱandȱtwistingȱitsȱsenseȱinȱorderȱtoȱshowȱthatȱMuslimsȱknowȱ nothingȱofȱhowȱtoȱrelateȱtoȱGod.ȱ Theȱsecondȱexampleȱisȱfromȱaȱworksheet:ȱJeȱUislamuȱniȱUȬ gaidi?ȱ(IsȱIslamȱTerrorist?)ȱquotesȱaȱverseȱtoȱshowȱhowȱMuslimȱ terroristsȱ knewȱ howȱ toȱ attackȱ theȱ Worldȱ Tradeȱ Centreȱ onȱ 11ȱ Septemberȱ2001:ȱ ȱ ȱ IsȱIslamȱTerrorist?ȱ ȱ ȱ Juz’ȱ11ȱalȬTawbaȱ(9):110ȱ Theȱ buildingȱ thatȱ theyȱ builtȱ (willȱ beȱ destroyedȱ byȱ theȱ Apostle)ȱinȱorderȱtoȱbringȱdoubtsȱintoȱtheirȱheartsȱ....ȱ ȱȱ

Thisȱisȱexplainedȱandȱinterpretedȱinȱthisȱway:ȱ

ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

Juz’ȱ11ȱtheyȱinterpretȱasȱtheȱeleventhȱ[day]ȱ Suraȱ9ȱtheyȱinterpretȱasȱtheȱninthȱmonthȱ Verseȱ110ȱtheyȱinterpretȱasȱtheȱ110thȱFloor.ȱ

Thisȱwasȱinȱaȱletterȱthatȱwasȱfreelyȱdistributedȱandȱitȱisȱoneȱ ofȱ thoseȱ thingsȱ thatȱ theyȱ carryȱ thatȱ showsȱ thatȱ Islamȱ andȱ Terrorismȱ areȱ oneȱ andȱ theȱ same,ȱ soȱ ifȱ terrorismȱ isȱ inȱ theȱ QuranȱitȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱliveȱbecauseȱifȱOsamaȱ[binȱLaden]ȱreȬ ceivedȱhisȱinstructionsȱfromȱAllah,ȱthenȱwhoȱisȱtheȱDirectorȱ ofȱTerrorism?ȱ(BibliaȱniȱJibuȱ2002:ȱ3)ȱ

Theȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ worksheetȱ quotesȱ theȱ mostȱ popularȱ Swahiliȱ versionȱ ofȱ theȱ Qur’an,ȱ Quraniȱ Takatifuȱ byȱ Abdallaȱ alȬFarsy.ȱ Inȱ theȱquotationȱfromȱtheȱQur’anȱusedȱhere,ȱtheȱphraseȱinȱbrackets,ȱ “willȱbeȱdestroyedȱbyȱtheȱApostle,”ȱdoesȱnotȱappearȱinȱtheȱAraȬ bicȱ text;ȱ rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ alȬFarsy’sȱ interpretation.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ thingȱ thatȱ appearsȱ toȱ giveȱ anyȱ credenceȱ toȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ


worksheet’sȱ claim.ȱ Theȱ passageȱ isȱ beingȱ usedȱ toȱ implyȱ thatȱ IsȬ lamȱisȱaȱreligionȱofȱterrorists.ȱ Europe:ȱSpeakers’ȱCorner,ȱHydeȱPark,ȱLondon:ȱ AdnanȱRashidȱandȱJayȱSmithȱ Havingȱ lookedȱ atȱ examplesȱ inȱ Africaȱ weȱ willȱ nowȱ examineȱ whatȱ isȱ happeningȱ inȱ Europeȱ withȱ theȱ exampleȱ ofȱ Sundayȱ deȬ batesȱ atȱ Speakers’ȱ Cornerȱ inȱ Hydeȱ Park,ȱ centralȱ London.ȱ MusȬ limsȱandȱChristiansȱusingȱandȱabusingȱtheȱothers’ȱscripturesȱcanȱ beȱfoundȱeveryȱSundayȱinȱLondonȱatȱSpeakers’ȱCornerȱinȱHydeȱ Park.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ placeȱ ofȱ freeȱ speechȱ whereȱ anyoneȱ canȱ sayȱ virȬ tuallyȱ anything,ȱ relyingȱ solelyȱ onȱ theȱ strengthȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ voiceȱwithȱnoȱamplificationȱbeingȱallowed.ȱ Sinceȱ 1995,ȱ Jayȱ Smithȱ ofȱ theȱ Hydeȱ Parkȱ Christianȱ FelȬ lowshipȱ hasȱ beenȱ speakingȱ there,ȱ oftenȱ debatingȱ withȱ Muslimȱ speakersȱ suchȱ asȱ Adnanȱ Rashid.ȱ Whenȱ aȱ debateȱ isȱ beingȱ conȬ ducted,ȱeachȱspeakerȱisȱgivenȱfiveȱminutes,ȱturnȱandȱturnȱabout,ȱ andȱdebatesȱoftenȱcontinuedȱoverȱtwoȱhours.ȱThereȱisȱheckling,ȱ andȱ neighbouringȱ speakersȱ mayȱ alsoȱ makeȱ sufficientȱ noiseȱ toȱ makeȱtheȱdebateȱinaudible.ȱ Aȱ radioȱ programme,ȱ “Upȱ theȱ Ladderȱ inȱ Hydeȱ Park”ȱ preȬ sentedȱ byȱ Premierȱ Radio’sȱ Justinȱ Brierley,ȱ followsȱ Jayȱ Smithȱ andȱ theȱ Hydeȱ Parkȱ Christianȱ Fellowshipȱ asȱ theyȱ argueȱ openlyȱ andȱpassionatelyȱwithȱradicalȱMuslimsȱatȱSpeakers’ȱCornerȱoneȱ Sunday.ȱThroughȱthisȱweȱlearnȱsomethingȱofȱtheirȱmethodsȱandȱ preparation.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ earlyȱ daysȱ Smithȱ wasȱ physicallyȱ attackedȱ byȱ memȬ bersȱofȱtheȱcrowdȱwhoȱwereȱoffendedȱbyȱwhatȱheȱsaid.ȱTheȱpoȬ liceȱ toldȱ himȱ toȱ useȱ aȱ stepȱ ladder,ȱ soȱ thatȱ theyȱ couldȱ seeȱ himȱ andȱobserveȱifȱheȱwasȱbeingȱattackedȱ(Inspireȱ2009).ȱ HydeȱParkȱChristianȱFellowshipȱdescribesȱitselfȱasȱanȱinforȬ malȱteachingȱandȱwitnessingȱfellowship,ȱwhichȱconsistsȱofȱ20Ȭ30ȱ members;ȱitȱactsȱasȱaȱtrainingȱgroundȱforȱapologists,ȱespeciallyȱ forȱwitnessȱamongstȱMuslims.ȱTheȱgroupȱpreparesȱforȱtheȱSunȬ dayȱafternoonȱsessionȱwithȱaȱtrainingȱsession,ȱdescribedȱasȱconȬ sistingȱofȱSundayȱlunchȱandȱaȱlectureȱonȱanȱIslamȱapologeticsȱisȬ sue.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ followedȱ byȱ fourȱ hoursȱ ofȱ dialogueȱ evangelismȱ atȱ Hydeȱ Park.ȱ Participantsȱ progressȱ fromȱ prayerȱ andȱ observationȱ toȱ askingȱ questions,ȱ heckling,ȱ speakingȱ onȱ theȱ ground,ȱ andȱ eventuallyȱspeakingȱfromȱaȱladder.ȱ


Peterȱ Saunders,ȱ inȱ aȱ websiteȱ called,ȱ “Whyȱ Apologetics?ȱ Whyȱ Apologeticsȱ Training?”ȱ describesȱ theȱ levelsȱ ofȱ involveȬ mentȱforȱparticipants:ȱ o o o o o o

o

AttendȱaȱSundayȱlunchȱandȱlectureȱ Seeȱ–ȱJoinȱtheȱteamȱasȱaȱprayȬerȱandȱobserverȱ Doȱ –ȱ Getȱ involvedȱ inȱ oneȱ toȱ oneȱ dialogueȱ withȱ ‘friendly’ȱ Muslimsȱ Debateȱwithȱmoreȱskilledȱindividualsȱ Heckleȱspeakersȱfromȱtheȱcrowdȱ Speakȱfromȱaȱladderȱandȱtakeȱquestionsȱ Debateȱskilledȱhecklersȱfromȱaȱladder.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ (Saundersȱ2002)ȱ

Analysisȱ ofȱ aȱ debateȱ inȱ Juneȱ 2008ȱ betweenȱ Adnanȱ Rashidȱ andȱ JayȱSmithȱ“DoesȱtheȱBibleȱPredictȱtheȱComingȱofȱMuhammad?”ȱ (Rashidȱ andȱ Smithȱ 2008)ȱ illustratesȱ contemporaryȱ useȱ ofȱ texts.ȱ Rashidȱ startedȱ theȱ debateȱ byȱ quotingȱ Isaiahȱ 29:12,ȱ usingȱ theȱ KingȱJamesȱVersionȱofȱtheȱBible,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱshowȱthatȱMuhamȬ madȱisȱclearlyȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱBible:ȱ“AndȱtheȱbookȱisȱdeliverȬ edȱtoȱhimȱthatȱisȱnotȱlearned,ȱsaying,ȱReadȱthis,ȱIȱprayȱthee:ȱandȱ heȱ saith,ȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ learned”ȱ (Kingȱ Jamesȱ Version).ȱ Heȱ relatedȱ thatȱMuhammadȱwasȱknownȱtoȱbeȱilliterate,ȱcitingȱaȱhadithȱfromȱ alȬBukhariȱandȱtheȱQur’an,ȱalȬA‘rafȱ(7):157:ȱ“Thoseȱwhoȱfollowȱ theȱ Messenger,ȱ theȱ unletteredȱ prophetȱ theyȱ findȱ describedȱ inȱ theȱTorahȱ....”ȱ Smithȱ respondedȱ byȱ sayingȱ thatȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ tellsȱ Muslimsȱ thatȱ Muhammadȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ Tawraȱ (theȱ firstȱ fiveȱ booksȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testament)ȱ andȱ Injilȱ (theȱ Gospelȱ orȱ theȱ Newȱ TestaȬ ment),ȱ whichȱ opinionȱ Smithȱ saidȱ heȱ respected.ȱ Heȱ thenȱ saidȱ itȱ explainedȱwhyȱMuslimsȱsearchȱtheȱBibleȱforȱversesȱthatȱmentionȱ Muhammad.ȱ HeȱthenȱmovedȱonȱtoȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱIsaiahȱverseȱandȱitsȱ setting,ȱdrawingȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱneighbouringȱversesȱ11ȱandȱ13.ȱ Heȱ emphasisedȱ verseȱ 13,ȱ usingȱ theȱ Newȱ Internationalȱ Versionȱ ofȱtheȱBible,ȱIsaiahȱ29:13:ȱ Theȱ Lordȱ says.ȱ “Theseȱ peopleȱ comeȱ nearȱ toȱ meȱ withȱ theirȱ mouthȱ andȱ honourȱ meȱ withȱ theirȱ lips,ȱ butȱ theirȱ heartsȱ areȱ farȱfromȱme.ȱTheirȱworshipȱofȱmeȱisȱmadeȱupȱonlyȱofȱrulesȱ taughtȱbyȱmen.”ȱ


HeȱsaidȱthatȱheȱwasȱhappyȱforȱMuslimsȱtoȱseeȱthisȱasȱreferringȱ toȱMuhammadȱasȱitȱshowedȱclearlyȱthatȱIslamȱwasȱaȱmanȬmadeȱ religion:ȱ“ItȱisȱaȱreligionȱthatȱisȱagainstȱGod,ȱitȱisȱaȱreligionȱthatȱ wasȱmadeȱbyȱman.ȱThankȱyouȱAdnanȱforȱpointingȱthatȱout.”ȱ Rashidȱ respondedȱ concerningȱ verseȱ 13,ȱ thatȱ itȱ referredȱ toȱ Israelites;ȱ heȱ thenȱ quotedȱ Deuteronomyȱ 33:2,ȱ againȱ usingȱ theȱ KingȱJamesȱVersion:ȱ Andȱheȱsaid,ȱTheȱLORDȱcameȱfromȱSinai,ȱandȱroseȱupȱfromȱ Seirȱuntoȱthem;ȱheȱshinedȱforthȱfromȱmountȱParan,ȱandȱheȱ cameȱwithȱtenȱthousandsȱofȱsaints:ȱfromȱhisȱrightȱhandȱwentȱ aȱfieryȱlawȱforȱthem.ȱ

Rashidȱ drewȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ geographicalȱ locationsȱ ofȱ Sinai,ȱ Seir,ȱandȱParanȱandȱtoȱwhichȱbiblicalȱcharactersȱtheyȱrefer:ȱSinaiȱ forȱMoses,ȱSeirȱinȱSyria/PalestineȱforȱJesus,ȱandȱ“Paranȱ–ȱwhereȱ isȱit?ȱArabia,ȱsoȱwhoȱcanȱitȱreferȱtoȱ…?”ȱRashidȱclearlyȱimpliedȱ thatȱitȱreferredȱtoȱMuhammad.ȱAtȱthisȱpointȱSmithȱinterrupted,ȱ shoutingȱdownȱRashidȱwithȱtheȱclaimȱthatȱthereȱareȱthreeȱdifferȬ entȱParansȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱBible.ȱ Afterȱthis,ȱtheȱdebateȱdegenerated,ȱsometimesȱresortingȱtoȱ personalȱ abuse,ȱ especiallyȱ byȱ Rashidȱ ofȱ Smithȱ withȱ commentsȱ aboutȱhisȱtakingȱ14ȱyearsȱtoȱworkȱonȱhisȱdoctorateȱandȱstillȱnotȱ completingȱit,ȱofferingȱhimȱaȱcopyȱofȱIslamȱforȱDummiesȱtoȱhelpȱ him,ȱ andȱ commentingȱ thatȱ whilstȱ heȱ himselfȱ wasȱ aȱ volunteer,ȱ SmithȱwasȱfundedȱhandsomelyȱbyȱAmericanȱEvangelicals.ȱ WhilstȱSmithȱwasȱspeaking,ȱthereȱwereȱtrainedȱsupportersȱ inȱ theȱ crowdȱ whoȱ joinedȱ inȱ withȱ chantsȱ ofȱ “Jesus,ȱ Jesus”ȱ asȱ aȱ counterȱ toȱ Rashid’sȱ supportersȱ repeatingȱ “Allahuȱ Akhbar”ȱ (GodȱisȱGreat).ȱ Inȱtheȱdebate,ȱtheȱBibleȱwasȱquotedȱ26ȱtimes,ȱusingȱ16ȱpasȬ sages,ȱ andȱ theȱ Qur’anȱ wasȱ quotedȱ threeȱ times,ȱ usingȱ twoȱ pasȬ sages.ȱ Bothȱ Rashidȱ andȱ Smithȱ haveȱ severalȱ clipsȱ postedȱ onȱ Youȱ Tube,ȱ showingȱ debatesȱ andȱ rebuttals.ȱ Smithȱ alsoȱ hasȱ setȱ upȱ Pfanderȱ Filmsȱ withinȱ Youȱ Tubeȱ andȱ hasȱ postedȱ overȱ 60ȱ tenȬ minuteȱclipsȱinȱ2007ȱandȱ2008.ȱTheȱchoiceȱofȱnameȱwouldȱseemȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ deliberateȱ referenceȱ toȱ Karlȱ Pfander,ȱ whoseȱ bookȱ andȱ laterȱ debateȱ withȱ Kairanawiȱ hasȱ influencedȱ muchȱ currentȱ poȬ lemics.ȱ TheȱmostȱrecentȱclipȱwasȱpostedȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱMarchȱ2008ȱ andȱisȱanȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱversesȱfromȱtheȱQur’anȱusedȱbyȱGeertȱ


Wildersȱ inȱ Fitnaȱ theȱ Movieȱ (Wildersȱ 2008;ȱ Smithȱ 2008).ȱ Smith’sȱ analysisȱofȱtheseȱversesȱlendsȱsupportȱtoȱtheȱpremisesȱsetȱoutȱbyȱ Wildersȱforȱexample:ȱ [SuratȱalȬAnfal]ȱ8:60ȱAndȱmakeȱreadyȱagainstȱthemȱallȱyouȱ canȱ ofȱ power,ȱ includingȱ steedsȱ ofȱ warȱ (tanks,ȱ planes,ȱ misȬ siles,ȱartillery)ȱtoȱthreatenȱtheȱenemyȱofȱAllahȱandȱyourȱeneȬ myȱ…ȱ(alȬHilali).ȱ

SmithȱusesȱtheȱsameȱversionȱofȱtheȱQur’anȱasȱWilders,ȱInterpreȬ tationȱofȱtheȱMeaningsȱofȱtheȱNobleȱQur’anȱbyȱMuhammadȱalȬHiȬ lali,ȱandȱexplainsȱthatȱwhilstȱtheȱArabicȱdoesȱnotȱstateȱtheȱuseȱofȱ tanks,ȱ planes,ȱ etc.,ȱ thisȱ isȱ whatȱ theȱ readerȱ wouldȱ understand.ȱ Wildersȱ pairedȱ theȱ textȱ withȱ imagesȱ ofȱ planesȱ flyingȱ intoȱ theȱ TwinȱTowersȱandȱtheȱattacksȱonȱtrainsȱinȱMadrid.ȱSmithȱclaimsȱ thatȱthisȱverseȱwasȱusedȱbyȱtheȱterroristsȱtoȱlegitimizeȱtheirȱacȬ tionsȱandȱthatȱtoȱaȱMuslimȱtheȱQur’anȱisȱtheȱwordȱofȱGodȱandȱ mustȱbeȱfollowed.ȱ Conclusionȱ ItȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱaȱweaknessȱfoundȱinȱmanyȱofȱtheȱexamȬ plesȱ givenȱ isȱ theȱ tendencyȱ toȱ takeȱ outȱ ofȱ contextȱ quotationsȱ fromȱscripture,ȱoftenȱchoosingȱversionsȱofȱtheȱBibleȱandȱQur’anȱ thatȱsuitȱtheȱargumentȱandȱomittingȱpartsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱfitȱtheȱarȬ gument.ȱ OnȱtheȱworldȱstageȱweȱsawȱDeedatȱandȱBonnke,ȱwithȱDeeȬ datȱ usingȱ theȱ Bibleȱ toȱ attackȱ Christianity,ȱ whilstȱ Bonnkeȱ conȬ demnedȱIslamȱasȱbeingȱ“ofȱtheȱDevil”ȱandȱhadȱtoȱbeȱdefeated.ȱ Theȱ approachȱ ofȱ bothȱ menȱ hasȱ increasedȱ tensionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱfaiths.ȱ Theȱ examplesȱ fromȱ Eastȱ Africaȱ andȱ Britainȱ illustrateȱ thatȱ polemicalȱrevivalȱhasȱledȱtoȱtheȱuseȱofȱsacredȱtextsȱtoȱpromoteȱ one’sȱ ownȱ faithȱ byȱ refutingȱ theȱ other’sȱ faith.ȱ Muslimsȱ haveȱ modelledȱ themselvesȱ onȱ theȱ methodsȱ developedȱ byȱ Ahmedȱ Deedat,ȱ usingȱ theȱ Bibleȱ toȱ attackȱ Christianity.ȱ Christiansȱ haveȱ reactedȱusingȱsimilarȱmethods,ȱusingȱtheȱBibleȱtoȱdefendȱChrisȬ tianityȱandȱtheȱQur’anȱtoȱattackȱIslam.ȱ Proponentsȱ ofȱ theȱ methodsȱ describedȱ inȱ thisȱ articleȱ argueȱ thatȱitȱisȱaȱlegitimateȱwayȱofȱpropagatingȱtheirȱfaith,ȱcausingȱofȬ fenceȱtoȱadherentsȱofȱtheȱotherȱfaithȱinȱorderȱtoȱchallengeȱthem.ȱ


Othersȱquestionȱtheȱmethods,ȱregardingȱthemȱasȱbeingȱlikelyȱtoȱ increaseȱantagonismȱbetweenȱtheȱfaiths.ȱ Literatureȱ Ahmed,ȱC.ȱ(2008a).ȱ“TheȱWahubiriȱwaȱKislamuȱ(PreachersȱofȱIslam)ȱinȱ EastȱAfrica.”ȱAfricaȱTodayȱ54/4:ȱ3Ȭ18.ȱ ȱ ȱ (2008b).ȱLesȱConversionsȱàȱL’IslamȱFondamentaliste:ȱLeȱcasȱdeȱlasȱTanȬ zanieȱetȱduȱKenya.ȱParis:ȱL’Harmattan.ȱ Asmal,ȱ F.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Sheikhȱ Ahmedȱ Deedat:ȱ Howȱ Itȱ Allȱ Began!”ȱ URL:ȱ http://www.islamicvoice.com/September2005/Tribute/ȱ (Accessedȱ 31ȱJanuaryȱ2009).ȱ BibliaȱniȱJibuȱ(2002).ȱJeȱUislamuȱniȱUgaidi?.ȱDarȱesȱSalaam:ȱBibliaȱniȱJibuȱ ȱ http://biblianijibu.netfirms.com/ȱ(Accessedȱ2ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ ȱ (2003).ȱBibliaȱniȱJibu:ȱBriefȱHistory.ȱn.p.ȱ Boer,ȱ J.H.ȱ (2003).ȱ Nigeria’sȱ Decadesȱ ofȱ Blood:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Christianȱ andȱ MuslimȱRelations.ȱJos:ȱStreamȱChristianȱPublishers.ȱ Bonnke,ȱR.ȱ(2009).ȱLivingȱaȱLifeȱofȱFire:ȱAnȱAutobiography.ȱOrlando:ȱEȬR.ȱ Brierley,ȱJ.ȱ(2008).ȱ“UpȱtheȱLadderȱinȱHydeȱPark.”ȱRadioȱBroadcastȱonȱ Premierȱ Radio.ȱ http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondeȱ mand?mediaid={DDE3C877ȬFCE9Ȭ4656Ȭ9460ȬA0D3747272B7}ȱ (Accessedȱ5ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ Chande,ȱA.N.ȱ(1998).ȱIslam,ȱUlamaaȱandȱCommunityȱDevelopmentȱinȱTanȬ zania.ȱBethesda:ȱAustinȱ&ȱWinfield.ȱ Chesworth,ȱ J.ȱ (Forthcoming).ȱ “Deedat,ȱ Ahmedȱ (1918Ȭ2005).”ȱ Inȱ EncyȬ clopaediaȱofȱtheȱBibleȱandȱitsȱReception.ȱBerlin:ȱdeȱGruyter.ȱ (2009).ȱ “Polemicalȱ Revival:ȱ Attackingȱ theȱ Other’sȱ Texts.”ȱ Forumȱ 21:ȱEuropeanȱJournalȱonȱChildȱandȱYouthȱResearchȱ4Ȭ12:ȱ72Ȭ76.ȱ (2008).ȱTheȱUseȱofȱScriptureȱinȱSwahiliȱTractsȱbyȱMuslimsȱandȱChrisȬ tiansȱ inȱ Eastȱ Africa.ȱ Doctoralȱ Thesis,ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Birmingham.ȱ http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/150/.ȱ ȱ (2006).ȱ“FundamentalismȱandȱOutreachȱStrategiesȱinȱEastȱAfrica:ȱ Christianȱ Evangelismȱ andȱ Muslimȱ Da‘wa.”ȱ In:ȱ B.J.ȱ Soaresȱ (ed.).ȱ MuslimȬChristianȱEncountersȱinȱAfrica.ȱLeiden:ȱBrill.ȱPp.ȱ159Ȭ86.ȱ Christȱ forȱ Allȱ Nationsȱ (CfAN).ȱ (2009a).ȱ “Crusadeȱ Newȱ Yearȱ Harvestȱ 2009:ȱ Mubi,ȱ Nigeria.”ȱ http://uk.cfan.org/getdoc/015498aac219Ȭ 401cȬ9893Ȭ7a5150b65ec/newyearȱ harvest.aspxȱ (Accessedȱ 8ȱ Aprilȱ 2009).ȱ (2009b).ȱ“TheȱMubiȱMiracle:ȱCrusadeȱReport.”ȱhttp://uk.cfan.org/ȱ CrusadeReport.aspx?id=10588ȱ(Accessedȱ28ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ

376ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ “Christianȱ Climbsȱ aȱ Ladderȱ toȱ Debateȱ Faithȱ withȱ Radicalȱ Muslims.”ȱ (2008).ȱ Inspireȱ Magazine.ȱ http://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/ȱ news.aspx?action=view&id=2629ȱ(Accessedȱ5ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ Deedat,ȱ A.ȱ (2008).ȱ http://english.truthway.tv/.ȱ Aȱ highȱ qualityȱ videoȱ colȬ lectionȱofȱSheikhȱAhmedȱDeedat’sȱdebatesȱandȱlectures.ȱ (2005).Whatȱ theȱ Bibleȱ Saysȱ aboutȱ Muhummedȱ (p.b.u.h.).ȱ Durban:ȱ IPCI.ȱ (1999).ȱ Theȱ Choice:ȱ Islamȱ andȱ Christianity.ȱ Vol.ȱ 2.ȱ Birmingham:ȱ IsȬ lamicȱVision.ȱ (1997).ȱ Muhummedȱ (p.b.u.h.):ȱ Theȱ Naturalȱ Successorȱ toȱ Christȱ (p.b.u.h.).ȱDurban:ȱIPCI.ȱ (1995).Theȱ Choice:ȱ Islamȱ andȱ Christianity.ȱ Vol.ȱ 1.ȱ Birmingham:ȱ IsȬ lamicȱVision.ȱ (1992a).ȱIsȱtheȱBibleȱGod’sȱWord.ȱDurban:ȱIPCI.ȱ ȱ (1992b).ȱCombatȱKitȱagainstȱBibleȱThumpers.ȱDurban:ȱIPCI.ȱ ȱ (1991).ȱDesertȱStorm;ȱHasȱitȱEnded?ȱ(PreviouslyȱpublishedȱasȱChristȱ inȱIslam).ȱDurban:ȱIPCI.ȱ Gifford,ȱP.ȱ(1992).ȱ“ReinhardȱBonnke’sȱMissionȱtoȱAfrica,ȱandȱHisȱ1991ȱ NairobiȱCrusade.”ȱIn:ȱP.ȱGiffordȱ(ed.).ȱNewȱDimensionsȱinȱAfricanȱ Christianity.ȱNairobi:ȱAllȱAfricaȱConferenceȱofȱChurches.ȱPp.ȱ157Ȭ 82.ȱ ȱ (1986).ȱ “‘Africaȱ Shallȱ beȱ Saved’:ȱ Anȱ Appraisalȱ ofȱ Reinhardȱ Bonnke’sȱPanȬAfricanȱCrusade.”ȱJournalȱofȱReligionȱinȱAfricaȱXVII:ȱ 63Ȭ92.ȱ Internationalȱ Propagationȱ Centreȱ Internationalȱ URL:ȱ http://www.ȱ ahmedȬdeedat.co.za/frameset.asp.ȱ LacunzaȱBalda,ȱJ.ȱ(1997).ȱ“TranslationsȱofȱtheȱQuranȱintoȱSwahili,ȱandȱ ContemporaryȱIslamicȱRevivalȱinȱEastȱAfrica.”ȱIn:ȱD.ȱWesterlundȱ andȱ E.E.ȱ Rosanderȱ (eds.).ȱ Africanȱ Islamȱ andȱ Islamȱ inȱ Africa.ȱ LonȬ don:ȱHurstȱ&ȱCompany.ȱPp.ȱ95Ȭ126.ȱ Larkin,ȱ B.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Ahmedȱ Deedatȱ andȱ theȱ Formȱ ofȱ Islamicȱ EvangelȬ ism.”ȱSocialȱTextȱ96/26:ȱ101Ȭ21.ȱ Lease,ȱG.ȱ(1995).ȱ“ReinhardȱBonnke:ȱGermanȱMissionaryȱinȱaȱStrangeȱ Land.ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱContemporaryȱEvangelizationȱinȱAfriȬ ca.”ȱJournalȱforȱtheȱStudyȱofȱReligionȱ8/2:ȱ59Ȭ73.ȱ Ludwig,ȱF.ȱ(1996).ȱ“AfterȱUjamaa:ȱIsȱReligiousȱRevivalismȱaȱThreatȱtoȱ Tanzania’sȱ Stability?”ȱ In:ȱ D.ȱ Westerlundȱ (ed.).ȱ Questioningȱ theȱ SecularȱState.ȱLondon:ȱHurstȱ&ȱCompany.ȱPp.ȱ216Ȭ36.ȱ Ngariba,ȱF.M.,ȱandȱM.A.ȱKawemba.ȱ(1987).ȱUislamuȱKatikaȱBiblia.ȱZanȬ zibar:ȱAlȬKhayriaȱPressȱLtd.ȱ

ATTACKINGȱTHEȱOTHER’SȱTEXTSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ377ȱ Njozi,ȱH.M.ȱ(2000).ȱMwembechaiȱKillingsȱandȱtheȱPoliticalȱFutureȱofȱTanȬ zania.ȱOttawa:ȱGlobalinkȱCommunications.ȱ Rashid,ȱA.,ȱandȱJ.ȱSmith.ȱ(2008).ȱ“DoesȱtheȱBibleȱPredictȱtheȱComingȱofȱ Muhammad?”ȱ http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/07/adȬ nanȬrashidȬvsȬjaysmithȬdoesȬbible.htmlȱ(Accessedȱ5ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ Sadouni,ȱ S.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Ahmedȱ Deedatȱ etȱ l’islamȱ Indienȱ enȱ Afriqueȱ duȱ Sud:ȱIndividualismeȱetȱtransnationalismeȱIslamique.”ȱArchivesȱdeȱ SciencesȱSocialesȱdesȱReligionsȱ139:ȱ101Ȭ18.ȱ Saunders,ȱ P.ȱ (2002).ȱ “Whyȱ Apologetics?ȱ Whyȱ Apologeticsȱ Training?”ȱ http://www.euroleadershipresources.org/resource.php?ID=95ȱ (Accessedȱ4ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ Simbaulanga,ȱ C.ȱ (1999).ȱ Maanaȱ yaȱ Dini.ȱ Bibliaȱ niȱ Jibu.ȱ http://biblianijiȬ bu.netfirms.com/ȱ(Accessedȱ2ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ Smith,ȱJ.ȱ(2008).ȱȱ“Fitnaȱ theȱ Film:ȱ Aȱ Christianȱ Response.”ȱ http://www.ȱ youtube.com/watch?v=I9MJIC238X0&feature=channel_pageȱ (AcȬ cessedȱ7ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ Walsh,ȱJ.ȱ(1993).ȱReligiousȱRiotsȱinȱNigeria.ȱBirmingham:ȱCentreȱforȱtheȱ StudyȱofȱIslamȱandȱChristianȬMuslimȱRelations.ȱ Westerlund,ȱ D.ȱ (2003).ȱ “Ahmedȱ Deedat’sȱ Theology:ȱ Apologeticsȱ throughȱPolemics.”ȱJournalȱofȱReligionȱinȱAfricaȱ33/3:ȱ263Ȭ78.ȱ Whittaker,ȱ C.ȱ (1998).ȱ Reinhardȱ Bonnke:ȱ Aȱ Passionȱ forȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱ EastȬ bourne:ȱKingsway.ȱ Wilders,ȱ G.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Fitnaȱ theȱ Movie.”ȱ http://www.themoviefitna.ȱ com/fitnaȬtheȬmovie/ȱ(Accessedȱ7ȱAprilȱ2009).ȱ Zebiri,ȱ K.ȱ (1997).ȱ Muslimsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ Faceȱ toȱ Face.ȱ Oxford:ȱ OneȬ worldȱPublications.ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ PartȱVIȱ

InterreligiousȱHermeneuticsȱ inȱtheȱLightȱofȱȱ theȱPostcolonialȱDeconstructionȱ ofȱReligionȱ

OnȱtheȱCommunicationȱofȱSacredȱTextsȱ ȱ InterculturalȱComparisonȱ orȱInterculturalȱEncounterȱ ȱ ȱ AndreasȱNehringȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ Interculturalȱhermeneuticsȱisȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱunderstandingȱ ofȱtheȱculturalȱother;ȱitsȱsubjectȱareaȱisȱtheȱinteractionȱofȱmemȬ bersȱofȱdifferentȱcultures.ȱHowȱdoȱweȱanalyzeȱthisȱinteraction?ȱ Whatȱareȱtheȱtheoreticalȱimplicationsȱwhenȱweȱreflectȱonȱtheseȱ interactionsȱ asȱ mediatedȱ inȱ texts?ȱ Whatȱ areȱ textsȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ culture?ȱ Inȱgeneral,ȱtheȱrelationshipȱofȱone’sȱownȱlanguageȱtoȱaȱforȬ eignȱ oneȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ patternȱ forȱ theȱ exchangeȱ betweenȱ one’sȱ ownȱ andȱ anotherȱ culture.ȱ Epistemologically,ȱ interculturalȱ herȬ meneuticsȱ facesȱ theȱ problemȱ thatȱ theȱ otherȱ cultureȱ cannotȱ justȱ beȱconceivedȱasȱanȱaberrationȱofȱone’sȱownȱculture.ȱInȱaȱsimilarȱ wayȱeveryoneȱwhoȱisȱengagedȱinȱinterreligiousȱencounterȱhasȱtoȱ beȱawareȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȱfactȱthatȱthisȱencounterȱhasȱforȱaȱlongȱ timeȱbeenȱdominatedȱbyȱvariousȱdevaluationsȱofȱtheȱreligiouslyȱ other.ȱ Thereforeȱ he/sheȱ hasȱ toȱ reflectȱ theologicallyȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ hermeneuticallyȱ onȱ whatȱ itȱ meansȱ toȱ engageȱ inȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue.ȱ Bothȱ religionȱ andȱ cultureȱ generateȱ theirȱ meaningfulȬ nessȱbyȱtheirȱownȱperformance.ȱCulturesȱareȱnotȱgivenȱentitiesȱ butȱareȱdifferentiatedȱoutȱofȱthemselvesȱandȱtheyȱareȱselfȬreferȬ entialȱatȱleastȱinȱtheȱsenseȱthatȱtheyȱareȱdifferent.ȱTherefore,ȱtheyȱ cannotȱ beȱ comparedȱ likeȱ givenȱ objects.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ missingȱ isȱ aȱ transcendentȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ thatȱ wouldȱ allowȱ forȱ comparison.ȱ Interculturalȱ hermeneuticsȱ inȱ thisȱ lineȱ ofȱ reflectionȱ atȱ leastȱ isȱ facingȱtheȱtheoreticalȱandȱepistemologicalȱproblemȱthatȱtheȱsituȬ ationȱofȱencounterȱcannotȱbeȱlevelledȱbyȱanȱexplicitȱtertiumȱcomȬ parationis.ȱ WhatȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱdoȱinȱthisȱcontributionȱisȱtoȱstepȱbackȱ fromȱ actualȱ questionsȱ ofȱ encounteringȱ oneȱ anotherȱ inȱ interreȬ ligiousȱdialoguesȱofȱvariousȱformsȱandȱtoȱaskȱwhetherȱandȱhowȱ weȱcanȱidentifyȱanyȱcommonȱgroundȱbetweenȱmembersȱofȱdifȬ


ferentȱ cultures.ȱ Iȱ willȱ therebyȱ referȱ toȱ sociologicalȱ approachesȱ thatȱareȱconcernedȱwithȱculturalȱhermeneutics,ȱandȱIȱwillȱtryȱtoȱ showȱhowȱtheseȱapproachesȱcanȱbeȱappropriatedȱforȱtheȱongoȬ ingȱdebatesȱonȱinterculturalȱtheology.ȱTheȱreflectionȱonȱinterculȬ turalȱ encounterȱ isȱ deeplyȱ impingedȱ byȱ hermeneuticalȱ differenȬ tiationsȱ ofȱ selfnessȱ andȱ othernessȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ handȱ andȱ underȬ standingȱandȱmisunderstandingȱonȱtheȱother.ȱ Wernerȱ Koggeȱ hasȱ identifiedȱ threeȱ areasȱ ofȱ hermeneuticalȱ concernȱ thatȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ culturalȱ difference:ȱ (1)ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱperceptibilityȱofȱdifferentȱcultures,ȱ(2)ȱtheȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ universalityȱ andȱ rationalityȱ ofȱ validityȱ claims,ȱ andȱ(3)ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱpossibilitiesȱofȱpracticalȱcommunicationȱ withȱ strangersȱ (Koggeȱ 2002:ȱ 25).ȱ Theȱ richȱ traditionȱ ofȱ interculȬ turalȱ theologyȱ hasȱ aȱ greatȱ dealȱ toȱ sayȱ onȱ allȱ threeȱ areas,ȱ butȱ Iȱ willȱ focusȱ inȱ thisȱ paperȱ onlyȱ onȱ theȱ firstȱ andȱ thirdȱ pointsȱ ofȱ Kogge’sȱargument.ȱ Koggeȱadmitsȱthat,ȱifȱinterculturalȱphilosophyȱisȱconcernedȱ withȱtheseȱissues,ȱitȱisȱoftenȱlimitedȱonlyȱtoȱdealingȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱ two,ȱ whileȱ theȱ commonȱ concernȱ ofȱ interculturalȱ encounterȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ onȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ religiousȱ comȬ munitiesȱusuallyȱfocusesȱonȱtheȱthirdȱaspect.ȱMyȱimpressionȱisȱ that,ȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱgenerally,ȱareasȱtwoȱ andȱthreeȱareȱtheȱonesȱthatȱreceiveȱtheȱmostȱattention.ȱWhileȱsoȬ calledȱ “theologyȱ ofȱ religions”ȱ placesȱ theȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ universalityȱ andȱ rationalityȱ ofȱ validityȱ claims,ȱ theȱ ecumenicalȱ programmeȱ onȱ “Dialogueȱ inȱ Community”ȱ hasȱ sinceȱ theȱ 1980sȱ beenȱ increasinglyȱ involvedȱ inȱ practicalȱ quesȬ tionsȱofȱencounter.ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthat,ȱinȱdoingȱso,ȱtheȱfirstȱaspectȱ onȱtheȱperceptibilityȱofȱanotherȱcultureȱisȱmoreȱorȱlessȱtakenȱforȱ grantedȱ orȱ dealtȱ withȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ relativelyȱ traditionalȱ premisesȱ ofȱ hermeneutics.ȱ Untilȱ now,ȱ therefore,ȱ theȱ hermenȬ euticalȱapproachȱisȱdominantȱinȱtheologicalȱreflectionsȱonȱinterȬ religiousȱ encounter.ȱ Thisȱ hasȱ contributedȱ toȱ rulingȱ outȱ quesȬ tionsȱofȱ powerȱandȱ culturalȱandȱ politicalȱ dominanceȱ toȱaȱ largeȱ extentȱ fromȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ andȱ toȱ focusingȱ onȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ commonalityȱ orȱ differenceȱ inȱ areasȱ toȱ whichȱ allȱ dialogueȱ partnersȱhaveȱequalȱconsciousȱaccess.ȱ DerivingȱfromȱaȱtraditionȱofȱinterpretingȱhistoricallyȱdifferȬ entȱtextsȱandȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱgraspȱtheirȱmeaningȱadequately,ȱinȬ terculturalȱhermeneuticsȱfromȱtheȱveryȱbeginningȱhasȱalsoȱemȬ

ON THE COMMUNICATION OF SACRED TEXTSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ383ȱ

phasizedȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ contextȱ forȱ aȱ properȱ understandingȱ ofȱ theȱ Other.ȱ Inȱ recentȱ yearsȱ herȬ meneuticsȱ inȱ scholarlyȱ discourseȱ hasȱ neverthelessȱ beenȱ declinȬ ingȱmoreȱandȱmore,ȱandȱitȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱofȱhardlyȱanyȱrelevanceȱ forȱ workingȱ onȱ actualȱ questionsȱ inȱ aȱ globalizedȱ world.ȱ Theȱ emphasisȱ ofȱ reflectionȱ hasȱ shiftedȱ fromȱ understandingȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ perceptibilityȱ ofȱ differentȱ cultures.ȱ Contextsȱ haveȱ becomeȱ shakyȱ andȱ fluid,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ identitiesȱ haveȱ beȬ comeȱquestionableȱ–ȱtheyȱseemȱtoȱbeȱmerelyȱconstructedȱ–ȱandȱ withȱ theseȱ growingȱ postmodernȱ insecurities,ȱ theȱ epistemologȬ icalȱ basisȱ forȱ theȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ contextsȱ hasȱ becomeȱ questionȬ ableȱasȱwell.ȱ TheȱQuestionȱofȱtheȱPerceptibilityȱofȱDifferentȱCulturesȱ WhereasȱinȱtheologyȱcrossȬculturalȱencounterȱisȱreflectedȱuponȱ mainlyȱwithinȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogue,ȱinȱtheȱ fieldȱ ofȱ culturalȱ studiesȱ aȱ discourseȱ modelȱ hasȱ becomeȱ promȬ inentȱinȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱdecades.ȱThisȱdiscourseȱmodelȱwasȱapproȬ priatedȱ byȱ Edwardȱ Saidȱ inȱ hisȱ attemptȱ toȱ uncoverȱ theȱ powerȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ Westernȱ influenceȱ inȱ colonialȱ contextsȱ (Saidȱ 1978).ȱWithȱreferenceȱtoȱMichelȱFoucaultȱandȱAntonioȱGramsci,ȱ Saidȱ arguedȱ thatȱ Europeanȱ Orientalismȱ notȱ onlyȱ representedȱ orientalȱ culturesȱ inȱ science,ȱ literature,ȱ andȱ artȱ butȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱexertedȱpowerȱoverȱtheȱOrient.ȱUntilȱnow,ȱthereȱhaveȱbeenȱ hardlyȱanyȱintersectionsȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱkindsȱofȱreflection.ȱManyȱ ofȱtheȱtraditionalȱtheologicalȱpresuppositionsȱofȱtheȱperceptionȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ wereȱ noȱ doubtȱ criticallyȱ analyzed. 1ȱ InterreȬ ligiousȱ dialogueȱ andȱ someȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ interculturalȱ hermenȬ eutics,ȱoutlinedȱinȱcomparativeȱstudiesȱforȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱ theȱ otherȱ (Wierlacherȱ 1993;ȱ Waldenfelsȱ 1990),ȱ wereȱ alsoȱ disȬ cussedȱ theologicallyȱ (Sundermeierȱ 1996,ȱ 1999;ȱ Grünschlossȱ 1999).ȱHowever,ȱitȱhasȱhardlyȱbeenȱtakenȱintoȱconsiderationȱinȱ currentȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ thatȱ theȱ conditionsȱ forȱ compreȬ hensionȱ areȱ linkedȱ withȱ powerȱ andȱ areȱ setȱ byȱ hegemonicȱ disȬ courses.ȱ ȱ Theȱ literatureȱ onȱ thisȱ isȱ widelyȱ scattered.ȱ See,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ someȱ publicationsȱ fromȱ Germanȱ perspectives:ȱ Mildenbergerȱ 1978,ȱ Bernhardtȱ1993,ȱandȱWrogemannȱ1997.ȱ 1


Oneȱofȱtheȱcentralȱtheoreticalȱconcernsȱofȱcolonialȱdiscourseȱ theoryȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ timeȱ hasȱ beenȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ representationȱ andȱ theȱ politicalȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ representingȱ theȱ colonizedȱ inȱ anthropology,ȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱ literature,ȱ andȱ evenȱ art.ȱ Theȱ otherȱlineȱofȱtheoreticalȱreflectionȱisȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱareasȱofȱantiȬ colonialȱ resistance,ȱ counterȬdiscourses,ȱ precolonialȱ knowledge,ȱ knowledgeȱsubjugatedȱinȱtheȱdominantȱdiscourse,ȱagencyȱofȱtheȱ colonized,ȱ subalternȱ consciousness,ȱ etc.ȱ Inȱ bothȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ conȬ cern,ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱsubjectivityȱorȱpositionȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱisȱatȱ stake,ȱandȱtheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱtheseȱsubjectȱpositionsȱareȱconȬ structedȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ relevantȱ forȱ furtherȱ theoreticalȱ interȬ ventionsȱ intoȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ colonialȱ discourseȱ –ȱ directedȱ toȱ theȱ pastȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱtheȱpresent.ȱWhileȱtheȱfocusȱofȱacademicȱconȬ cernȱduringȱtheȱ1960sȱandȱ1970sȱwasȱpredominantlyȱonȱtheȱsoȬ cialȱaspectsȱofȱinterculturalȱencounter,ȱpostcolonialȱstudiesȱsinceȱ theȱ1980sȱhaveȱshiftedȱtheȱemphasisȱofȱcritiqueȱtoȱaȱdeconstrucȬ tionȱofȱcolonialȱknowledgeȱandȱitsȱunderlyingȱassumptions.ȱTheȱ focusȱofȱattentionȱhasȱbeenȱmovedȱfromȱtheȱsocialȱaspectsȱtoȱtheȱ questionȱofȱcultureȱ(Thomasȱ1994;ȱCohnȱ1986).ȱ CritiqueȱofȱHermeneuticsȱ Thisȱshiftȱhasȱledȱtoȱaȱcritiqueȱofȱhermeneuticsȱasȱwell.ȱTrainedȱ inȱ theȱ readingȱ ofȱ texts,ȱ hermeneuticsȱ hasȱ inȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ manyȱ failedȱinȱtheȱexplicationȱofȱculturalȱdifferences.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱmainȱ pointsȱ ofȱ critiqueȱ isȱ thatȱ hermeneuticsȱ focusesȱ mainlyȱ onȱ theȱ articulatedȱcontentȱofȱoralȱorȱwrittenȱexpressions.ȱButȱstructuralȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ understandingȱ likeȱ powerȱ structures,ȱ dominantȱ representationsȱ ofȱ culturalȱ identity,ȱ economicȱ andȱ politicalȱ conditionsȱinȱwhichȱarticulationsȱtakeȱplaceȱandȱwholeȱareasȱofȱ theȱ ideologicalȱ interpellationȱ ofȱ subjectsȱ thatȱ speakȱ areȱ neglecȬ ted.ȱTheȱperceptionȱofȱculture,ȱanotherȱcritiqueȱofȱhermeneuticsȱ states,ȱisȱmostlyȱconfinedȱtoȱtextȱandȱinterpretation,ȱandȱtherebyȱ cultureȱisȱconstructedȱasȱanalogousȱtoȱtexts.ȱWhatȱisȱnecessaryȱisȱ aȱ widerȱ conceptȱ ofȱ cultureȱ thatȱ perceivesȱ cultureȱ notȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱasȱaȱnormativelyȱcoinedȱcomplexȱofȱculturalȱproductsȱ butȱ asȱ aȱ codedȱ networkȱ ofȱ constructionsȱ andȱ negotiationsȱ ofȱ meaning.ȱ Evenȱ Cliffordȱ Geertz’sȱ semioticȱ definitionȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱitȱwasȱhelpfulȱinȱovercomingȱstructuralistȱandȱfunctionȬ alistȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ hasȱ recentlyȱ beenȱ exposedȱ toȱ severeȱ


criticismȱ becauseȱ Geertz,ȱ inȱ hisȱ concernȱ forȱ symbolicȱ actionsȱ andȱ figuredȱ modesȱ ofȱ behaviour,ȱ seemsȱ toȱ favourȱ aȱ semioticȱ textualismȱbyȱconcentratingȱonȱmeaningȱalone.ȱGeertzȱanalysesȱ culturalȱ performancesȱ mainlyȱ asȱ manifestationsȱ ofȱ meaningȱ orȱ asȱpracticesȱthatȱrevealȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtheȱsocietyȱunderȱinvesȬ tigation,ȱsinceȱthisȱstructureȱisȱfirstȱofȱallȱseenȱbeforehandȱorȱbyȱ definitionȱasȱaȱwebȱofȱmeaning.ȱFurthermore,ȱculturalȱperformȬ ances,ȱlikeȱtheȱfamousȱBaliȱcockfightȱthatȱGeertzȱanalyzedȱinȱhisȱ groundbreakingȱ essay,ȱ “Deepȱ Play,”ȱ appearsȱ forȱ himȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ formȱofȱartȱthatȱcanȱbeȱcomparedȱstructurallyȱtoȱaȱWesternȱtheaȬ terȱ playȱ orȱ aȱ stringȱ quartet.ȱ Bothȱ canȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ texts,ȱ and,ȱ asȱ such,ȱ theyȱ canȱ beȱ decoded.ȱ Theȱ socialȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ culturalȱ performancesȱremainsȱneverthelessȱunderexposed.ȱPaulȱRabinȬ ow,ȱ therefore,ȱ accusesȱ Geertzȱ ofȱ anȱ aestheticȱ configurationȱ ofȱ epistemologicalȱandȱethicalȱquestions,ȱandȱSherryȱB.ȱOrtnerȱadȬ mitsȱthatȱGeertsȱandȱhisȱschoolȱ areȱ particularlyȱ interestedȱ inȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ symbolsȱ performȱ certainȱ practicalȱ operationsȱ inȱ theȱ socialȱ process– healȱ peopleȱ throughȱ curingȱ rites,ȱ turnȱ boysȱ andȱ girlsȱ intoȱ menȱ andȱ womenȱ throughȱ initiation,ȱ killȱ peopleȱ throughȱ sorcery–andȱ soȱ forth.ȱ Geertziansȱ doȱ notȱ ignoreȱ theseȱ pracȬ ticalȱsocialȱeffects.ȱ

But,ȱsheȱstatesȱcritically:ȱ suchȱsymbolsȱhaveȱnotȱbeenȱtheirȱprimaryȱfocusȱofȱinterest.ȱ Rather,ȱtheȱfocusȱofȱGeertzianȱanthropologyȱhasȱconsistentȬ lyȱbeenȱtheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱsymbolsȱshapeȱtheȱwaysȱsocialȱ actorsȱ see,ȱ feel,ȱ andȱ thinkȱ aboutȱ theȱ world,ȱ or,ȱ inȱ otherȱ words,ȱhowȱsymbolsȱoperateȱasȱvehiclesȱofȱ“culture.”ȱ(OrtȬ nerȱ1993:ȱ374f.)ȱ

Theȱ“hegemonicȱfunctionȱofȱculturalȱpatterns”ȱ(BergȱandȱFuchsȱ 1993:ȱ 62)ȱ areȱ notȱ takenȱ asȱ seriouslyȱ asȱ theyȱ shouldȱ inȱ thisȱ homogeneousȱ conceptȱ ofȱ culture.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ theȱ impressionȱ thatȱ mostȱ Christianȱ theologicalȱ approachesȱ toȱ interculturalȱ encounȬ terȱ areȱ stillȱ veryȱ muchȱ obligedȱ toȱ Cliffordȱ Geertz’sȱ hermeneuȬ ticalȱ approachȱ toȱ cultureȱ asȱ aȱ textȱ andȱ doȱ notȱ takeȱ seriouslyȱ enoughȱ theȱ processualȱ characterȱ ofȱ socialȱ action.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ atȱ stakeȱisȱhowȱoneȱshouldȱreflectȱonȱhowȱinterpretationsȱareȱconȬ stitutedȱandȱreconstitutedȱintersubjectivelyȱandȱhowȱtheȱpartiesȱ involvedȱ adjustȱ toȱ oneȱ anotherȱ inȱ theirȱ interpretations.ȱ Theseȱ


adjustmentsȱareȱaȱfieldȱofȱpowerȱandȱconflict,ȱofȱhegemonicȱdisȬ coursesȱandȱcounterȬdiscoursesȱandȱareȱmostlyȱinterwovenȱwithȱ historiesȱ ofȱ colonialȱ orȱ postcolonialȱ dominanceȱ andȱ structuresȱ ofȱdependencyȱ(BergȱandȱFuchsȱ1993:ȱ62).ȱ Theȱ widelyȱ disseminatedȱ “Culturalȱ Turns”ȱ (cf.ȱ BachmanȬ Medickȱ2006)ȱduringȱtheȱpastȱ20ȱyearsȱhaveȱledȱtoȱaȱdeferralȱinȱ theȱ validationȱ ofȱ cultureȱ fromȱ aȱ limitationȱ ofȱ cultureȱ toȱ aȱ preȬ dominantlyȱmentalȱaffairȱandȱaȱmomentȱofȱrepresentationȱtoȱanȱ estimationȱofȱcultureȱasȱaȱdynamicȱproductȱandȱforceȱofȱhumanȱ activityȱandȱsocialȱpractice.ȱReflexiveȱanthropologyȱ(Iȱwillȱhereȱ citeȱonlyȱJamesȱClifford,ȱGeorgeȱMarcus,ȱandȱMichaelȱFischerȱasȱ outstandingȱcritics)ȱhasȱjoinedȱaȱpoststructuralistȱtheoryȱofȱculȬ tureȱ inȱ takingȱ upȱ constructivistȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ representationȱ andȱ hasȱ combinedȱ itȱ withȱ aȱ generalȱ questioningȱ ofȱ Westernȱ episteȬ mologyȱ thatȱ isȱ viewed,ȱ asȱ alreadyȱ mentioned,ȱ asȱ involvedȱ inȱ powerȱ structures.ȱ Postcolonialȱ criticsȱ couldȱ veryȱ wellȱ bankȱ onȱ thisȱselfȬcriticismȱofȱEurocentricȱmisrepresentation.ȱ Culturalȱ studiesȱ haveȱ inȱ manyȱ waysȱ attemptedȱ toȱ deconȬ structȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ representation.ȱ Althoughȱ Edwardȱ Said’sȱ OrientalismȱisȱoftenȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱaȱkeyȱdocumentȱofȱthisȱcritȬ icalȱ theoreticalȱ move,ȱ atȱ aboutȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ similarȱ criticalȱ shiftsȱorȱturnsȱinȱvariousȱfieldsȱofȱculturalȱandȱhistoricalȱstudiesȱ haveȱ takenȱ place.ȱ Theȱ writingȱ cultureȱ debate,ȱ Haydenȱ White’sȱ Metahistoryȱ(Whiteȱ1973),ȱJacquesȱDerrida’sȱcritiqueȱofȱWesternȱ logocentrism,ȱRichardȱRorty’sȱreflectionsȱonȱtheȱMirrorȱofȱNatureȱ (Rortyȱ 1981),ȱ andȱ severalȱ otherȱ theoreticalȱ interventionsȱ haveȱ beenȱ concernedȱ withȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ representationȱ andȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ haveȱ questionedȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ language,ȱ speech,ȱ andȱwrittenȱtextsȱreferȱtoȱtheȱworldȱ“outȱthere.”ȱ ItȱcanȱwellȱbeȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱantiȬessentialistȱcharacterizaȬ tionȱofȱculture,ȱasȱbrieflyȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱisȱaȱresultȱofȱaȱwideȱ innovativeȱ theoreticalȱ shift.ȱ “Cultures,”ȱ Jamesȱ Cliffordȱ hasȱ maintained,ȱ “doȱ notȱ holdȱ stillȱ forȱ theirȱ portraits.ȱ Attemptsȱ toȱ makeȱ themȱ doȱ soȱ alwaysȱ involveȱ simplificationȱ andȱ exclusion,ȱ selectionȱofȱaȱtemporalȱfocusȱ…”ȱ(Cliffordȱ1986:10).ȱThisȱwideȬ spreadȱ analyticalȱ convictionȱ hasȱ informedȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ theoretȬ icalȱ attemptsȱ toȱ analyzeȱ theȱ interculturalȱ encounterȱ asȱ hybrid,ȱ unbound,ȱasȱ“inȬbetween”ȱspacesȱandȱtheȱlike.ȱThereȱis,ȱneverȬ theless,ȱaȱtheoreticalȱasȱwellȱasȱpracticalȱproblemȱinȱthisȱemphaȬ sisȱ onȱ theȱ fluidityȱ ofȱ cultureȱ inȱ postmodern/postcolonialȱ conȬ


texts.ȱTheȱestimationȱofȱcultureȱasȱfluidȱseemsȱbestȱtoȱserveȱtheȱ postmodernȱ theorizersȱ inȱ Westernȱ academiaȱ butȱ itȱ rarelyȱ matchesȱ withȱ theȱ selfȬestimationȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ forcedȱ toȱ establishȱnewȱorȱtransformedȱidentityȱpositionsȱinȱtheirȱrespectȬ tiveȱ contexts.2ȱ Theȱ essentializationȱ ofȱ culturalȱ identityȱ asȱ orȬ iginal,ȱ divinelyȱ created,ȱ national,ȱ racial,ȱ andȱ theȱ likeȱ isȱ wideȬ spreadȱ notȱ onlyȱ amongȱ fundamentalistsȱ butȱ amongȱ aȱ wideȱ rangeȱofȱculturalȱagentsȱonȱalmostȱallȱcontinentsȱandȱinȱalmostȱ allȱcountries.ȱ Religionȱespeciallyȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱaȱvitalȱforceȱinȱthisȱcontestȱ forȱidentityȱpositionsȱinȱpostcolonialȱcontexts.ȱThereforeȱtheȱemȬ phasisȱonȱhybridityȱorȱfluidityȱasȱanalyticalȱtoolsȱtoȱunderstandȱ interculturalȱ encountersȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ insufficientȱ orȱ lacking.ȱ Howȱareȱculturalȱidentitiesȱformed?ȱWhatȱareȱtheȱmeansȱtoȱforȬ mulateȱidentityȱpositionsȱconvincingly?ȱWhatȱisȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱ interculturalȱ encountersȱ onȱ theȱ formulationȱ ofȱ identityȱ posiȬ tions?ȱ Howȱ areȱ subjectȱ positionsȱ determined?ȱ Whatȱ isȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ religionsȱ vs.ȱ ideologiesȱ inȱ theȱ formulationȱ ofȱ subjectȱ posiȬ tions?ȱ Whatȱ isȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ languageȱ andȱ especiallyȱ ofȱ textsȱ asȱ meansȱtoȱformulateȱsubjectȱpositions?ȱHowȱdoȱpeopleȱrelateȱtoȱ religiousȱtextsȱtoȱformulateȱsubjectȱpositions?ȱTheȱinterculturalȱ readingȱofȱreligiousȱtextsȱcanȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱbeȱaȱmeansȱofȱadȬ dressingȱ questionsȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ ambivalenceȱ ofȱ freedomȱ andȱ limitation.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ hybridityȱ ofȱ conceptsȱ orȱ theȱ immediateȱ interculturalȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ religiousȱ expressionsȱ thatȱ isȱ inȱ theȱ forefront.ȱInȱanyȱinterreligiousȱencounterȱtheȱspontaneityȱofȱinȬ terpretationȱisȱlinkedȱtoȱtheȱlimitationsȱofȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱaȱgivȬ enȱtextȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱandȱtoȱtheȱlongȱhistoryȱofȱinterculturalȱ (colonial)ȱencounterȱonȱtheȱother.ȱThereȱisȱstillȱaȱlotȱofȱworkȱtoȱ beȱ doneȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ reflectionȱ onȱ interreligiousȱ dialogues.ȱ WhatȱIȱhaveȱdiscussedȱsoȱfarȱisȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱrelatedȱtoȱaȱ moreȱ abstractȱ problemȱ onȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ languageȱ andȱ ofȱ texts.ȱ Wordsȱ notȱ onlyȱ name,ȱ describe,ȱ andȱ judge;ȱ theyȱ alsoȱ produce,ȱ constitute,ȱ orȱ createȱ reality.ȱ Edwardȱ Saidȱ hasȱ calledȱ thisȱ relaȬ tionshipȱ ofȱ realityȱ andȱ textȱ “theȱ worldlinessȱ ofȱ aȱ text.”ȱ Theȱ questionȱarisesȱasȱtoȱhowȱwordsȱlikeȱorientalistȱtextsȱconstituteȱ ȱForȱtheȱAfricanȱcontextȱcf.ȱMudimbeȱ1988.ȱ

2


theȱ realityȱ theyȱ describe?ȱ Howȱ doȱ theyȱ function?ȱ Saidȱ hasȱ reȬ flectedȱonȱthisȱquestionȱinȱhisȱtheoreticalȱessay,ȱ“TheȱWorld,ȱtheȱ TextȱandȱtheȱCritic,”ȱinȱwhichȱheȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱeveryȱtextȱisȱaȱ textȬinȬtheȬworld.ȱAllȱtexts,ȱaccordingȱtoȱSaid,ȱareȱworldly,ȱevenȱ whenȱ theyȱ appearȱ toȱ denyȱ it,ȱ theyȱ areȱ neverthelessȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ socialȱworld,ȱhumanȱlife,ȱandȱofȱcourseȱtheȱhistoricalȱmomentsȱ inȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱlocatedȱandȱinterpretedȱ(Saidȱ1983).ȱ Said’sȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱworldlinessȱofȱtheȱtextȱandȱhisȱ conceptualizationȱ ofȱ Orientalismȱ asȱ aȱ discursiveȱ formationȱ isȱ thereforeȱanȱattemptȱtoȱreadȱtextsȱinȱrelationȱtoȱanȱextratextual,ȱ sociallyȱ andȱ historicallyȱ determinedȱ reality,ȱ whichȱ providesȱ textsȱwithȱaȱcertainȱauthority.ȱTextsȱcarryȱtracesȱofȱtheȱcontextȱinȱ whichȱtheyȱareȱwritten.ȱTheyȱexceedȱbyȱfarȱtheȱimmediateȱvisiȬ bleȱ andȱ obviousȱ carriedȱ inȱ theȱ wordsȱ asȱ signsȱ (cf.ȱ alsoȱ Castroȱ VarelaȱandȱDhawanȱ2005:ȱ46).ȱAccordingȱtoȱSaid,ȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱ criticȱisȱtoȱ“speakȱtruthȱtoȱpower”ȱbyȱlayingȱopenȱtheseȱhistoriȬ icallyȱ andȱ sociallyȱ determinedȱ discursiveȱ layersȱ thatȱ informȱ aȱ certainȱpredication.ȱLiteraryȱcritique,ȱaccordingȱtoȱSaid,ȱimpliesȱ aȱscrutinizingȱofȱstereotypedȱtermsȱandȱwordsȱandȱtheirȱusageȱ thatȱ contributeȱ toȱ formȱ reality.ȱ Ifȱ discursiveȱ formationsȱ shapeȱ orientalistȱ andȱ colonialȱ speechȱ andȱ ifȱ theȱ orientalistȱ textualȱ representationsȱ exerciseȱ aȱ certainȱ powerȱ onȱ theȱ colonized,ȱ theȱ generativeȱpowerȱofȱspeechȱactsȱasȱsuchȱhasȱtoȱbeȱanalyzed.ȱ CritiqueȱofȱCommunicationȱ Thisȱcanȱbeȱdoneȱhereȱonlyȱinȱbrief,ȱbutȱweȱshouldȱbearȱinȱmind,ȱ thatȱtheȱmassiveȱcritiqueȱthatȱhermeneuticalȱapproachesȱhadȱtoȱ faceȱisȱaccompaniedȱbyȱanȱequallyȱstrongȱblowȱagainstȱtheoriesȱ ofȱ interculturalȱ communication.ȱ Slavojȱ Žižekȱ forȱ exampleȱ hasȱ criticizedȱtheȱideaȱofȱaȱhegemonicȱfreeȱdiscourseȱasȱexpoundedȱ byȱ Jürgenȱ Habermas,ȱ whichȱ alsoȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ roleȱ modelȱ forȱ manyȱreflectionsȱonȱinterreligiousȱdialogue.ȱŽižekȱhasȱexposedȱ Habermas’sȱ intentionȱ asȱ theȱ fetishizationȱ ofȱ communicationȱ asȱ anȱ idealȱ speechȱ act.ȱ Althoughȱ Habermasȱ wouldȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ communicationȱ isȱ oftenȱ brokenȱ andȱ distorted,ȱ heȱ stillȱ insistsȱ thatȱreason,ȱethics,ȱandȱdemocracyȱcanȱbeȱgroundedȱonȱthisȱasȬ sumedȱidealȱspeechȱactȱsituation,ȱandȱheȱinsistsȱthatȱasȱsoonȱasȱ weȱenterȱintoȱaȱsituationȱofȱcommunicationȱweȱhaveȱtoȱpresupȬ poseȱanȱidealȱofȱunbrokenȱcommunicationȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱ communicateȱatȱall.ȱByȱdoingȱso,ȱŽižekȱargues,ȱHabermasȱisȱreȬ


sortingȱ toȱanȱ ideologicalȱmaskingȱofȱ theȱ ultimateȱ failureȱ ofȱ theȱ socialȱtoȱconstituteȱanȱallȬencompassingȱspaceȱofȱrepresentationȱ (Žižekȱ1998:ȱ130;ȱcf.ȱTorfingȱ1999:ȱ11).ȱThisȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱofȱreleȬ vanceȱ forȱ reflectionȱ onȱ methodsȱ ofȱ andȱ approachesȱ toȱ interreȬ ligiousȱdialoguesȱthatȱcouldȱbeȱobservedȱduringȱtheȱpastȱyears.ȱ Despiteȱallȱacknowledgedȱfailuresȱofȱspeechȱactsȱinȱsituationsȱofȱ interreligiousȱ orȱ interculturalȱ encounterȱ andȱ communication,ȱ interreligiousȱ dialoguesȱ areȱ basedȱ atȱ leastȱ theoreticallyȱ onȱ theȱ assumptionȱthatȱtheyȱtakeȱplaceȱinȱanȱallȬencompassingȱspaceȱofȱ theȱ culturalȱ orȱ theȱ social,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ weȱ areȱ awareȱ ofȱ culturalȱ andȱ religiousȱ differencesȱ withinȱ otherȱ cultures.ȱ Christiansȱ fromȱ EuropeȱorȱIndiaȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱdialogueȱwith,ȱsay,ȱHindusȱasȱsuchȱ anyȱmoreȱbutȱwithȱVaishnavasȱfromȱTamilȱNaduȱorȱwithȱSarvoȬ dayaȱSharamdanaȱBuddhistsȱfromȱColombo.ȱNevertheless,ȱitȱisȱ againȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ aȱ homogeneousȱ culturalȱ spaceȱ thatȱ isȱ inȱ questionȱ here,ȱ aȱ spaceȱ thatȱ isȱ atȱ leastȱ theoreticallyȱ ableȱ toȱ harȬ monizeȱantagonisms.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ Žižek,ȱ manyȱ othersȱ haveȱ contributedȱ toȱ anȱ ongoingȱdeconstructionȱofȱculture,ȱcontext,ȱandȱtextȱasȱpercepȬ tibleȱ entities.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ groundbreakingȱ articleȱ “Signature,ȱ Event,ȱ Context,”ȱJacquesȱDerridaȱarguedȱthatȱifȱweȱtakeȱitȱforȱgrantedȱ thatȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ equivocalityȱ coveredȱ byȱ theȱ wordȱ “comȬ munication”ȱisȱreducedȱbyȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱwhatȱisȱcalledȱ“context”,ȱ thanȱ theȱ questionȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ raisedȱ asȱ toȱ whetherȱ “theȱ prereȬ quisitesȱofȱaȱcontextȱ[are]ȱeverȱabsolutelyȱdeterminable.”ȱInȱthisȱ articleȱ Derridaȱ demonstratesȱ whyȱ theȱ determinationȱ ofȱ aȱ contextȱ canȱ neverȱ beȱ certainȱ orȱ saturatedȱ (Derridaȱ 1982:ȱ 310).ȱ ForȱDerridaȱtheȱquestioningȱofȱtheȱstabilityȱofȱcontextȱimpliesȱanȱ adjustmentȱ inȱ theȱ conceptualizationȱ ofȱ writingȱ orȱ scripture.ȱ Writingȱ hasȱ traditionallyȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ aȱ mediumȱ ofȱ communicaȬ tion,ȱ “atȱ leastȱ ifȱ communicationȱ isȱ understoodȱ inȱ theȱ restrictedȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ transmissionȱ ofȱ meaning”ȱ (Derridaȱ 1982:ȱ 310).ȱ Communicationȱisȱnotȱtheȱprocessȱofȱtransmissionȱofȱaȱwordȱorȱ textȱ fromȱ senderȱ toȱ receiver,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ therebyȱ hasȱ goneȱ throughȱtheȱmillȱofȱhermeneuticalȱscrutinizing.ȱRather,ȱtheȱspoȬ kenȱwordȱorȱaȱwrittenȱtextȱcanȱbeȱtakenȱoutȱofȱcontextȱor,ȱbetter,ȱ outȱofȱanyȱcontextȱandȱcanȱbeȱgraftedȱintoȱanother.ȱTheȱpowerȱ ofȱ anyȱ performativeȱ speechȱ actȱ doesȱ notȱ lieȱ inȱ itsȱ conventionalȱ useȱor,ȱweȱcanȱsay,ȱinȱtheȱtraditionalȱsettingȱwhereȱitȱsupposedȬ lyȱ comesȱ from.ȱ Itȱ liesȱ inȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ breakingȱ withȱ theȱ


context,ȱ inȱ theȱ abilityȱ forȱ citation,ȱ orȱ inȱ theȱ iterabilityȱ ofȱ anyȱ utteranceȱorȱtext.ȱIfȱaȱtextȱorȱaȱwordȱonlyȱfunctionsȱandȱifȱitȱhasȱ powerȱonlyȱbecauseȱitȱisȱrepeatableȱandȱtherebyȱdeferrable,ȱthenȱ whatȱisȱatȱtheȱfocusȱofȱinterestȱisȱnoȱlongerȱtheȱintentionalityȱofȱ aȱ speakingȱ subjectȱ norȱ aȱ decontextualizedȱ meaningȱ ofȱ theȱ utteranceȱ orȱ textȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ deciphered.ȱ Rather,ȱ meaningȱ isȱ generatedȱinȱtheȱperformanceȱofȱspeechȱacts.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱalreadyȱ indicated,ȱ theseȱ questionsȱ can,ȱ toȱ myȱ mind,ȱ beȱ ofȱ importanceȱ forȱanyȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱpraxisȱofȱinterculturalȱtheologyȱasȱwellȱ asȱforȱinterreligiousȱdialogue.ȱ PossibilitiesȱofȱPracticalȱCommunicationȱwithȱStrangersȱ AnȱequallyȱimportantȱpointȱforȱtheȱquestionȱofȱinterculturalȱenȬ counterȱ andȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ onȱ whichȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ comȬ mentȱnowȱisȱtheȱquestionȱofȱpossibilitiesȱofȱpracticalȱcommuniȬ cationȱwithȱstrangers.ȱIfȱweȱdoȱnotȱassumeȱaȱgeneralȱincommenȬ surabilityȱbetweenȱcultures,ȱandȱif,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱweȱadmitȱ thatȱtheȱotherȱcultureȱcannotȱbeȱtranslatedȱcompletelyȱintoȱourȱ ownȱculturalȱpatterns,ȱweȱhaveȱtoȱreflectȱonȱwhatȱisȱinȱcommonȱ betweenȱtheȱtwoȱcultures.ȱTheȱpropositionȱthatȱtwoȱculturesȱareȱ incommensurableȱorȱthatȱthereȱisȱanȱuntranslatableȱalterityȱbeȬ tweenȱ theȱ twoȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ leastȱ basedȱ onȱ anȱ experienceȱ thatȱ inducesȱsomebodyȱtoȱpostulateȱthis.ȱEvenȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱparȬ tialȱ untranslatabilityȱ hasȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ someȱ accessibilityȱ thatȱ transcendsȱ theȱ cognitiveȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ twoȱ differentȱ culturalȱ elements.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ sayȱ thatȱ somethingȱ cannotȱ beȱ translated,ȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ itȱ cannotȱ beȱ compared.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ claimȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ equivalentȱ forȱ ourȱ conceptȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ cultureȱ orȱ language,ȱweȱoughtȱtoȱhaveȱatȱleastȱaȱpointȱofȱcomparison,ȱevenȱ ifȱ thisȱ pointȱ cannotȱ beȱ expressedȱ inȱ eitherȱ ofȱ theȱ comparedȱ cultures.ȱ Theȱ comparison,ȱ whichȱ isȱ intentionallyȱ realized,ȱ transcendsȱanyȱexplicitȱarticulationȱpreciselyȱbecauseȱitȱisȱbasedȱ onȱtheȱreflectionȱthatȱitȱhasȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱimplicitȱcontentȱthatȱ cannotȱ beȱ expressedȱ inȱ betweenȱ culturesȱ butȱ areȱ presentȱ inȱ practicalȱ orȱ commonȱ usage.ȱ Theȱ sociologistȱ Joachimȱ Rennȱ (2005)ȱhasȱmadeȱthisȱargumentȱveryȱstrongly,ȱsuggesting,ȱthereȬ fore,ȱthatȱifȱweȱdoȱnotȱwantȱtoȱendȱupȱinȱtheȱaporiasȱofȱculturalȱ incommensurability,ȱ ifȱ weȱ areȱ stillȱ tryingȱ toȱ copeȱ withȱ theȱ exȬ perienceȱ ofȱ untranslatabilityȱ and,ȱ ifȱ weȱ areȱ tryingȱ toȱ expressȱ whatȱtheȱresultsȱofȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱourȱownȱidenȬ


tityȱ inȱ theȱ comparisonȱ ofȱ culturesȱ are,ȱ weȱ haveȱ toȱ differentiateȱ betweenȱ twoȱ modesȱ ofȱ culture:ȱ theȱ performativeȱ andȱ theȱ exȬ plicitȱ culture.ȱ Iȱ willȱ followȱ Rennȱ inȱ thisȱ approachȱ andȱ tryȱ toȱ summarizeȱhisȱthoughtsȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱparagraphsȱbecauseȱIȱ believeȱ thatȱ thisȱ isȱ equallyȱ applicableȱ toȱ religiousȱ culture.ȱ Weȱ haveȱtoȱdifferentiateȱbetweenȱreligiousȱexperienceȱandȱperformȬ anceȱonȱoneȱhandȱandȱreligiousȱdoctrines,ȱtexts,ȱorȱritualȱexpresȬ sionsȱonȱtheȱother.ȱBothȱcanȱbeȱdifferentiatedȱfromȱoneȱanotherȱ byȱtheȱroleȱandȱfunctionȱofȱexplicitȱlanguage.ȱ Rennȱarguesȱthatȱmostȱofȱtheȱconceptualizationsȱofȱcultureȱ followȱ aȱ basicallyȱ cognitiveȱ model.ȱ Cultureȱ isȱ explicitȱ culture,ȱ cultureȱ isȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ systemȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ basedȱ onȱ intentionality,ȱaȱsymbolicȱsystem,ȱbasedȱonȱaȱlinguisticȱandȱtextȬ ualȱ structure,ȱ orȱ anȱ institutionalȱ system,ȱ basedȱ onȱ normsȱ andȱ values.ȱ Theȱ decisiveȱ systematicȱ pointȱ forȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ interȬ culturalȱencounterȱandȱtranslationȱis,ȱasȱRennȱemphasizes,ȱthatȱ weȱ haveȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ explicitȱ articulationȱ ofȱ cultureȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ knowledge,ȱ inȱ typologiesȱ andȱ linguisticȱ patterns,ȱ andȱ inȱinstitutionalȱsystemsȱasȱanȱactȱofȱtranslationȱasȱwell.ȱTheȱtranȬ sitionȱ fromȱ implicitȱ knowledgeȱ toȱ explicitȱ articulationȱ is,ȱ inȱ otherȱwords,ȱtoȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱtranslation.3ȱCulturalȱknowledgeȱisȱ therebyȱundergoingȱanȱimportantȱshift.ȱTheȱerroneousȱcharacterȱ ofȱanyȱcognitivistȱconceptȱofȱcultureȱisȱthatȱitȱassumesȱthatȱtheȱ explicationȱofȱtacitȱknowledgeȱisȱaȱcompleteȱrepresentationȱofȱaȱ deeplyȱ rootedȱ culturalȱ knowledgeȱ thatȱ hasȱ notȱ beenȱ madeȱ explicitȱ soȱ far.ȱ Rennȱ pointsȱ outȱ veryȱ clearlyȱ thatȱ theȱ explicitȱ formulationȱ ofȱ cultureȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ anȱ abstractionȱ ofȱ livedȱ culȬ turalȱ experienceȱ butȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ necessarilyȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ selectionȱinȱwhichȱmuchȱofȱtheȱimplicitȱcontentȱofȱcultureȱisȱlostȱ andȱ canȱ neverȱ beȱ anȱ adequateȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ culturalȱ competenceȱofȱallȱmembersȱofȱaȱculturalȱsetting.ȱWhileȱexplicitȱ knowledgeȱtendsȱtoȱabstractionȱandȱtheȱfixationȱofȱculturalȱpatȬ terns,ȱ implicitȱ knowledgeȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ flexibleȱ andȱ canȱ beȱ reformulatedȱconstantlyȱ(Rennȱ2005:ȱ212).ȱ ThisȱdifferentiationȱisȱimportantȱforȱthreeȱreasonsȱIȱwantȱtoȱ highlight.ȱ Oneȱ is,ȱ asȱ Iȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ mentioned,ȱ thatȱ anyȱ cogȬ ȱ Forȱ aȱ reflectionȱ onȱ implicitȱ andȱ explicitȱ knowledgeȱ seeȱ espeȬ ciallyȱPolanyiȱ2009.ȱ 3


nitiveȱ explicationȱ ofȱ cultureȱ isȱ contested.ȱ Ifȱ explicitȱ abstractionȱ isȱ neverȱ completeȱ representationȱ andȱ ifȱ anȱ adequateȱ represenȬ tationȱ ofȱ theȱ culturalȱ competenceȱ ofȱ allȱ membersȱ ofȱ aȱ culturalȱ environmentȱ inȱ languageȱ isȱ impossible,ȱ thenȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ whoȱ representsȱ andȱ whoseȱ textualȱ explicationȱ becomesȱ domȬ inantȱisȱanȱimportantȱone.ȱThisȱisȱevenȱmoreȱrelevantȱifȱweȱreȬ flectȱ onȱ interculturalȱ encountersȱ orȱ interreligiousȱ dialogues:ȱ Withȱwhomȱinȱaȱsocietyȱdoȱweȱtalk?ȱWhomȱdoȱweȱencounter?ȱ Theȱ secondȱ aspectȱ isȱ thatȱ aȱ comparisonȱ betweenȱ culturesȱ cannotȱrelyȱonlyȱonȱtheȱexplicitȱaspectsȱofȱculture,ȱnorȱcanȱitȱcanȱ beȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ implicitȱ performanceȱ ofȱ culturalȱ experience.ȱ OneȱhasȱtoȱkeepȱinȱmindȱthatȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtranslationȱisȱstrucȬ turallyȱ similarȱ inȱ allȱ culturesȱ sinceȱ allȱ areȱ coinedȱ byȱ aȱ permaȬ nentȱtransitionȱfromȱimplicitȱtoȱexplicitȱculture,ȱfromȱperformedȱ experienceȱ toȱ abstractȱ expression.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ degreesȱ ofȱ abȬ stractionȱandȱexplicitȱtextualizationȱmightȱbeȱdifferentȱinȱdifferȬ entȱ culturalȱ contexts,ȱ allȱ culturesȱ shareȱ thisȱ processesȱ ofȱ intraȬ culturalȱtranslation.ȱ InȱPhilosophicalȱInvestigationsȱWittgensteinȱreflectedȱonȱthisȱ doubleȱbindȱinȱhisȱfamousȱaphorismȱinȱ§ȱ43:ȱ“theȱmeaningȱofȱaȱ wordȱisȱitsȱuseȱinȱtheȱlanguage”ȱ(Wittgensteinȱ1958:ȱ20e).ȱMeanȬ ingȱ isȱ notȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ explicitȱ articulationȱ ofȱ cultureȱ inȱ lingȬ uisticȱ structuresȱ andȱ inȱ texts.ȱ Norȱ isȱ culturalȱ meaningȱ fullyȱ reȬ presentableȱinȱtheȱmodeȱofȱscientificȱlanguage.ȱRather,ȱtheȱperȬ formativeȱ aspectsȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ takenȱ intoȱ consideration.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ whyȱ theȱ anthropologistȱ Johannesȱ Fabianȱ arguedȱ 20ȱ yearsȱ agoȱ alreadyȱforȱaȱshiftȱfromȱaȱhermeneuticalȱandȱinterpretativeȱapȬ proachȱtoȱanȱethnologicalȱprocessȱasȱperformanceȱinȱwhichȱbothȱ theȱdialogueȱpartnersȱareȱinvolvedȱandȱinȱwhichȱtheȱexplicationȱ ofȱ anȱ ethnographicȱ textȱ isȱ aȱ dialogicalȱ translationȱ ofȱ implicitȱ knowledge.ȱ Howȱ isȱ understandingȱ thenȱ possibleȱ inȱ interreliȬ giousȱ dialogues?ȱ Howȱ canȱ weȱ relateȱ toȱ otherȱ peoplesȱ culturalȱ andȱreligiousȱconvictionsȱandȱpractices?ȱ Laterȱ inȱ hisȱ Investigationsȱ Wittgensteinȱ formulatesȱ whatȱ Rennȱconsidersȱtoȱbeȱtheȱbasisȱforȱinterculturalȱencounter.ȱInȱ§ȱ 206ȱ heȱ states:ȱ “Theȱ commonȱ behaviourȱ ofȱ mankindȱ isȱ theȱ sysȬ temȱ ofȱ referenceȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ whichȱ weȱ interpretȱ anȱ unknownȱ language”ȱ (Wittgensteinȱ 1958:ȱ 82e).ȱ Theȱ commonȱ viewȱ isȱ thatȱ Wittgensteinȱhereȱpresupposesȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱsetȱ(orȱevenȱofȱ aȱ structuredȱ system)ȱ ofȱ humanȱ behaviouralȱ dispositions,ȱ aȱ caȬ


pacityȱthatȱhumanȱbeingsȱshareȱandȱbyȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱdistingȬ uishedȱfromȱanimalsȱinȱbeingȱableȱtoȱmasterȱlanguage.ȱTheȱreleȬ vanceȱofȱthisȱthesisȱforȱinterculturalȱandȱinterreligiousȱencounȬ tersȱ neverthelessȱ becomesȱ evidentȱ onlyȱ ifȱ we,ȱ asȱ Rennȱ argues,ȱ relateȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ differentiationȱ betweenȱ pragmaticȱ accessibilityȱ andȱ explicitȱ descriptionȱ (Rennȱ 2005:ȱ 207).ȱ Theȱ commonȱ behaȬ viourȱ ofȱ humankindȱ isȱ thenȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ anȱ anȬ thropologicalȱconstantȱorȱaȱbiologicalȱorȱatȱleastȱnaturalȱbasisȱofȱ humanȱactionȱregardlessȱofȱculturalȱspecifics.ȱRather,ȱitȱshouldȱ beȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱcommonȱpraxisȱinȱaȱsharedȱsituation,ȱaȱpracȬ ticeȱthatȱisȱembeddedȱinȱculturallyȱdifferentȱinterpretations,ȱandȱ aȱ praxisȱ thatȱ canȱ evenȱ beȱ distortedȱ byȱ interculturalȱ misunderȬ standing.ȱ Theȱ behaviourȱ isȱ notȱ commonȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ groundȬ ingȱanthropologyȱorȱaȱcommonȱexplicitȱreligiousȱconviction,ȱnorȱ isȱ itȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ abstractȱ notionȱ thatȱ “theȱ religious”ȱ orȱ “reliȬ giousȱexperience”ȱcanȱbeȱtheȱcommonȱgroundȱonȱwhichȱunderȬ standingȱshouldȱbeȱbased.ȱItȱisȱtheȱcommonalityȱofȱaȱsituationȱinȱ whichȱeachȱpartnerȱactsȱinȱtheȱhorizonȱofȱhisȱorȱherȱculturalȱpatȬ ternsȱofȱinterpretation.ȱ Inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ soȬcalledȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ theȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ staticȱ conceptualizationȱ ofȱ modelsȱ ofȱ encounters,ȱ suchȱ asȱ exclusivist,ȱ inclusivist,ȱ andȱ pluralist,ȱ asȱ theyȱ haveȱ beenȱ proȬ posed,ȱfirstȱbyȱAllanȱRaceȱ(1983)ȱandȱlaterȱmanifestedȱespeciallyȱ byȱ Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ (2005),ȱ hasȱ recentlyȱ beenȱ scrutinizedȱ fromȱ variousȱ sides.ȱ Theȱ encountersȱ ofȱ religionsȱ andȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ isȱ muchȱ moreȱ complexȱ andȱ differentiatedȱ thanȱ thisȱ threefoldȱ modelȱ ofȱ aȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ canȱ express.ȱ HistorȬ ically,ȱ weȱ seeȱ thatȱ membersȱ ofȱ differentȱ religionsȱ doȱ notȱ enȬ counterȱ oneȱ anotherȱ primarilyȱ asȱ dogmaticȱ theologiansȱ butȱ asȱ representativesȱ ofȱ differentȱ culturalȱ environments.ȱ Theologyȱ isȱ anȱ explicitȱ articulationȱ andȱ aȱ specificȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ implicitȱ knowledge.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thereforeȱ anȱ explicitȱ articulationȱ ofȱ aȱ perspecȬ tiveȱ inȱ twoȱ ways,ȱ anȱ articulationȱ ofȱ faithȱ inȱ aȱ givenȱ beliefȱ sysȬ tem,ȱtoȱborrowȱfromȱWilfredȱCantwellȱSmithȱ(1964),ȱandȱanȱarȬ ticulationȱ ofȱ aȱ livedȱ practiceȱ inȱ aȱ culturalȱ setting.ȱ Theologyȱ isȱ thereforeȱalwaysȱcontextual.ȱEpistemologically,ȱtheȱcontingencyȱ ofȱone’sȱownȱpositionȱandȱtheȱperspectivityȱofȱourȱperceptionȱofȱ theȱ worldȱ cannotȱ beȱ overcome.ȱ Reinholdȱ Bernhardtȱ hasȱ thereȬ foreȱarguedȱforȱaȱ“mutualȱinclusivism”ȱthatȱtakesȱintoȱconsiderȬ ationȱ “one’sȱ ownȱ involvementȱ togetherȱ withȱ aȱ methodologicalȱ


eccentricity”ȱ(Bernhardȱ1993:ȱ233).ȱUnderstandingȱtheȱother,ȱacȬ cordingȱtoȱBernhardt,ȱisȱneverȱmerelyȱaȱcognitiveȱactȱbutȱaȱcareȬ fulȱandȱfragileȱattemptȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱencounteringȱtheȱotherȱ toȱ distanceȱ oneselfȱ fromȱ one’sȱ ownȱ culturallyȱ andȱ religiouslyȱ determinedȱperspective.ȱ Theȱ emphasisȱ onȱ commonality,ȱ asȱ Rennȱ hasȱ elaboratedȱ it,ȱ isȱneverthelessȱalsoȱcrucialȱforȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱshiftsȱinȱreliȬ giousȱ traditionsȱ andȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ newȱ religiousȱ moveȬ mentsȱorȱreligiousȱreformȱmovementsȱinȱaȱglobalizingȱworldȱasȱ well.ȱ Inȱ aphorismȱ 206ȱ Wittgensteinȱ discussedȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱpatternsȱinȱwhichȱlanguageȱfunctions.ȱCulturalȱpatternsȱareȱ builtȱthroughȱrepetitionȱofȱtheȱsame.ȱLanguageȱisȱperformedȱinȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ givenȱ patterns.ȱ Howȱ thenȱ isȱ interculturalȱ enȬ counterȱ possibleȱ inȱ relatingȱ theseȱ culturallyȱ codedȱ patternsȱ ofȱ oneȱlanguageȱtoȱanother?ȱ Theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ wordsȱ haveȱ power,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ disȬ cussedȱabove,ȱhasȱinformedȱEdwardȱSaid’sȱcriticalȱinterventionȱ ofȱ Orientalism.ȱ Underȱ certainȱ circumstances,ȱ wordsȱ andȱ symȬ bolicȱactsȱhaveȱtheȱpowerȱtoȱcreateȱnonȬsymbolicȱfactsȱbyȱmereȱ execution.ȱ Theȱ centralȱ criticalȱ pointȱ ofȱ Said’sȱ interventionȱ wasȱ thatȱ heȱ interpretedȱ Orientalismȱ notȱ asȱ aȱ representationalȱ fieldȱ thatȱcouldȱbeȱexploitedȱbyȱcolonialȱpowersȱbutȱasȱaȱfieldȱthatȱexȬ ertedȱpowerȱbyȱitself.ȱSpeakingȱisȱdoingȱsomething.ȱTheȱperforȬ mativeȱaspectȱofȱlanguageȱisȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱrelatedȱtoȱ“theȱcomȬ monȱbehaviourȱofȱmankind”ȱaboutȱwhichȱWittgensteinȱisȱtalkȬ ing.ȱ TheȱfactualȱencounterȱallowsȱforȱexperiencesȱwithȱtheȱculȬ turallyȱother,ȱexperiencesȱofȱsuccessȱandȱfailureȱinȱtheȱinterpretȬ tationȱofȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱother’sȱculturalȱperformancesȱandȱtheȱ reactionȱ ofȱ theȱ othersȱ onȱ ourȱ ownȱ misrepresentation.ȱ Thisȱ canȱ leadȱ stepȱ byȱ stepȱ toȱ aȱ moreȱ practicalȱ accessȱ toȱ aȱ performativeȱ culture,ȱ andȱ itȱ canȱ leadȱ toȱ aȱ transformationȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ reȬ spectiveȱarticulationȱofȱaȱsituation.ȱ Literatureȱ BachmanȬMedick,ȱ Doris.ȱ (2006).ȱ Culturalȱ Turns:ȱ Neuorientierungenȱ inȱ denȱKulturwissenschaften.ȱHamburg:ȱRowohlt.ȱ Berg,ȱ Eberhard,ȱ andȱ Martinȱ Fuchs.ȱ (1993).ȱ “Phänomenologieȱ derȱ Differenz:ȱ Reflexionsstufenȱ ethnographischerȱ Repräsentation.”ȱ In:ȱEberhardȱBergȱandȱMartinȱFuchsȱ(eds).ȱKultur,ȱSozialeȱPraxis,ȱ

ON THE COMMUNICATION OF SACRED TEXTSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ395ȱ Text:ȱDieȱKriseȱderȱethnographischenȱRepräsentation.ȱFrankfurtȱa.M.:ȱ Suhrkamp.ȱPp.11Ȭ109.ȱ Bernhardt,ȱReinhold.ȱ(1993).ȱDerȱAbsolutheitsanspruchȱdesȱChristentums:ȱ Vonȱ derȱ Aufklärungȱ bisȱ zurȱ Pluralistischenȱ Religionstheologie.ȱ GüȬ tersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ CastroȱVarela,ȱMariaȱdoȱMar,ȱandȱNikitaȱDhawan.ȱ(2005).ȱPostkolonialeȱ Theorie:ȱEineȱkritischeȱEinführung.ȱBielefeld:ȱTransscript.ȱ Clifford,ȱ James.ȱ (1988).ȱ Theȱ Predicamentȱ ofȱ Culture:ȱ Twentiethȱ Centuryȱ Ethnography,ȱ Literatureȱ andȱ Art.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press.ȱ Clifford,ȱJames,ȱandȱGeorgeȱMarcusȱ(eds.).ȱ(1986),ȱWritingȱCulture:ȱTheȱ Poeticsȱ andȱ Politicsȱ ofȱ Ethnography.ȱ Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ Pressȱ ofȱ California.ȱ Cohn,ȱ Bernhard.ȱ (1986).ȱ Colonialismȱ andȱ itsȱ Formsȱ ofȱ Knowledge:ȱ Theȱ BritishȱinȱIndia.ȱPrinceton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Derrida,ȱ Jacques.ȱ (1982).ȱ “Signature,ȱ Event,ȱ Context.”ȱ In:ȱ Jacquesȱ Derrida.ȱ Marginsȱ ofȱ Philosophy.ȱ Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press.ȱ Grünschloss,ȱAndreas.ȱ(1999).ȱDerȱeigeneȱundȱderȱfremdeȱGlaube:ȱStudienȱ zurȱ interreligiösenȱ Fremdwahrnehmungȱ inȱ Islam,ȱ Hinduismus,ȱ BudȬ dhismusȱundȱChristentum.ȱTübingen:ȱMohr.ȱ Kogge,ȱ Werner.ȱ (2002).ȱ Grenzenȱ desȱ Verstehens:ȱ KulturȬDifferenzȬDisȬ kretion.ȱWeilerswist:ȱVelbrück.ȱ Marcus,ȱ George,ȱ andȱ Michaelȱ Fischerȱ (eds.).ȱ (1986).ȱ Anthropologyȱ asȱ Culturalȱ Critique:ȱ Anȱ Experimentalȱ Momentȱ inȱ theȱ Humanȱ Sciences.ȱ Chicago/London:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress.ȱ Mildenberger,ȱMichael.ȱ(ed.).ȱ(1978).ȱDenkpauseȱimȱDialog:ȱPerspektivenȱ derȱ Begegnungȱ mitȱ anderenȱ Religionenȱ undȱ Ideologien.ȱ Frankfurtȱ a.M.:ȱLembeck.ȱ Mudimbe,ȱ Valentin.ȱ (1988).ȱ Theȱ Inventionȱ ofȱ Africa:ȱ Gnosis,ȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ theȱ Orderȱ ofȱ Knowledge.ȱ Bloomington:ȱ Indianaȱ Universityȱ Press.ȱ Ortner,ȱ Sherryȱ B.ȱ (1993).ȱ “Theoryȱ inȱ Anthropologyȱ sinceȱ theȱ Sixties.”ȱ In:ȱSherryȱB.ȱOrtner,ȱNicholasȱB.ȱDirks,ȱGeoffȱEleyȱ(eds.).ȱCulture/ȱ Power/History:ȱ Aȱ Readerȱ inȱ Contemporaryȱ Socialȱ Theory.ȱ Princeton:ȱ PrincetonȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Polanyi,ȱ Michael.ȱ (2009),ȱ Theȱ Tacitȱ Dimension,ȱ Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ ChicagoȱPress.ȱ Said,ȱ Edwardȱ (1983).ȱ Theȱ World,ȱ theȱ Text,ȱ andȱ theȱ Critic.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ

396ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ ȱ (1978).ȱOrientalism.ȱLondon:ȱVintage.ȱ Race,ȱ Allan.ȱ (1983).ȱ Christiansȱ andȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism.ȱ London:ȱ SCMȱ Press.ȱ Renn,ȱ Joachim.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Dieȱ gemeinsameȱ menschlicheȱ HandlungsȬ weise:ȱ Dasȱ doppelteȱ Übersetzungsproblemȱ desȱ sozialwissenȬ schaftlichenȱKulturvergleichs.”ȱIn:ȱIljaȱSrubar,ȱJoachimȱRenn,ȱandȱ UlrichȱWenzelȱ(ed.)ȱKulturenȱvergleichen:ȱSozialȬȱundȱkulturwissenȬ schaftlicheȱGrundlagenȱundȱKontroversen.ȱWiesbaden:ȱVSȱVerlagȱfürȱ Sozialwissenschaften.ȱPp.ȱ195Ȭ227.ȱ Rorty,ȱ Richard.ȱ (1981).ȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ theȱ Mirrorȱ ofȱ Nature.ȱ Berkeley:ȱ UniversityȱPressȱofȱCalifornia.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱ Perry.ȱ (2005).ȱ Gottȱ ohneȱ Grenzen:ȱ Eineȱ christlicheȱ undȱ pluralistischeȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen.ȱ Gütersloh:ȱ Gütersloherȱ Verlagshaus.ȱ Smith,ȱWilfredȱCantwell.ȱ(1964).ȱTheȱMeaningȱandȱEndȱofȱReligion.ȱMinȬ neapolis:ȱFortressȱPress.ȱ Sundermeier,ȱ Theo.ȱ (1999).ȱ Wasȱ istȱ Religion?ȱ Religionswissenschaftȱ imȱ theologischenȱKontext.ȱGütersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ ȱ (1996),ȱ Denȱ Fremdenȱ verstehen:ȱ Eineȱ praktischeȱ Hermeneutik.ȱ GötȬ tingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht.ȱ Thomas,ȱ Nicholas.ȱ (1994).ȱ Colonialism’sȱ Culture:ȱ Anthropology,ȱ Travelȱ andȱGovernment.ȱPrinceton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Torfing,ȱJacob.ȱ(1999).ȱNewȱTheoriesȱofȱDiscourse:ȱLaclau,ȱMouffeȱandȱŽiȬ žek.ȱOxford/Malden:ȱBlackwell.ȱ Wrogemann.ȱ Henning.ȱ (1997).ȱ Missionȱ undȱ Religionȱ inȱ derȱ SystemȬ atischenȱTheologieȱderȱGegenwart,ȱGöttingen:ȱVandenhoeckȱ&ȱRupȬ recht.ȱ White,ȱ Hayden.ȱ (1973).ȱ Metahistory:ȱ Theȱ Historicalȱ Imaginationȱ inȱ NineteenthȬCenturyȱ Europe.ȱ Baltimore/London:ȱ Johnsȱ Hopkinsȱ UniversityȱPress.ȱ Wierlacher,ȱ Aloisȱ (ed.).ȱ (1993).ȱ Kulturthemaȱ Fremdheit:ȱ Leitbegriffeȱ undȱ Problemfelderȱ kulturwissenschaftlicherȱ Forschung.ȱ Munich:ȱ IudiciȬ um.ȱ Waldenfels,ȱBernhard.ȱ(1990).ȱDerȱStachelȱdesȱFremden,ȱFrankfurtȱa.M.:ȱ Suhrkamp.ȱ Wittgenstein,ȱ Ludwig.ȱ (1958).ȱ Philosophicalȱ Investigations.ȱ Transl.ȱ G.E.M.ȱAnscombe.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱOxford:ȱBasilȱBlackwell.ȱ Žižek,ȱ Slavoy.ȱ (1998).ȱ “Jenseitsȱ derȱ Diskursanalyse.”ȱ In:ȱ O.ȱ Marchartȱ (ed.),ȱ Dasȱ Undarstellbareȱ derȱ Politik:ȱ Zurȱ Hegemonietheorieȱ Ernestoȱ Laclaus.ȱVienna:ȱTuriaȱ&ȱKant.ȱPp.ȱ123Ȭ31.ȱ

Culture/sȱasȱaȱTheologicalȱChallengeȱ ȱ TowardsȱaȱSystematicȱApproachȱ toȱInterculturalȱTheologyȱ ȱ ȱ JudithȱGruberȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ ThisȱcontributionȱdoesȱnotȱaddressȱanȱappliedȱissueȱofȱinterculȬ turalȱ theology.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ adoptsȱ aȱ moreȱ systematicȱ approachȱ andȱ probesȱ forȱ theȱ theologicalȱ motivationsȱ forȱ doingȱ theologyȱ interculturally.ȱThisȱcannotȱbeȱdoneȱwithoutȱaȱcriticalȱreceptionȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ culturalȱ theory.ȱ Givenȱ theȱ mushroomingȱ ofȱ theȱtermȱ“culture”ȱinȱcurrentȱacademicȱandȱpoliticalȱdiscourse,ȱ aȱclarificationȱofȱtheȱconceptȱandȱitsȱusesȱmustȱbeȱatȱtheȱtopȱofȱ theȱ agendaȱ ofȱ theȱ projectȱ ofȱ interculturalȱ theology.ȱ Thus,ȱ afterȱ mappingȱ theȱ Christologicalȱ backgroundȱ andȱ theologicalȱ releȬ vanceȱ ofȱ “culture,”ȱ theȱ paperȱ aimsȱ atȱ sketchingȱ aȱ tentativeȱ workingȱ definitionȱ basedȱ onȱ recentȱ developmentsȱ inȱ culturalȱ studies.ȱ This,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ willȱ beȱ scrutinizedȱ asȱ toȱ itsȱ implicationsȱ forȱtheȱsystematicȱmakeupȱofȱtheology.ȱ CultureȱasȱaȱTheologicalȱProblemȱ Catholicȱtheologyȱ(theȱdenominationalȱbackdropȱofȱthisȱpaper)ȱ startedȱ itsȱ theologicalȱ reflectionȱ onȱ cultureȱ atȱ theȱ Secondȱ VatȬ icanȱCouncil.ȱInȱtheȱdocumentȱGaudiumȱetȱspesȱ(GS),ȱcultureȱwasȱ diagnosedȱ asȱ aȱ signȱ ofȱ theȱ timesȱ (andȱ thusȱ asȱ anȱ ineluctableȱ locusȱforȱarticulatingȱChristianȱfaith)ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱrapidȱandȱproȬ foundȱ changesȱ culturesȱ wereȱ undergoingȱ inȱ theȱ 1960sȱ (GSȱ 5).ȱ However,ȱtheȱimminentȱrelevanceȱofȱcultureȱforȱChristianityȱfarȱ transcendsȱ theȱ particularȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ council;ȱ onȱ closerȱ inspecȬ tion,ȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ cultureȱ andȱ faithȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ veryȱ structuralȱ problemȱ ofȱ Christianity:ȱ theȱ mediationȱ ofȱ uniȬ versalȱtruthȱinȱcontingentȱtimesȱinȱparticularȱplaces.ȱHence,ȱtheȱ problemȱ ofȱ cultureȱ asȱ addressedȱ byȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ spesȱ provedȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ spatialȱ configurationȱ ofȱ theȱ dominantȱ conflictȱ atȱ theȱ council:ȱ theȱ relationȱ ofȱ dogmaȱ andȱ history,ȱ ofȱ supratemporalȱ truthsȱandȱtheirȱtemporalȱformulations.ȱInȱviewȱofȱculturalȱplurȬ


ality,ȱtheȱdiachronicallyȱexpressedȱproblemȱfindsȱitsȱsynchronicȱ counterpartȱinȱtheȱrelationȱofȱculture(s)ȱandȱfaith.ȱ TheȱUniversalȱandȱtheȱParticular:ȱ AȱFundamentalȱGrammarȱofȱChristianityȱ Theȱunderlyingȱtensionȱofȱuniversalityȱandȱparticularityȱcanȱbeȱ readȱasȱtheȱbasicȱstructureȱofȱChristianȱfaith.ȱInȱChristology,ȱtheȱ tensionȱ isȱ tackledȱ andȱ furtherȱ sharpenedȱ byȱ theȱ paradoxicalȱ conceptȱofȱtheȱuniversaleȱconcretum,ȱaȱtermȱcoinedȱbyȱHansȱUrsȱ vonȱ Balthasar:ȱ universalȱ salvationȱ isȱ mediatedȱ byȱ andȱ throughȱ theȱ particularȱ personȱ Jesusȱ ofȱ Nazareth.ȱ Theȱ singularityȱ andȱ universalityȱofȱtheȱChristȱeventȱdoesȱnotȱtakeȱplaceȱinȱanȱabsoȬ lute,ȱdetachedȱwayȱbutȱisȱincarnatedȱinȱaȱconcreteȱhumanȱbeingȱ whoȱ was,ȱ theȱ gospelsȱ tellȱ us,ȱ completelyȱ immersedȱ inȱ hisȱ culȬ ture.ȱAsȱaȱJew,ȱheȱlivedȱinȱtheȱculturalȱandȱreligiousȱtraditionȱofȱ hisȱpeople.ȱHisȱparablesȱwereȱbasedȱonȱanȱintimateȱknowledgeȱ ofȱhisȱaudience’sȱlifeworld;ȱheȱproclaimedȱhisȱmessageȱinȱlangȬ uageȱfamiliarȱtoȱthem.ȱTheȱincarnationȱofȱuniversalȱsalvationȱinȱ thisȱ veryȱ concretumȱ doesȱ notȱ onlyȱ revealȱ theȱ relevanceȱ ofȱ oneȱ (Jesus’)ȱcultureȱbutȱendowsȱallȱculturesȱwithȱtheologicalȱdignity.ȱ God’sȱ voluntaryȱ selfȬbindingȱ toȱ aȱ concreteȱ culturalȱ contextȱ inȱ hisȱ incarnationalȱ selfȬrevelationȱ isȱ theȱ foundationalȱ truthȱ ofȱ Christianity.ȱIncarnation,ȱthen,ȱinȱitsȱtensionȱofȱuniversalityȱandȱ particularity,ȱ remainsȱ theȱ structuralȱ constitutiveȱ factorȱ andȱ normȱofȱtheȱChristianȱmediationȱofȱfaith.ȱ TheȱChurchȱandȱCultures:ȱInterculturationsȱ Thisȱ theologicalȱ foundationȱ offersȱ aȱ basisȱ forȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ inevitableȱcontextualityȱofȱtheȱchurchȱandȱofȱtheology.ȱWhereasȱ theȱChristȱeventȱisȱofȱuniversalȱandȱsingularȱrelevance,ȱitsȱwitȬ nessȱbyȱtheȱchurchȱisȱalwaysȱparticularȱandȱplural.ȱTheȱpraxisȱofȱ faithȱ isȱ therebyȱ characterisedȱ byȱ aȱ temporalȱ gapȱ betweenȱ theȱ pastȱandȱtheȱnow,ȱaȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱstoryȱofȱJesusȱandȱitsȱ presentȱwitnesses.ȱByȱmeansȱofȱcommemorationȱandȱnarration,ȱ theȱ pastȱ eventȱ isȱ interpretedȱ andȱ adoptedȱ forȱ theȱ respectiveȱ presentȱ (Essenȱ 2007:ȱ 289).ȱ Remembering,ȱ narrating,ȱ interpretȬ ing,ȱandȱadoptingȱforȱpracticeȱtakeȱplaceȱonlyȱwithinȱaȱparticuȬ larȱ culturalȱ contextȱ andȱ signȱ system.ȱ Thus,ȱ onlyȱ withinȱ aȱ particularȱsemioticȱsystemȱcanȱtheȱchurchȱliveȱupȱtoȱitsȱcharacȬ teristicȱtasksȱofȱwitnessingȱandȱmediating.ȱAnalogousȱtoȱincarȬ nation,ȱin(ter)culturationȱturnsȱoutȱtoȱbeȱaȱnecessaryȱprocessȱinȱ

CULTURE/SȱASȱAȱTHEOLOGICALȱCHALLENGEȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ399ȱ

aȱchurchȱtryingȱtoȱfulfilȱitsȱmissionȱinȱaȱpluralȱworld.ȱInculturaȬ tionȱ isȱ “notȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ relativismȱ butȱ aȱ signȱ ofȱ genuineȱ catholȬ icity”ȱ (Dondeyne;ȱ citedȱ inȱ Tucciȱ 1968:ȱ 465ȱ [myȱ translation]).ȱ Inȱ thisȱview,ȱcultureȱisȱgivenȱaȱpositiveȱandȱautonomousȱroleȱvisȱàȱ visȱtheȱchurch.ȱCulturesȱareȱlociȱforȱarticulatingȱChristianȱfaith.ȱ Oneȱ culture’sȱ absoluteȱ claimȱ toȱ realiseȱ faithȱ isȱ underminedȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ ofȱ culturalȱ plurality:ȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ multitudeȱ ofȱ culȬ tures,ȱtheȱchurch,ȱtoo,ȱhasȱtoȱtakeȱonȱpluralȱshapesȱandȱforms.ȱ TheologyȱandȱCultures:ȱContextualisationsȱ NotȱonlyȱisȱtheȱchurchȱasȱtheȱlocusȱofȱChristianȱfaithȱsituatedȱinȱ aȱ concreteȱ context,ȱ butȱ theology,ȱ asȱ itsȱ reflection,ȱ alsoȱ takesȱ placeȱ withinȱ aȱ concreteȱ contextȱ –ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ neutral,ȱ absolute,ȱ andȱ thusȱ noȱ universalȱ theologyȱ (Schreiterȱ 1997:ȱ 35).ȱ Theology,ȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ praxisȱ ofȱ faith,ȱ isȱ thrownȱ backȱ onȱitsȱculturalȱcontextȱinȱaȱtwofoldȱway.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱliveȱupȱtoȱitsȱ taskȱ–ȱaȱreflectionȱonȱreligiousȱpracticeȱinȱorderȱtoȱguideȱitȱ(SedȬ makȱ2000:ȱ18)ȱ–ȱtheologyȱhasȱtoȱbeȱintimatelyȱconnectedȱwithȱitsȱ culture:ȱ Onlyȱaȱtheologyȱfirmlyȱrootedȱinȱaȱcultureȱcanȱbeȱgenuinelyȱ propheticȱ inȱ thatȱ sameȱ culture.…ȱ Prophecyȱ isȱ effectiveȱ whenȱitȱreorganizesȱknowledgeȱalreadyȱpartȱofȱtheȱculture.ȱ Toȱ standȱ completelyȱ outsideȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ ignored.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ moreȱcontextuallyȱrootedȱaȱtheology,ȱtheȱmoreȱacuteȱcanȱbeȱ itsȱpropheticȱvoiceȱandȱaction.ȱ(Schreiterȱ1991:ȱ24)ȱ

Culture/sȱasȱaȱLocusȱTheologicusȱ Accordingly,ȱ cultureȱ posesȱ anȱ inescapableȱ challengeȱ toȱ theoȬ logy.ȱ Theȱ beliefȱ inȱ incarnationȱ providesȱ aȱ theologicalȱ basisȱ forȱ arguingȱthatȱcultureȱisȱaȱnormativeȱparameterȱforȱtheȱmediationȱ ofȱ faithȱ andȱ itsȱ theologicalȱ reflection.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ culturalȱ pluralityȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ beȱ diagnosedȱ asȱ aȱ fact;ȱ inȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ transculturalȱ salvationalȱ relevanceȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christ’sȱ life,ȱ death,ȱ andȱresurrection,ȱitȱacquiresȱaȱnormativeȱstatus.ȱ Toȱputȱitȱinȱsemioticȱterms,ȱcultureȱprovidesȱaȱsignȱsystemȱ apartȱ fromȱ whichȱ theȱ Christianȱ messageȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ articuȬ lated,ȱor,ȱevenȱmoreȱtoȱtheȱpoint,ȱapartȱfromȱwhichȱitȱwouldȱnotȱ exist.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱChristianȱmessageȱneverȱfullyȱmergesȱwithȱ aȱcultureȱbutȱtransformsȱit.ȱInȱtheirȱirreconcilableȱambivalence,ȱ culturalȱsignȱsystemsȱserveȱasȱaȱfoilȱagainstȱwhichȱChristianity’sȱ specificȱ attitudeȱ isȱ establishedȱ byȱ aȱ uniqueȱ reconfigurationȱ ofȱ


signsȱavailableȱwithinȱtheȱdiscursiveȱfieldȱofȱaȱculture.ȱTheȱplurȬ alityȱ ofȱ culturesȱ indicatesȱ theȱ ultimateȱ inconceivabilityȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ message:ȱ eachȱ cultureȱ canȱ articulateȱ itȱ onlyȱ inȱ aȱ limȬ itedȱandȱcontingentȱway.ȱTheȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱtheseȱformuȬ lations,ȱthen,ȱcanȱrevealȱitsȱungraspableȱsurplusȱofȱmeaning.ȱ Thus,ȱcultureȱ(andȱcultureȱisȱalwaysȱaȱpluralȱphenomenon)ȱ isȱaȱplaceȱofȱtheologicalȱknowledgeȱandȱreasoningȱandȱthereforeȱ anȱauthorityȱforȱtheology.ȱByȱconceptualisingȱcultureȱasȱaȱlocusȱ theologicusȱ(Eckholtȱ2000),ȱcultureȱisȱinvestedȱwithȱanȱinfluentialȱ roleȱinȱtheȱmediationȱofȱfaith.ȱOnȱthisȱbasis,ȱtheȱrelationȱofȱGosȬ pelȱandȱcultureȱisȱnewlyȱdefined;ȱtheirȱhierarchicallyȱorganisedȱ opposition,ȱ aȱ conceptionȱ highlyȱ influentialȱ beforeȱ Vaticanȱ II,ȱ breaksȱ open.ȱ Cultureȱ andȱ Gospelȱ areȱ distinctȱ butȱ notȱ separate:ȱ cultureȱisȱtheȱlocusȱforȱarticulatingȱtheȱGospelȱandȱthusȱaȱlocusȱ ofȱknowledgeȱforȱtheology.ȱHence,ȱtheologyȱisȱinȱneedȱofȱaȱculȬ turalȱanalysis.ȱ TheȱCulturalȱTurnȱandȱitsȱConceptȱofȱCultureȱ Byȱ addressingȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ theȱ fathersȱ ofȱ theȱ councilȱ provedȱ theirȱ seismographicȱ feelingȱ forȱ theȱ signsȱ ofȱ theȱ timesȱ –ȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ reflectionsȱ onȱ cultureȱ coincidesȱ withȱ theȱ upcomingȱ ofȱ theȱ culturalȱ turn,ȱ inȱ whichȱ cultureȱ beȬ cameȱ aȱ pervasiveȱ analyticalȱ categoryȱ inȱ aȱ wideȱ rangeȱ ofȱ acaȬ demicȱdisciplines.ȱ AȱStartingȱPoint:ȱTheȱLinguisticȱTurnȱ Theȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱculturalȱturnȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱparadigmȱ shiftȱ ofȱ theȱ linguisticȱ turn,ȱ whichȱ dramaticallyȱ redefinedȱ theȱ understandingȱofȱlanguage:ȱitȱisȱnotȱrepresentativeȱbutȱconstituȬ tiveȱ ofȱ reality.ȱ Itȱ isȱ theȱ meansȱ forȱ graspingȱ reality;ȱ beyondȱ theȱ limitsȱofȱlanguageȱthereȱisȱnoȱreality:ȱ Sinceȱ traditionalȱ philosophyȱ hasȱ beenȱ (soȱ theȱ argumentȱ goes)ȱlargelyȱanȱattemptȱtoȱburrowȱbeneathȱlanguageȱtoȱthatȱ whichȱ languageȱ expresses,ȱ theȱ adoptionȱ ofȱ theȱ linguisticȱ turnȱ presupposesȱ theȱ substantiveȱ thesisȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ nothingȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱbyȱsuchȱburrowing.ȱ(Rortyȱ1992:ȱ10)ȱ

Theȱ linguisticȱ turnȱ wasȱ triggeredȱ byȱ Ferdinandȱ deȱ SausȬ sure’sȱstructuralȱlanguageȱtheoryȱ(Saussureȱ2006):ȱlanguageȱisȱaȱ systemȱ ofȱ signs.ȱ Aȱ linguisticȱ signȱ consistsȱ ofȱ twoȱ dimensions,ȱ theȱsignifierȱandȱtheȱsignified.ȱItȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱmeaningȱinȱitselfȱ


butȱacquiresȱmeaningȱinȱitsȱsystematicȱcorrelationȱtoȱotherȱsignsȱ withinȱ theȱ linguisticȱ system:ȱ meaningȱ arisesȱ outȱ ofȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ signs.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ signifiedȱ andȱ signifierȱ isȱ arbitraryȱ andȱ developsȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ socialȱ processȱ ofȱ theȱ synthesisȱ ofȱ signs.ȱ Hence,ȱ meaningȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ ontologicalȱ qualityȱofȱsignsȱbutȱanȱeffectȱofȱtheirȱuseȱbyȱaȱcommunity.ȱLangȬ uageȱdoesȱnotȱreproduceȱandȱdisplayȱaȱcoherentȱrealityȱbutȱorȬ ganises,ȱ constructs,ȱ andȱ indeedȱ providesȱ usȱ withȱ ourȱ onlyȱ acȬ cessȱtoȱreality.ȱ CulturalȱTurn:ȱCulturesȱasȱTexturesȱofȱMeaningȱ Subsequently,ȱthisȱsemioticȱapproachȱtoȱlanguageȱwasȱextendedȱ toȱ aȱ semioticȱ conceptȱ ofȱ culture.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ language,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ culturesȱ functionȱ asȱ meaningȬgeneratingȱ signȱ systemsȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ differenceȱ andȱ arbitrariness.ȱ Culturesȱ areȱ websȱ ofȱ meaningsȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ read,ȱ understood,ȱ andȱ interpretedȱ likeȱ texts.ȱFromȱthisȱhermeneuticalȱpointȱofȱview,ȱtheirȱmeaningsȱareȱ multilayeredȱandȱunstable.ȱCulturesȱareȱaccessibleȱonlyȱthroughȱ theirȱ representations,ȱ whichȱ cannotȱ beȱ tracedȱ backȱ toȱ anȱ uninȬ terpretedȱ essence.ȱ Inȱ theirȱ symbolisations,ȱ culturalȱ meaningsȱ areȱ simultaneouslyȱ representedȱ andȱ producedȱ –ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Cliffordȱ Geertz,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ majorȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ theȱ textualȬ semioticȱconceptȱofȱculture,ȱsignsȱareȱ“modelsȱofȱandȱmodelsȱforȱ reality”ȱ(Geertzȱ1973:ȱ94).ȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱperformanceȱofȱculȬ turalȱsignsȱisȱaȱmeansȱofȱculturalȱselfȬinterpretation.ȱMoreover,ȱ theȱsemioticȱconceptȱofȱcultureȱasȱtextȱpavesȱtheȱwayȱforȱanȱinȬ terpretativeȱ culturalȱ anthropologyȱ (Geertzȱ 1973:ȱ 15):ȱ culturalȱ symbolsȱ mayȱ beȱ ambiguous,ȱ butȱ theyȱ areȱ publiclyȱ accessibleȱ andȱ thusȱ openȱ toȱ anȱ interpretationȱ byȱ outsiders.ȱ AnthropoloȬ gistsȱ tryȱ toȱ giveȱ anȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ foreignȱ culturalȱ textsȱ byȱ thickȱ descriptionsȱ inȱ microanalyses,ȱ outȱ ofȱ whichȱ conclusionsȱ areȱ drawnȱ regardingȱ theȱ wholeȱ textureȱ ofȱ culturalȱ meaningsȱ (Geertzȱ 1973:ȱ 21,ȱ 16).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ deeperȱ oneȱ divesȱ intoȱ theȱ websȱofȱmeaningȱofȱaȱculture,ȱtheȱmoreȱfragileȱone’sȱknowledgeȱ ofȱthisȱcultureȱbecomes.ȱAȱthickȱdescriptionȱcanȱneverȱdiscoverȱ theȱ essenceȱ ofȱ aȱ cultureȱ butȱ delvesȱ deeperȱ andȱ deeperȱ intoȱ itsȱ bottomlessȱwebȱofȱmeanings;ȱitȱcanȱonlyȱunearthȱtheȱrelational,ȱ andȱhenceȱunstable,ȱcharacterȱofȱculturalȱidentityȱ(Geertzȱ1973:ȱ 29).ȱThus,ȱGeertzȱassumesȱtheȱnecessaryȱinconclusivenessȱofȱinȬ terpretationȱ butȱ stillȱ claimsȱ that,ȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ culturalȱ textuȬ


ality,ȱ itȱ isȱ possibleȱ inȱ principle.ȱ Inȱ theirȱ workȱ anthropologistsȱ canȱ remainȱ outsideȱ theȱ cultureȱ theyȱ areȱ describing.ȱ Theȱ interȬ pretationȱ ofȱ culturalȱ textsȱ doesȱ notȱ requireȱ anȱ insiderȱ perȬ spective:ȱ “theȱ anthropologistȱ strainsȱ toȱ readȱ overȱ theȱ shoulderȱ ofȱthoseȱtoȱwhomȱtheyȱproperlyȱbelong”ȱ(Geertzȱ1973:ȱ452Ȭ53).ȱ Theȱ boundaryȱ betweenȱ one’sȱ ownȱ andȱ aȱ foreignȱ cultureȱ doesȱ notȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱerased.ȱ Theȱ “cultureȬasȬtext”ȱ approachȱ formedȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ theȱ culturalȱ turnȱ andȱ broughtȱ aboutȱ itsȱ dynamics.ȱ Byȱ focusingȱ onȱ culturalȱmeaningsȱemergingȱoutȱofȱprocessesȱofȱsignification,ȱitȱ brokeȱawayȱfromȱanȱelitistȱunderstandingȱasȱproposedȱbyȱMatȬ thewȱArnoldȱ(Arnoldȱ1960),ȱandȱoffersȱaȱholisticȱconceptȱofȱculȬ ture.ȱ Fromȱ thisȱ perspective,ȱ “everything”ȱ turnsȱ intoȱ culture.ȱ “Culture”ȱ signifiesȱ “aȱ wholeȱ wayȱ ofȱ life”ȱ (Williamsȱ 1958)ȱ ofȱ aȱ groupȱofȱindividuals,ȱ whoȱdevelopȱsharedȱconventionsȱforȱtheȱmutualȱcorrelationȱ ofȱ signifiersȱ andȱ signifieds.…ȱ Theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ convenȬ tionalȱ codesȱ inȱ variousȱ signȱ processesȱ …ȱ providesȱ stabilityȱ forȱtheȱinteractionsȱofȱtheȱmembersȱofȱaȱculture,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱ messagesȱ varyȱ substantially.(Posnerȱ 2003:ȱ 43ȱ [myȱ translaȬ tion])ȱ

Theȱmetaphorȱofȱtextȱlocatesȱtheȱbeginningsȱofȱtheȱculturalȱ turnȱinȱaȱmodernȱconceptȱofȱcultureȱ(Tannerȱ1997:ȱ25Ȭ37).ȱItȱconȬ sidersȱcultureȱaȱhumanȱuniversalȱthatȱtakesȱonȱparticularȱformsȱ andȱ distinctȱ lifestyles.ȱ Cultureȱ isȱ constitutedȱ byȱ conventionsȱ basedȱonȱtheȱconsensusȱofȱaȱgroup.ȱInȱshort,ȱcultureȱappearsȱtoȱ beȱaȱdifferentiating,ȱholistic,ȱandȱcontextȬdependentȱentity.ȱTheȱ understandingȱ ofȱ cultureȱ asȱ anȱ anthropologicalȱ universalȱ inȱ pluralȱrealisationsȱerectsȱaȱdichotomyȱbetweenȱtheȱselfȱandȱtheȱ otherȱandȱestablishesȱclearȱboundariesȱbetweenȱcultures.ȱDrawȬ ingȱ onȱ thisȱ concept,ȱ anthropologyȱ aimsȱ atȱ nonȬevaluative,ȱ deȬ scriptiveȱrepresentationsȱofȱforeignȱcultures.ȱ Poststructural/PostcolonialȱIrritationsȱ Thisȱhermeneuticalȱapproachȱtoȱ“cultureȱasȱtext”ȱwasȱhighlyȱinȬ fluentialȱ butȱ alsoȱ massivelyȱ attackedȱ fromȱ poststructuralȱ andȱ postcolonialȱperspectives.ȱTheȱmainȱpointsȱofȱcriticismȱfocusȱonȱ itsȱstaticȱnatureȱandȱholismȱandȱtheȱclearȱboundariesȱitȱassumesȱ betweenȱ cultures.ȱ Theȱ changesȱ thisȱ conceptȱ ofȱ cultureȱ underȬ wentȱcanȱbeȱsummarisedȱinȱthreeȱkeyȱterms.ȱ


a)ȱPerformanceȱ Metaphorisedȱ asȱ text,ȱ cultureȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ holisticȱ andȱ selfȬ containedȱsystemȱofȱmeaning.ȱThisȱconceptȱfocusesȱonȱtheȱsediȬ mentationȱ ofȱ meaningȱ inȱ textsȱ andȱ theirȱ interpretationsȱ byȱ anȬ thropologists,ȱ whichȱ impliesȱ aȱ separationȱ betweenȱ textȱ andȱ reader.ȱInȱaȱcriticalȱresponse,ȱtheȱtextualȱconceptȱisȱexpandedȱbyȱ aȱ focusȱ onȱperformance.ȱ Theȱ performativeȱ turnȱ drawsȱ onȱ Johnȱ Austin’sȱ speechȱ actȱ theoryȱ (Austinȱ 1962)ȱ andȱ Victorȱ Turner’sȱ ritualȱ theoryȱ (Turnerȱ 1967).ȱ Cultureȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ textȱ containingȱ meaningȱ butȱ aȱ processȱ generatingȱ meaning.ȱ Culturalȱ meaningȱ isȱnotȱjustȱpresentȱandȱavailableȱinȱtextsȱbutȱisȱrefiguredȱandȱreȬ constructedȱagainȱandȱagainȱinȱperformativeȱstagings.ȱHere,ȱtheȱ liminalȱphaseȱofȱritualsȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱhighlyȱproductive:ȱfamiliarȱ meaningȱ attributionsȱ areȱ suspended,ȱ theyȱ areȱ openȱ toȱ creativeȱ transformationsȱandȱtoȱtheȱdeconstructionȱofȱsocialȱorders.ȱTheȱ stabilisingȱ functionȱ ofȱ ritualsȱ isȱ juxtaposedȱ byȱ theirȱ massiveȱ potentialȱforȱchangeȱinȱtheȱperformanceȱofȱculturalȱidentity.ȱTheȱ performanceȱandȱnegotiationȱofȱmeaningȱthusȱcannotȱbeȱseparȬ atedȱfromȱtheirȱpoliticalȱimplications.ȱ Theȱcategoryȱofȱperformanceȱunderminesȱtheȱstaticȱnatureȱ ofȱ theȱ textualȱ metaphorȱ –ȱ “performanceȱ isȱ aȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ proȬ cess”ȱ(Schechnerȱ1987:ȱ8).ȱGivenȱitsȱperformativeȱcharacter,ȱculȬ tureȱ canȱ beȱ conceivedȱ asȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ praxisȱ thatȱ generatesȱ meaning.ȱMeaningȱisȱnotȱjustȱaȱgivenȱinȱaȱstaticȱtextȱbutȱisȱconȬ stantlyȱtransformedȱandȱconstructed.ȱSubsequently,ȱ organicȱcultureȱ[is]ȱreconceivedȱasȱinventiveȱprocessȱorȱcreȬ olizedȱ “interculture”.…ȱ [A]mbiguityȱ keepsȱ theȱ planet’sȱ loȬ calȱfuturesȱuncertainȱandȱopen.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱmasterȱnarrativeȱ thatȱ canȱ reconcileȱ theȱ tragicȱ andȱ comicȱ plotsȱ ofȱ globalȱ culȬ turalȱhistory.ȱ(Cliffordȱ1988:ȱ15)ȱ

Asȱ aȱ keyȱ word,ȱ performanceȱ drawsȱ attentionȱ toȱ cultures’ȱ diaȬ chronicȱinstabilityȱandȱsynchronicȱopenness.ȱ b)ȱPowerȱ Theȱpervasiveȱroleȱofȱpowerȱwasȱlargelyȱignoredȱinȱtheȱ“cultureȱ asȱtext”ȱapproach.ȱInȱpostȬmodernȱdiscourse,ȱhowever,ȱdrawingȱ onȱ Michelȱ Foucault’sȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ inseparableȱ interdepenȬ denceȱ ofȱ pouvoirȱ andȱ savoir,ȱ itȱ movesȱ toȱ centreȱ stage.ȱ Foucaultȱ drawsȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱculturalȱidentityȱisȱnotȱinnocentȱ butȱ arisesȱ outȱ ofȱ conflictualȱ representationsȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ linkȱ


betweenȱ powerȱ andȱ knowledge.ȱ Theirȱ correlationȱ formsȱ discoursesȱthatȱcreateȱrealitiesȱbyȱproducing,ȱrepresenting,ȱandȱ legitimisingȱ identities.ȱ Foucault’sȱ approachȱ hadȱ aȱ hugeȱ impactȱ onȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ culture;ȱ Britishȱ culturalȱ studiesȱ (Hallȱ 1992),ȱ e.g.,ȱaȱschoolȱhighlyȱinfluentialȱforȱtheȱculturalȱturn,ȱlocatesȱitȱinȱ anȱ inextricableȱ triangleȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ power,ȱ andȱ identity.ȱ Basedȱ onȱanȱanalysisȱofȱhegemonicȱstructuresȱ(Gramsciȱ1971),ȱcultureȱ isȱ conceivedȱ asȱ anȱ imminentlyȱ politicalȱ term.ȱ Inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ powerȱasȱaȱforceȱconstructingȱidentityȱandȱreality,ȱcultureȱisȱnotȱ justȱ “aȱ wholeȱ wayȱ ofȱ life,”ȱ butȱ “aȱ wholeȱ wayȱ ofȱ struggle”ȱ (Thompsonȱ1959:ȱ52).ȱTheȱfocusȱonȱpowerȱunderminesȱaȱholisticȱ viewȱofȱcultureȱandȱexposesȱitsȱinnerȱhierarchies,ȱtensions,ȱandȱ fissures.ȱ Here,ȱ cultureȱ doesȱ notȱ appearȱ toȱ beȱ neutralȱ andȱ uniȬ formȱ anymoreȱ butȱ partialȱ andȱ fragmented.ȱ Theȱ formationȱ ofȱ culturalȱ identityȱ isȱ aȱ permanentȱ struggleȱ forȱ representation.ȱ Culture,ȱ therefore,ȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ anȱ arenaȱ ofȱ conflict,ȱ aȱ perȬ formativeȱ negotiationȱ ofȱ identityȱ throughȱ differencesȱ inȱ unstaȬ bleȱconstellations.ȱ c)ȱIdentityȱ Aȱcriticalȱandȱsubversiveȱanalysisȱofȱidentityȱisȱtheȱmajorȱmotorȱ behindȱ postmodernȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ culture.ȱ Theȱ modernȱ ideaȱ ofȱ culturalȱ andȱ individualȱ identityȱ asȱ aȱ selfȬcontained,ȱ stable,ȱ auȬ tonomousȱ entityȱ isȱ calledȱ intoȱ questionȱ onȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ fronts.ȱ Epistemologically,ȱthisȱcritiqueȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ“crisisȱofȱrepreȬ sentation”:ȱ aȱ criticalȱ philosophyȱ ofȱ languageȱ underminesȱ theȱ correspondenceȱtheoryȱofȱlanguageȱandȱrealityȱ–ȱpoststructuralȱ andȱantiȬrepresentationalȱapproachesȱpointȱtoȱtheȱunstableȱandȱ floatingȱrelationȱofȱsignifierȱandȱsignified,ȱofȱsignsȱandȱofȱwhatȱ theyȱ represent.ȱ Theȱ historicalȱ andȱ politicalȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ theȱ epistemologicalȱ crisisȱ areȱ investigatedȱ inȱ theȱ “writingȱ cultureȱ debate”ȱ(CliffordȱandȱMarcusȱ1986),ȱaȱdiscussionȱoccurringȱpriȬ marilyȱwithinȱanthropology:ȱaȱcritiqueȱofȱrepresentationȱrevealsȱ theȱdiscontinuityȱandȱasymmetryȱofȱtheȱpraxisȱofȱrepresentationȱ andȱ underminesȱ theȱ illusionȱ ofȱ theȱ neutralȱ observationȱ ofȱ forȬ eignȱ cultures.ȱ Farȱ fromȱ beingȱ aȱ descriptiveȱ accountȱ byȱ outsidȬ ers,ȱtheȱrepresentationȱofȱculturalȱidentityȱis,ȱinȱfact,ȱpoesisȱ(ClifȬ fordȱ 1986:ȱ 16),ȱ aȱ constructionȱ relyingȱ onȱ rhetoricalȱ means.ȱ Itȱ isȱ conditionedȱ “contextually,ȱ rhetorically,ȱ institutionally,ȱ genericȬ ally,ȱpolitically,ȱhistorically”ȱ(Cliffordȱ1986:ȱ6),ȱandȱisȱbasedȱonȱ “strategiesȱofȱellipsis,ȱconcealmentȱandȱpartialȱdisclosure”ȱ(ClifȬ


fordȱ 1986:ȱ 7).ȱ Anthropologicalȱ representationȱ ofȱ culturalȱ idenȬ tityȱthusȱcreatesȱ“partialȱtruths”ȱ(Cliffordȱ1986:ȱ7):ȱtheyȱareȱparȬ tial,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ remainȱ necessarilyȱ incompleteȱ andȱ fragȬ mented,ȱ which,ȱ subsequently,ȱ alsoȱ makesȱ themȱ partialȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱofȱoneȬsided,ȱbiased.ȱTheȱissueȱofȱculturalȱrepresentationȱ isȱ predominantlyȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ power.ȱ Itȱ arisesȱ notȱ onlyȱ beȬ tweenȱanthropologistsȱandȱtheȱculturesȱtheyȱrepresentȱbutȱalsoȱ withinȱculturesȱ(Spivakȱ1988).ȱ Theȱ writingȱ cultureȱ debateȱ andȱ itsȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ identityȱ reȬ presentationȱ undermineȱ aȱ holisticȱ andȱ separativeȱ conceptȱ ofȱ cultureȱ andȱ callȱ forȱ aȱ complexȱ andȱ intricateȱ understandingȱ ofȱ identity.ȱ Representationȱ isȱ aȱ processȱ determinedȱ byȱ asymȬ metricalȱ powerȱ relationsȱ withȱ noȱ neutralȱ outsiderȱ perspective,ȱ whichȱ actuallyȱ createsȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ theȱ other.ȱ Edwardȱ Saidȱ givesȱthisȱthesisȱanȱevenȱsharperȱturn:ȱnotȱonlyȱisȱtheȱidentityȱofȱ theȱotherȱcreatedȱinȱtheseȱelaborateȱprocessesȱofȱrepresentation,ȱ butȱtheȱotherȱisȱalsoȱconstructedȱasȱaȱnegativeȱfoilȱagainstȱwhichȱ one’sȱ ownȱ identityȱ isȱ constitutedȱ (Saidȱ 1978).ȱ Said’sȱ analysisȱ revealsȱtheȱinseparableȱinterminglingȱofȱcultures.ȱCultureȱisȱalȬ waysȱrelational,ȱculturalȱidentityȱisȱconstructedȱinȱconflictȬladenȱ andȱviolentȱdifferentiationsȱatȱporousȱandȱunstableȱborders.ȱItȱisȱ notȱpureȱandȱstable.ȱRather,ȱitȱisȱaȱhybridȱphenomenonȱ(Bhabhaȱ 1994;ȱseeȱalsoȱYoungȱ1995)ȱreconstructedȱagainȱandȱagainȱinȱtheȱ liminalȱintersticesȱofȱintraȬȱandȱinterculturalȱdifferences.ȱ CultureȱasȱTranslationȱ Performance,ȱpower,ȱandȱtheȱprecariousȱstateȱofȱidentityȱcallȱforȱ aȱmoreȱdynamicȱconceptȱofȱcultureȱ–ȱtheȱmetaphorȱofȱ“text”ȱisȱ replacedȱbyȱ“translation”ȱ(Bassnettȱ1998).ȱ“Translation”ȱevokesȱ changeȱ andȱ interaction;ȱ itȱ breaksȱ downȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ binaryȱ opȬ positionsȱ betweenȱ culturesȱ asȱ fixedȱ entitiesȱ andȱ thusȱ defiesȱ anȱ essentialist,ȱstatic,ȱandȱholisticȱconceptȱofȱculture.ȱ AȱtheoryȱofȱtranslationalȱcultureȱisȱbasedȱonȱaȱcomplexȱunȬ derstandingȱ ofȱ translation.ȱ Culturalȱ translationȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ reȬ productionȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ meaningȱ butȱ itsȱ transformationȱ inȱ theȱ processesȱ ofȱ identificationȱ throughȱ differences.ȱ Culturalȱ idenȬ tityȱhasȱalwaysȱbeenȱinvolvedȱinȱtranslations;ȱitȱcannotȱbeȱtracedȱ backȱtoȱaȱstable,ȱessentialȱbasis.ȱOneȱneverȱfindsȱtheȱ“roots”ȱofȱaȱ cultureȱbutȱcanȱonlyȱfollowȱtheȱcomplex,ȱbroken,ȱpowerȬriddenȱ routesȱ(Cliffordȱ1997)ȱofȱitsȱidentificationȱvisȱàȱvisȱtheȱothers.ȱ


Translationȱentailsȱaȱdynamisationȱofȱculturesȱandȱtriggersȱ aȱdoubleȱdecentration:ȱtranslationsȱtakeȱplaceȱprimarilyȱatȱborȬ ders;ȱ theȱ borderȱ isȱ theȱ “hottestȱ spot”ȱ (Lotmanȱ 1990:ȱ 136Ȭ37)ȱ ofȱ culturalȱidentityȱconstruction.ȱHence,ȱhybridityȱasȱaȱvitalȱcharȬ acteristicȱofȱtheȱborderȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱaȱminglingȱbutȱaȱdomainȱofȱ actionȱ markedȱ byȱ processesȱ ofȱ translation.ȱ Migrantsȱ epitomiseȱ theȱstruggleȱforȱidentityȱbetweenȱculturesȱ–ȱdiasporaȱ(Hallȱ1993)ȱ unsettlesȱculturalȱdifferencesȱandȱcausesȱaȱfurtherȱdecentringȱbyȱ movingȱdifferencesȱfromȱtheȱborderȱofȱaȱcultureȱintoȱitsȱcentre.ȱ Especiallyȱ atȱ theȱ marginsȱ andȱ inȱ migration,ȱ then,ȱ theȱ politicalȱ implicationsȱofȱtranslationsȱbecomeȱapparent.ȱTranslationȱisȱnotȱ neutral,ȱ “neverȱ …ȱ innocent”ȱ (Alvarezȱ andȱ Vidalȱ 1996:ȱ 5).ȱ Asȱ identityȬconstructingȱdiscourses,ȱtranslationsȱareȱenmeshedȱintoȱ theȱ inextricableȱ connexȱ ofȱ powerȱ andȱ knowledge.ȱ Translationȱ doesȱ notȱ reproduceȱ butȱ transformsȱ meaningȱ andȱ isȱ thusȱ inȬ volvedȱinȱcomplexȱprocessesȱofȱselection,ȱinterpretation,ȱandȱreȬ writingȱ inȱ theȱ hegemonicȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ cultures.ȱ Asȱ aȱ poȬ liticalȱ discourse,ȱ translationȱ isȱ aȱ powerfulȱ instrumentȱ inȱ theȱ struggleȱforȱrepresentationȱandȱidentityȱconstruction;ȱitȱisȱanȱefȬ fectiveȱ meansȱ inȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ violentȱ appropriationȱ butȱ alsoȱ createsȱrealmsȱofȱresistanceȱandȱsubversionȱ(Thiong’oȱ1986).ȱ TranslationalȱCultureȱasȱaȱLocusȱTheologicusȱ InȱtheȱparadigmȱofȱtranslationȱasȱaȱdynamicȱprocessȱofȱpowerȬ riddenȱ identityȱ constructions,ȱ cultureȱ turnsȱ intoȱ aȱ precariousȱ andȱdemandingȱlocusȱofȱtheologicalȱreasoning.ȱTheȱtheologicalȱ challengeȱ posedȱ byȱ cultureȱ isȱ theȱ paradoxicalȱ structureȱ ofȱ uniȬ versalityȱandȱparticularity.ȱSemioticallyȱspeaking,ȱtheologyȱhasȱ toȱ tackleȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ theȱ universalȱ messageȱ ofȱ theȱ Christȱeventȱandȱtheȱsignsȱandȱcodesȱofȱparticularȱculturalȱsignȱ systems,ȱtheȱsoleȱmeansȱthroughȱwhichȱtheȱmessageȱcanȱbeȱexȬ pressed.ȱTheseȱsignȱsystems,ȱhowever,ȱcannotȱbeȱconsideredȱacȬ cidentalȱ husksȱ forȱ theȱ essentialȱ kernelȱ ofȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱ Rather,ȱ theyȱareȱendlessȱwebsȱofȱmeaningȱintoȱwhichȱtheȱmessageȱisȱinȬ separablyȱenmeshed.ȱAȱconceptȱofȱcultureȱthatȱstressesȱdisconȬ tinuity,ȱ fissures,ȱ plurality,ȱ conflictualȱ powerȱ plays,ȱ instability,ȱ andȱ antiȬessentialismȱ highlightsȱ theȱ precariousȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ theȱone,ȱuniversalȱGospelȱandȱplural,ȱparticularȱcultures.ȱGivenȱ theȱ inescapableȱ entanglementȱ ofȱ theȱ messageȱ intoȱ particularȱ


signȱ systems,ȱ itsȱ universalityȱ andȱ unityȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ soughtȱ andȱ arguedȱforȱagainȱandȱagain.ȱ SynchronicȱUniversality:ȱCatholicityȱasȱInterculturationȱ Inȱviewȱofȱtheȱpluralityȱofȱbothȱtimeȱandȱplace,ȱuniversalityȱhasȱ aȱsynchronicȱandȱaȱdiachronicȱdimension.ȱInȱChristianȱtradition,ȱ theȱ synchronicȱ dimensionȱ hasȱ beenȱ termedȱ catholicity.ȱ Itȱ enȬ visionsȱ aȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ universalȱ unityȱ visȱ àȱ visȱ aȱ pluralityȱ ofȱ fragmentedȱculturalȱloci.ȱAȱpostmodernȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱconceptȱ ofȱ cultureȱ andȱ itsȱ attackȱ onȱ essentialistȱ universalsȱ underminesȱ theȱideaȱofȱaȱcultureȬlessȱGospelȱandȱnecessitatesȱaȱthoroughȱreȬ configurationȱofȱtheologicalȱtheoriesȱofȱGospelȬcultureȱrelations.ȱ Forȱexample,ȱinculturationȱasȱanȱanalogonȱtoȱincarnationȱdrawsȱ onȱ essentialistȱ conceptions:ȱ cultureȱ asȱ aȱ fixedȱ entityȱ offersȱ aȱ huskȱintoȱwhichȱ theȱGospelȱ asȱaȱ supratemporalȱandȱsupraspaȬ tialȱ kernelȱ isȱ incarnated.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ theȱ semioticȱ paradigm,ȱ Derrida’sȱ “ilȱ n’yȱ aȱ pasȱ deȱ horsȬtexte”ȱ alsoȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ appliedȱ toȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱ TheȱGospel,ȱ too,ȱ isȱ enmeshedȱ inȱsignȱ systemsȱ conȬ stitutiveȱforȱitsȱmeaning;ȱitȱisȱneverȱextraȬcultural.ȱThereby,ȱinȬ culturationȱhasȱalwaysȱalreadyȱbeenȱanȱinterculturalȱprocess.ȱ TheȱGospel’sȱculturalȱinterwovennessȱisȱfurtherȱcomplicatȬ edȱ byȱ theȱ complexitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ translationalȱ conceptȱ ofȱ culture.ȱ Culturesȱasȱhybrid,ȱunstable,ȱandȱfissuredȱconstellationsȱareȱnotȱ emptyȱhusksȱthatȱreceiveȱtheȱGospelȱbutȱdomainsȱofȱproductiveȱ andȱcreativeȱnegotiationȱofȱmeaning.ȱAccordingly,ȱcatholicityȱisȱ notȱaȱstatic,ȱtranslocal,ȱuniversalȱentityȱprecedingȱtheȱparticularȱ inculturationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Gospel.ȱ Rather,ȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ processȱ ofȱ interculȬ turationȱtakingȱplaceȱinȱtheȱintersticesȱofȱunstableȱcultures.ȱ DiachronicȱUniversality:ȱApostolicityȱasȱTranslationȱ WhileȱcatholicityȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱsynchronicȱdimensionȱofȱuniverȬ sality,ȱ theȱ termȱ apostolicityȱ invokesȱ itsȱ diachronicȱ dimension.ȱ AccordingȱtoȱActsȱ1:21f.,ȱapostolicityȱisȱtoȱguaranteeȱcontinuityȱ betweenȱ Christȱ andȱ theȱ Church.ȱ Howȱ canȱ continuityȱ beȱ unȬ derstoodȱinȱaȱparadigmȱofȱcultureȱthatȱstressesȱchangeȱandȱdisȬ continuity,ȱ fractions,ȱ andȱ deflectionsȱ ofȱ traditions?ȱ Withinȱ thisȱ framework,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ historyȱ isȱ problematized:ȱ itsȱ postuȬ latedȱ unityȱ isȱ challengedȱ andȱ replacedȱ byȱ fracturedȱ stories.ȱ Again,ȱatȱtheȱcoreȱofȱtheȱcritiqueȱisȱtheȱquestionȱofȱpowerfulȱreȬ presentation:ȱhistoryȱcannotȱbeȱseenȱasȱanȱobjectiveȱaccountȱbutȱ appearsȱtoȱbeȱfictionsȱinfluencedȱbyȱconflictingȱinterestsȱ(Whiteȱ


1978).ȱ Identityȱ cannotȱ beȱ postulatedȱ toȱ beȱ uniformȱ andȱ justȱ beȱ takenȱforȱgrantedȱbutȱhasȱtoȱbeȱreconstitutedȱoutȱofȱfissuresȱandȱ differencesȱagainȱandȱagain.ȱAgainstȱthisȱbackdrop,ȱapostolicityȱ asȱtheȱpreservationȱofȱfidelityȱtoȱtheȱoriginȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱaȱcomȬ plexȱ processȱ ofȱ translations.ȱ Diachronicȱ Christianȱ identity,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ itsȱ foundationȱ inȱ theȱ revelationȱ ofȱ theȱ Christȱ event,ȱ cannotȱbeȱboiledȱdownȱtoȱaȱsingleȱunchangeableȱessenceȱbutȱhasȱ toȱbeȱarticulatedȱandȱnegotiatedȱagainȱandȱagainȱinȱeachȱculturȬ alȱcontext.ȱInȱthatȱrespectȱitȱhasȱbeenȱfundamentallyȱshapedȱbyȱ processesȱ ofȱ translation.ȱ Theȱ scripture,ȱ itsȱ normaȱ normans,ȱ deȬ velopedȱoutȱofȱaȱdoubleȱtranslation:ȱlinguistically,ȱaȱtranslationȱ ofȱ Jesuanicȱ Aramaicȱ intoȱ biblicalȱ Greek,ȱ and,ȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ media,ȱaȱtransitionȱfromȱoralȱtoȱwrittenȱtradition.ȱTradition,ȱasȱ normaȱ normata,ȱ takesȱ placeȱ inȱ culturalȱ translations.ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ crossingȱfromȱJewishȱintoȱHellenisticȱculturesȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱforȬ mativeȱ byȱ revealingȱ Christianity’sȱ opennessȱ towardsȱ culturalȱ plurality.ȱ Thus,ȱ diachronicȱ universalityȱ asȱ apostolicityȱ canȱ beȱ describedȱasȱaȱconflictiveȱprocessȱofȱtransformations:ȱChristianȱ identityȱisȱnotȱaȱpredeterminedȱgivenȱtoȱbeȱrigidlyȱdefendedȱbutȱ anȱunstableȱnarrativeȱthatȱhasȱtoȱproveȱitsȱsignificanceȱinȱpluralȬ isticȱtimesȱandȱculturesȱandȱisȱinȱneedȱofȱcriteriaȱforȱitsȱrespecȬ tiveȱauthenticity.ȱ Culturedȱ Universality:ȱ Ecclesiologicalȱ Mediation,ȱ EschatologicȬ alȱProviso,ȱandȱaȱHermeneuticsȱofȱSuspicionȱ Atȱ theȱ locusȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ universalityȱ isȱ reȬ ferredȱtoȱasȱcatholicityȱandȱapostolicityȱandȱisȱthusȱlocatedȱinȱanȱ ecclesiologicalȱ contextȱ –ȱ universalityȱ isȱ rootedȱ inȱ theȱ Churchȱ andȱitsȱinescapableȱentanglementȱinȱdiachronicȱandȱsynchronicȱ processesȱ ofȱ witnessȱ andȱ mediation,ȱ whichȱ takeȱ placeȱ asȱ comȬ plexȱtranslationsȱandȱtransformationsȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtraditionȱ andȱ betweenȱ localȱ churches.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ translations,ȱ theȱ wholeȱ churchȱisȱapostolic,ȱi.e.ȱdrawingȱfaithfullyȱonȱtheȱapostles’ȱwitȬ ness.ȱ Thus,ȱ inȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ way,ȱ itȱ isȱ thrownȱ backȱ onȱ proȬ cessesȱofȱmediation.ȱItȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱdirectȱaccessȱtoȱitsȱfoundȬ ingȱ event;ȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ witnessȱ –ȱ andȱ thusȱ plural,ȱ deferredȱ mediationsȱ andȱ translationsȱ –ȱ isȱ itsȱ irreducibleȱ basis.ȱ Theȱ uniȬ versalȱperspectiveȱofȱChristianityȱcannotȱbeȱgraspedȱoutsideȱofȱ particularȱ signȱ systemsȱ andȱ stands,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ church,ȱ underȱanȱeschatologicalȱproviso.ȱMoreover,ȱinȱtheȱparadigmȱofȱ


translationalȱ culture,ȱ aȱ universalȱ perspectiveȱ onȱ fragmentedȱ particularitiesȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ subjectedȱ toȱ aȱ hermeneuticsȱ ofȱ suspiȬ cion.ȱ Isȱ theȱ universalȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ catholicityȱ conceivedȱ asȱ unityȱ inȱ pluriformityȱ –ȱ inȱ correspondenceȱ toȱ culturalȱ pluralityȱ andȱinȱanalogyȱtoȱtheȱTrinity?ȱOrȱdoesȱitȱturnȱoutȱtoȱbeȱaȱpowȬ erfulȱ assertionȱ ofȱ oneȱ particularityȱ atȱ theȱ expenseȱ ofȱ others?ȱ Again,ȱagainstȱtheȱbackdropȱofȱculturalȱdisparityȱandȱdiscontinȬ uity,ȱ questionsȱ ofȱ criteriaȱ forȱ normativityȱ andȱ continuityȱ beȬ comeȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱvirulent.ȱ Theseȱfewȱnotesȱmustȱsufficeȱinȱorderȱtoȱshowȱthatȱaȱcriticalȱ receptionȱ andȱ explorationȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ culturalȱ studiesȱ challengeȱ ourȱ understandingȱ ofȱ Christianȱ faith.ȱ Aȱtranslationalȱ conceptȱ ofȱ cultureȱ asȱ aȱ locusȱ theologicusȱ callsȱ forȱ aȱ reconfigurȬ ationȱofȱtraditionalȱtermsȱlikeȱcatholicityȱandȱapostolicity.ȱHowȱ then,ȱonȱaȱsecondaryȱlevel,ȱdoesȱthisȱcomplexȱconceptȱinfluenceȱ ourȱunderstandingȱofȱtheology?ȱHowȱisȱtheologyȱtoȱbeȱmappedȱ outȱatȱtheȱlocusȱofȱculture?ȱ TheologyȱinȱTranslationalȱCulturesȱ Asȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ praxisȱ ofȱ faith,ȱ theologyȱ isȱ rootedȱ inȱ aȱ doubleȱ wayȱ inȱ aȱ specificȱ locus,ȱ outȱ ofȱ whichȱ thisȱ practiceȱgainsȱitȱparticularȱmeaning.ȱConsequently,ȱallȱtheologȬ icalȱ reflectionȱ isȱ contextualȱ inȱ aȱ twofoldȱ way:ȱ first,ȱ itȱ operatesȱ withinȱaȱparticularȱcontextȱwhichȱprovidesȱsignsȱandȱcodesȱforȱ itsȱspecificȱjargon;ȱsecond,ȱitsȱtaskȱisȱtoȱanalyseȱthisȱspecificȱconȬ textȱasȱaȱframeȱofȱreference,ȱwithinȱwhichȱtheȱGospelȱarticulatesȱ itsȱmeaning.ȱHere,ȱcultureȱasȱaȱlocusȱtheologicusȱcallsȱforȱaȱdoubleȱ awarenessȱofȱtheȱculturalityȱofȱChristianȱfaithȱandȱitsȱreflection.ȱ Oneȱ coreȱ taskȱ ofȱ aȱ culturallyȱ awareȱ theologyȱ isȱ toȱ accountȱ forȱ theȱ inevitableȱ culturalityȱ ofȱ Christianity,ȱ andȱ toȱ relateȱ itȱ toȱ itsȱ theologicalȱ analogon,ȱ incarnation.ȱ Further,ȱ theȱ factȱ ofȱ culturalȱ pluralityȱisȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱbeȱstatedȱdescriptively,ȱbutȱisȱtoȱbeȱtheoȬ logicallyȱ underpinnedȱ byȱ theȱ universalȱ claimȱ ofȱ theȱ particularȱ Christȱevent.ȱAtȱtheȱlocusȱtheologicusȱofȱculture,ȱtheologyȱhasȱtoȱ showȱthatȱChristianityȱisȱconstantlyȱbeingȱreconfiguredȱinȱplurȬ al,ȱconflictiveȱprocessesȱofȱmediationȱandȱtransformationȱwithinȱ andȱ betweenȱ culturalȱ signȱ systems.ȱ Thus,ȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ deeplyȱ impressedȱ byȱ interculturality.ȱ Theȱ testimonyȱ andȱ mediationȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ messageȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ oneȬdimensional,ȱ continuousȱ process,ȱ butȱ aȱ pluralȱ andȱ fragmentedȱ constellationȱ ofȱ identityȱ


constructions.ȱ Itsȱ universalȱ claimȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ tentativelyȱ tracedȱ andȱtheologicallyȱvalidatedȱasȱaȱprocessȱofȱinterculturationȱandȱ translation.ȱ Interculturality:ȱ TheologyȱbetweenȱtheȱUniversalȱandȱtheȱParticularȱ Thus,ȱ atȱ theȱ locusȱ ofȱ culture(s),ȱ theology,ȱ too,ȱ isȱ locatedȱ inȱ theȱ tensionȱbetweenȱparticularityȱandȱuniversality.ȱItȱhasȱtoȱdemonȬ strateȱ theȱ inescapableȱ culturalityȱ ofȱ Christianȱ faithȱ andȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ accountȱ forȱ theȱ universalȱ claimȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ Christȱ event.ȱ Itȱ hasȱ toȱ showȱ aȱ middleȱ wayȱ betweenȱ solipsismȱ andȱuniversalisationȱandȱisȱthusȱtoȱbeȱsituatedȱbetweenȱculturalȱ relativism,ȱ whichȱ claimsȱ thatȱ culturalȱ differencesȱ areȱ insurȬ mountable,ȱandȱethnocentrism,ȱwhichȱviolentlyȱsuppressesȱdifȬ ferencesȱ byȱ universalisingȱ aȱ particularȱ culture.ȱ Toȱ resistȱ theseȱ twoȱextremeȱstandpoints,ȱtheologyȱhasȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱsensitivityȱ toȱculturalȱdifferences.ȱDifferencesȱrevealȱtheȱbordersȱandȱlimitsȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ signȱ systemȱ andȱ simultaneouslyȱ openȱ themȱ up.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ inȱ theȱ intersticesȱ ofȱ culturesȱ aȱ universalȱ perspecȬ tiveȱisȱenvisionedȱwithoutȱactuallyȱeverȱtranscendingȱone’sȱparȬ ticularȱcontext.ȱAȱsensitivityȱforȱdifferencesȱenablesȱtheologyȱtoȱ catchȱupȱwithȱtheȱtensionȱofȱuniversalityȱandȱparticularity.ȱAndȱ aȱsensitivityȱ toȱ culturalȱdifferencesȱimpliesȱanȱinterculturalȱ apȬ proach.ȱItȱisȱanȱinterculturalȱtheology,ȱthen,ȱthatȱisȱableȱtoȱtheorȬ eticallyȱ takeȱ upȱ theȱ challengeȱ thatȱ cultureȱ asȱ aȱ locusȱ theologicusȱ poses,ȱ namelyȱ theȱ tensionȱ ofȱ universalityȱ andȱ particularity.ȱ Thusȱ characterisedȱ asȱ anȱ interculturalȱ project,ȱ theologyȱ hasȱ toȱ workȱonȱtwoȱtasks.ȱFirst,ȱitȱhasȱtoȱtackleȱtheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱaȱ sharedȱ Christianȱ identityȱ isȱ possibleȱ inȱ disparateȱ andȱ unstableȱ cultures.ȱTheologyȱhasȱtoȱdevelopȱandȱprovideȱcriteriaȱforȱtestȬ ingȱtheȱadequateȱmediationȱandȱauthenticȱintegrityȱofȱtheȱChrisȬ tianȱmessageȱinȱmultipleȱcultures.ȱSecondly,ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱambivȬ alenceȱofȱculturalȱsignȱsystems,ȱtheologyȱisȱchallengedȱtoȱgiveȱaȱ critiqueȱofȱculturesȱinȱorderȱtoȱdiscloseȱtheȱspecificȱandȱ“differȬ ent”ȱ attitudeȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ message,ȱ whichȱ neverȱ fullyȱ merȬ gesȱwithȱanyȱcultureȱbutȱoffersȱaȱsalvificȱcontrast.ȱTheȱGospelȱofȱ theȱKingdomȱofȱGod,ȱwhichȱisȱ“notȱofȱthisȱworld”ȱ(Johnȱ18:36),ȱ standsȱ underȱ anȱ eschatologicalȱ provisoȱ andȱ ultimatelyȱ rendersȱ Christianȱidentityȱalienȱandȱstrangeȱinȱthisȱworldȱ(1ȱPeterȱ2:11).ȱ ȱ


Outlooks:ȱHermeneutical,ȱEpistemological,ȱ andȱMethodologicalȱChallengesȱ Theȱ translationalȱ conceptȱ ofȱ culture,ȱ whichȱ stressesȱ instability,ȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ power,ȱ andȱ theȱ precariousȱ stateȱ ofȱ identity,ȱ turnsȱ interculturalȱ theologyȱ intoȱ aȱ problematicȱ endeavour.ȱ Inȱ whatȱ followsȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱsketchȱaȱfewȱideasȱforȱtheȱhermeneutical,ȱ epistemological,ȱ andȱ methodologicalȱ designȱ ofȱ interculturalȱ theology.ȱ Hermeneuticsȱisȱaboutȱunderstandingȱtheȱ–ȱculturalȱandȱreȬ ligiousȱ–ȱother.ȱInterculturalȱtheologyȱhasȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱhermenȬ euticalȱ sensitivityȱ thatȱ isȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ identityȱ conȬ structionȱ alongȱ theȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ oneselfȱ andȱ theȱ other.ȱ Anȱinterculturalȱhermeneuticsȱisȱchallengedȱtoȱacknowledgeȱtheȱ foreignnessȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ onȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ ownȱ termsȱ andȱ isȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱtimeȱopenȱtoȱaȱchangeȱinȱone’sȱownȱidentity.ȱ Epistemologically,ȱ interculturalȱ theologyȱ hasȱ toȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱtensionȱofȱuniversalityȱandȱparticularity.ȱItȱopensȱupȱaȱmidȬ dleȱ wayȱ betweenȱ culturalȱ solipsismȱ andȱ aȱ universalisationȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ pointȱ ofȱ view.ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ linkȱ betweenȱ powerȱ andȱ knowledgeȱ posesȱ anȱ acuteȱ problem.ȱ Interculturalȱ theologyȱ hasȱ toȱ provideȱ criteriaȱ forȱ detectingȱ ideologicalȱ tendenciesȱ andȱ hegemonicȱ relationsȱ inȱ theȱ culturalȱ formationȱ ofȱ globalȱ ChrisȬ tianity.ȱ Methodologically,ȱinterculturalȱencountersȱofȱlocalȱchurchȬ esȱ andȱ contextualȱ theologiesȱ canȱ beȱ analysedȱ asȱ complexȱ proȬ cessesȱ ofȱ translation.ȱ Interculturalȱ theologyȱ hasȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ relationȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ andȱ culturalȱ translation,ȱ considerȱ itsȱ inȬ volvementȱ inȱ powerȬdominated,ȱ knowledgeȬcreatingȱ discoursȬ es,ȱandȱthusȱitsȱpoliticalȱchargeȱandȱconstitutiveȱroleȱforȱtheȱconȬ structionȱ ofȱ Christianȱ identityȱ betweenȱ unstableȱ culturalȱ signȱ systemsȱthatȱarticulateȱtheȱGospel.ȱ Literatureȱ Alvarez,ȱR.,ȱandȱC.ȱVidal.ȱ“Translating:ȱAȱPoliticalȱAct.”ȱIn:ȱR.ȱAlvarezȱ andȱC.ȱVidalȱ(eds.).ȱTranslation,ȱPower,ȱSubversion.ȱClevedon:ȱMulȬ tilingualȱMatters.ȱPp.ȱ1Ȭ9.ȱ Arnold,ȱ Matthew.ȱ (1960).ȱ Cultureȱ andȱ Anarchy.ȱ Ed.ȱ J.ȱ Doverȱ Wilson.ȱ Landmarksȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Education.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress.ȱFirstȱpublishedȱinȱ1869.ȱ

412ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Austin,ȱ J.ȱ (1962).ȱ Howȱ toȱ Doȱ Thingsȱ withȱ Words.ȱ Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ UniversityȱPress.ȱ Bassnett,ȱ S.ȱ (1998).ȱ “Theȱ Translationȱ Turnȱ inȱ Culturalȱ Studies.”ȱ In:ȱ S.ȱ Bassnettȱ andȱ A.ȱ Lefevereȱ (eds.).ȱ Constructingȱ Cultures:ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ LiteraryȱTranslation.ȱClevedon:ȱMultilingualȱMatters.ȱPp.ȱ123Ȭ40.ȱ Bhabha,ȱH.ȱ(1994).ȱTheȱLocationȱofȱCulture.ȱLondonȱetȱal.:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Clifford,ȱ J.ȱ (1997).ȱ Routes:ȱ Travelȱ andȱ Translationȱ inȱ theȱ Lateȱ Twentiethȱ Century.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (1988).ȱ Theȱ Predicamentȱ ofȱ Culture:ȱ TwentiethȬCenturyȱ Ethnography,ȱ Literature,ȱandȱArt.ȱCambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ (1986).ȱ“PartialȱTruths.”ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱCliffordȱandȱG.ȱMarcus.ȱ(eds.).ȱWritȬ ingȱ Culture:ȱ Theȱ Poeticsȱ andȱ Politicsȱ ofȱ Ethnography.ȱ Berkeley:ȱ UniȬ versityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ1Ȭ26.ȱ andȱG.ȱMarcusȱ(eds.).ȱ(1986).ȱWritingȱCulture:ȱTheȱPoeticsȱandȱPolȬ iticsȱofȱEthnography.ȱBerkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress.ȱ Eckholt,ȱM.ȱ(2000).ȱ“Kulturȱalsȱneuerȱ‘locusȱtheologicus’:ȱPerspektivenȱ fürȱtheologischesȱDenkenȱaufȱdemȱWegȱinȱdieȱ‘neueȱÖkumene’.”ȱ In:ȱ R.ȱ FornetȬBetancourtȱ (ed.).ȱ Kapitalistischeȱ Globalisierungȱ undȱ Befreiung:ȱReligiöseȱErfahrungenȱundȱOptionȱfürȱdasȱLeben.ȱFrankfurt:ȱ IKO.ȱPp.ȱ416Ȭ33.ȱ Essen,ȱ G.ȱ (2007).ȱ “Interkulturelleȱ Theologie.“ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Straub,ȱ A.ȱ WeideȬ mann,ȱ andȱ D.ȱ Weidemannȱ (eds.).ȱ Handbuchȱ interkulturelleȱ KomȬ munikationȱundȱKompetenz:ȱGrundbegriffeȱ–ȱTheorienȱ–ȱAnwendungsȬ felder.ȱStuttgart:ȱMetzler.ȱPp.ȱ283Ȭ92.ȱ Geertz,ȱ C.ȱ (1975).ȱ Theȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ Cultures:ȱ Selectedȱ Essaysȱ byȱ ClifȬ fordȱGeertz.ȱNewȱYork:ȱBasicȱBooks.ȱ Gramsci,ȱ A.ȱ (1971).ȱ Selectionsȱ fromȱ theȱ Prisonȱ Notebook.ȱ Ed.ȱ andȱ transl.ȱ Quintinȱ Hoareȱ andȱ Geoffreyȱ Nowellȱ Smith.ȱ London:ȱ Lawrenceȱ andȱWishart.ȱ Hall,ȱS.ȱ(1993).ȱ“CulturalȱIdentityȱandȱDiaspora.”ȱIn:ȱP.ȱWilliamsȱandȱ L.ȱ Chrismanȱ (eds.).ȱ Colonialȱ Discourseȱ &ȱ Postcolonialȱ Theory:ȱ Aȱ Reader.ȱHarvester:ȱWheatsheaf.ȱ Lotman,ȱ Y.ȱ (1990).ȱ Universeȱ ofȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Aȱ Semioticȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ Culture.ȱ London:ȱSpringer.ȱ Posner,ȱ R.ȱ (2003).ȱ “Kultursemiotik.“ȱ In:ȱ A.ȱ Nünningȱ andȱ V.ȱ Nünningȱ (eds.).ȱKonzepteȱderȱKulturwissenschaft:ȱTheoretischeȱGrundlagen,ȱAnȬ sätze,ȱPerspektiven.ȱStuttgart:ȱMetzler.ȱPp.ȱ39Ȭ72.ȱ Rorty,ȱ R.ȱ (1992).ȱ Theȱ Linguisticȱ Turn:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Philosophicalȱ Method.ȱ Withȱ Twoȱ Retrospectiveȱ Essays.ȱ Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press.ȱ

CULTURE/SȱASȱAȱTHEOLOGICALȱCHALLENGEȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ413ȱ Saussure,ȱF.ȱde.ȱ(2006).ȱWritingsȱinȱGeneralȱLinguistics.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱ UniversityȱPress.ȱ Spivak,ȱG.ȱ(1988).ȱ“CanȱtheȱSubalternȱSpeak?ȱSpeculationsȱonȱWidowȱ Sacrifice.”ȱIn:ȱG.ȱNelsonȱandȱL.ȱGrossbergȱ(eds.).ȱMarxismȱandȱtheȱ InterpretationȱofȱCulture.ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge.ȱPp.ȱ271Ȭ313.ȱ Said,ȱE.ȱ(1978).ȱOrientalism.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPantheon.ȱ Schechner,ȱR.ȱ(1987).ȱ“Preface:ȱVictorȱTurner’sȱLastȱAdventure”ȱIn:ȱV.ȱ Turner.ȱ Theȱ Anthropologyȱ ofȱ Performance.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ PAJȱ PublicaȬ tions.ȱPp.ȱ7Ȭ20.ȱ Schreiter,ȱRȱ.ȱ(1997).ȱDieȱneueȱKatholizität.ȱFrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱIKO.ȱ (1991).ȱ “Someȱ Conditionsȱ forȱ aȱ Transculturalȱ Theology.ȱ Responseȱ toȱ Raimonȱ Panikkar.”ȱ In:ȱ P.ȱ Knitterȱ (ed.).ȱ Pluralismȱ andȱ Oppression:ȱ TheologyȱinȱWorldȱPerspective.ȱLanham:ȱUniversityȱPressȱofȱAmerȬ ica.ȱPp.ȱ23Ȭ28.ȱ Sedmak,ȱC.ȱ(2000).ȱLokaleȱTheologienȱundȱglobaleȱKirche:ȱEineȱerkenntnisȬ theoretischeȱGrundlegungȱinȱpraktischerȱAbsicht.ȱViennaȱetȱal.:ȱStyria.ȱ Tanner,ȱK.ȱ(1997).ȱTheoriesȱofȱCulture:ȱAȱNewȱAgendaȱforȱTheology.ȱMinȬ neapolis:ȱFortressȱPress.ȱ Thiong’o,ȱ N.ȱ (1986).ȱ Decolonizingȱ theȱ Mind:ȱ Theȱ Politicsȱ ofȱ Languageȱ inȱ AfricanȱLiterature.ȱLondon:ȱPowell’sȱBooks.ȱ Thompson,ȱ E.P.ȱ (1959).ȱ “Commitmentȱ inȱ Politics.”ȱ Universitiesȱ &ȱ Leftȱ Reviewȱ1:ȱ50Ȭ55.ȱ Tucci,ȱR.ȱ(1968).ȱ“ZweitesȱKapitelȱdesȱzweitenȱTeilsȱderȱPastoralkonstiȬ tution.ȱEinleitungȱundȱKommentar.”ȱIn:ȱH.S.ȱBrechterȱetȱal.ȱ(eds.).ȱ Lexikonȱ fürȱ Theologieȱ undȱ Kirche.ȱ Ergänzungsbandȱ III.ȱ Freiburgȱ i.Br.:ȱHerder.ȱPp.ȱ447Ȭ85.ȱ Turner,ȱV.ȱ(1967).ȱTheȱForestȱofȱSymbols:ȱAspectsȱofȱNdembuȱRitual.ȱNewȱ York:ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Williams,ȱR.ȱ(1958).ȱCultureȱandȱSocietyȱ1780Ȭ1950.ȱLondon:ȱChattoȱandȱ Windus.ȱ White,ȱH.ȱ(1978).ȱTropicsȱofȱDiscourse:ȱEssaysȱinȱCulturalȱCriticism.ȱBaltiȬ more:ȱTheȱJohnsȱHopkinsȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Young,ȱR.ȱ(1995).ȱColonialȱDesire:ȱHybridityȱinȱTheory,ȱCultureȱandȱRace.ȱ London:ȱRoutledge.ȱ

DoubleȱCommitmentȱ orȱTheȱCaseȱforȱReligiousȱMestizajeȱ (Creolization)ȱ XavierȱGravendȬTirole1ȱ

Doubleȱreligiousȱbelongingȱisȱaȱdelicateȱfield,ȱinȱwhichȱtheologyȱ oughtȱ toȱ abstainȱ fromȱ aȱ prioriȱ pronouncements,ȱ arrivedȱ atȱ byȱ wayȱofȱdeductionȱfromȱacceptedȱprinciplesȱandȱtraditionalȱposiȬ tions.ȱHere,ȱmoreȱperhapsȱthanȱinȱanyȱotherȱfieldȱinȱtheȱtheologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ anyȱ consideredȱ opinionȱ mustȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ seriouslyȱandȱprimarilyȱtheȱlivedȱexperienceȱofȱthoseȱsincereȱandȱ trustworthyȱ personsȱ whoȱ haveȱ attemptedȱ andȱ claimȱ toȱ haveȱ succeededȱtoȱanȱextentȱ–ȱnotȱwithoutȱpainȱandȱsustainedȱtensionȱ –ȱtoȱcombineȱinȱtheirȱownȱlifeȱofȱfaithȱandȱreligiousȱpracticeȱtheirȱ Christianȱ faithȱ andȱ theirȱ lifeȱ commitmentȱ toȱ theȱ personȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ withȱ anotherȱ faithȱ experienceȱ andȱ religiousȱ pursuit.ȱ Suchȱ casesȱ areȱ notȱ unknownȱ today;ȱ theyȱ areȱ evenȱ onȱ theȱ increase....ȱ Theologyȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ inductiveȱ beforeȱ claimingȱ toȱ deduceȱ dogȬ maticȱ statementsȱ fromȱ preestablishedȱ principles.ȱ (Dupuisȱ 2002:ȱ 62)ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ ThereȱisȱnothingȱnewȱaboutȱtheȱfactȱthatȱsecularizationȱandȱreliȬ giousȱpluralismȱtogetherȱareȱtransformingȱtheȱcontemporaryȱreȬ ligiousȱ landscape.ȱ Nowȱ peopleȱ canȱ chooseȱ betweenȱ manyȱ difȬ ferentȱ religiousȱ traditions.ȱ Someȱ mixȱ themȱ asȱ theyȱ want,ȱ inȱ accordanceȱwithȱhowȱtheyȱfeel,ȱorȱasȱtheyȱevolveȱinȱtheirȱspiritȬ ualȱquest.ȱIȱfoundȱtheȱlatestȱillustrationȱofȱaȱtypicalȱsecularizedȱ categorizationȱ ofȱ religiousȱ issuesȱ whenȱ Iȱ wasȱ exploringȱ whatȱ kindȱ ofȱ religious/spiritualȱ applicationsȱ couldȱ beȱ addedȱ toȱ anȱ iPhone.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ specialȱ setȱ forȱ “spirituality”ȱ orȱ “religiousȱ ȱ Thisȱ contributionȱ hasȱ beenȱ madeȱ possibleȱ withȱ theȱ helpȱ andȱ supportȱofȱtheȱTrudeauȱFoundation.ȱ 1


traditions,”ȱbutȱcomponentsȱofȱitȱareȱdispatchedȱaccordingȱtoȱaȱ thoroughlyȱdifferentȱclassification.ȱWhileȱoneȱcanȱfindȱtheȱcomȬ pleteȱQur’anȱorȱtheȱBibleȱunderȱtheȱ“References”ȱbanner,ȱalongȱ withȱdictionariesȱofȱallȱsorts,ȱtheȱliturgicalȱCatholicȱCalendarȱapȬ plicationȱ willȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ “lifestyle”ȱ set,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ iMantraȱapplicationȱ–ȱbutȱthere,ȱIȱwasȱamusedȱtoȱnote,ȱoneȱwillȱ alsoȱ findȱ Bikiniȱ blastȱ andȱ Drinkȱ andȱ cocktailȱ recipesȱ asȱ otherȱ lifeȬ styles.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ Yogaȱ trainerȱ applicationȱ forȱ leadingȱ oneȱ throughȱ asanas,ȱ athoughȱ itȱ willȱ beȱ foundȱ underȱ theȱ “Healthȱ &ȱ Fitness”ȱ tab,ȱ alongȱ withȱ otherȱ applicationsȱ suchȱ asȱ Menstrualȱ calendarȱorȱRestaurantȱnutrition.ȱ Theȱ metamorphosisȱ ofȱ religiousȱ scenesȱ inȱ Westernȱ mulȬ ticulturalȱ citiesȱ isȱ startlingȱ forȱ classicȱ understandingsȱ ofȱ whatȱ faithȱ andȱ religiosityȱ areȱ about.ȱ Sociologistsȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ anaȬ lyzedȱ theȱ phenomena:ȱ someȱ labelȱ thisȱ “religionȱ àȱ laȱ carte”ȱ aȱ bricolageȱ (cf.ȱ HervieuȬLégerȱ 1999),ȱ whileȱ otherȱ moreȱ recentȱ researchȱseesȱinȱitȱaȱsortȱofȱbutinageȱ(cf.ȱSoaresȱ2009).ȱAlthoughȱ someȱ individualsȱ considerȱ religiousȱ practices,ȱ beliefs,ȱ and/orȱ ritualsȱ toȱ beȱ consumerȱ productsȱ andȱ othersȱ blendȱ allȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱasȱifȱtheyȱwereȱdifferentȱfruitsȱtoȱbeȱputȱinȱaȱdomesticȱ mixer,ȱaȱ“middle”ȱtrendȱalsoȱexistsȱthatȱresistsȱtheseȱmetaphors.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ paperȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ assessȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whoȱ tryȱ toȱ combineȱ andȱ commitȱ themselvesȱ seriouslyȱ toȱ twoȱ orȱ moreȱ reliȬ giousȱtraditionsȱtogetherȱinȱtheirȱlives.ȱInȱdoingȱso,ȱIȱwantȱtoȱexȬ amineȱ howȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ merelyȱ engagingȱ inȱ bricolageȱ –ȱ norȱ areȱ theyȱtryingȱtoȱcomeȱupȱwithȱaȱnewȱsyncretisticȱreligionȱofȱsomeȱ sortȱ–ȱbutȱbearȱwithoutȱcompromiseȱtheȱtensionȱcreatedȱbyȱthisȱ “doubleness.”ȱWhatȱthenȱareȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱthisȱposture?ȱ Howȱ fruitfulȱ andȱ enrichingȱ isȱ it?ȱ Andȱ whatȱ displacementsȱ and/orȱ shiftingsȱ areȱ implied?ȱ Inȱ general,ȱ Iȱ contendȱ thatȱ theseȱ casesȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱdiscreditedȱorȱcondemnedȱbecauseȱofȱtheirȱ hereticalȱappearance.ȱRather,ȱtheyȱareȱrichȱandȱwidenȱspiritual/ȱ religiousȱhorizons.ȱ ConceptualȱApparatusȱ Inȱ theȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ sphere,ȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ andȱ inculȬ turationȱ(orȱadaptation)ȱserveȱasȱkeyȱtermsȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱandȱ

DOUBLEȱCOMMITMENTȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ417ȱ

understandȱ culturalȱ and/orȱ religiousȱ encounters.ȱ Yetȱ theȱ moȬ mentȱtheȱRomanȱCatholicȱMagisteriumȱevokesȱreligiousȱmixing,ȱ theȱnotionȱofȱsyncretismȱappearsȱwithȱnoȱpositiveȱimplications.2ȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱotherȱofficialȱ“position,”ȱorȱcategory,ȱforȱanalyzingȱ theȱ phenomenaȱ ofȱ religiousȱ interpenetrationsȱ constructively.ȱ Theȱ Romanȱ Catholicȱ discourseȱ remainsȱ quiteȱ polarized:ȱ eitherȱ oneȱ dialoguesȱ withȱ otherȱ traditionsȱ orȱ oneȱ vergesȱ towardȱ synȬ cretismȱ theȱ secondȱ itȱ transformsȱ one’sȱ Christianȱ behaviorȱ onȱ aȱ religiousȱlevel.3ȱ Fromȱtheȱsocialȱsciences,ȱhowever,ȱmoreȱnuancedȱandȱopȬ erativeȱ categoriesȱ canȱ beȱ gathered.ȱ Thereȱ are,ȱ indeed,ȱ moreȱ optionsȱthanȱtheȱconceptsȱofȱdialogueȱandȱsyncretismȱforȱexamȬ iningȱ religiousȱ interpenetration.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ sociologistsȱ likeȱ Danièleȱ HervieuȬLégerȱ useȱ theȱ bricolageȱ metaphorȱ toȱ deȬ scribeȱwhenȱindividualsȱcombineȱfreelyȱ–ȱandȱoftenȱanarchicallyȱ –ȱdifferentȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱinȱtheirȱlives.4ȱThisȱtrendȱconsistsȱ inȱ aȱ sortȱ ofȱ collageȱ inȱ whichȱ oneȱ poachesȱ thingsȱ fromȱ differentȱ traditions.ȱThanksȱtoȱindividualizedȱspiritualȱtrajectories,ȱweȱareȱ nowȱ ableȱ toȱ disengageȱ ourselvesȱ fromȱ religiousȱ groupsȱ andȱ claimȱ aȱ personalȱ religiousȱ autonomyȱ –ȱ whichȱ inȱ turnȱ explainsȱ ȱ E.g.,ȱ “Theseȱ andȱ similarȱ proposalsȱ toȱ harmonizeȱ Christianȱ meditationȱ withȱ easternȱ techniquesȱ needȱ toȱ haveȱ theirȱ contentsȱ andȱ methodsȱ everȱ subjectedȱ toȱ aȱ thoroughȬgoingȱ examinationȱ soȱ asȱ toȱ avoidȱtheȱdangerȱofȱfallingȱintoȱsyncretism”ȱ(LetterȱtoȱtheȱBishopsȱofȱtheȱ CatholicȱChurchȱonȱSomeȱAspectsȱofȱChristianȱMeditation,ȱ§12).ȱ 2

ȱIȱsayȱ“religious”ȱlevelȱbecause,ȱonȱtheȱculturalȱlevel,ȱtheȱconceptȱ ofȱinculturationȱwillȱbeȱinvoked,ȱevenȱifȱdifferentiationȱbetweenȱbothȱ levelsȱisȱnotȱalwaysȱevident.ȱȱ 3

ȱTheȱfirst,ȱtoȱmyȱknowledge,ȱtoȱcomeȱupȱwithȱtheȱtermȱbricolageȱ isȱ Claudeȱ LéviȬStrauss,ȱ fromȱ whomȱ HervieuȬLégerȱ borrowsȱ theȱ anȬ alogy.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ salientȱ featureȱ ofȱ thisȱ religiosityȱ isȱ thatȱ symbolicȱ reȬ sourcesȱ areȱ notȱ equallyȱ availableȱ forȱ allȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ culturalȱ condiȬ tionsȱ dependȱ forȱ itsȱ employmentȱ onȱ theȱ needsȱ ofȱ theȱ individual,ȱ notȱ theȱcommunity:ȱ“IlȱestȱimpossibleȱdeȱsaisirȱlaȱlogiqueȱsocialeȱdesȱbricȬ olagesȱ spirituelsȱ sansȱ prendreȱ enȱ compteȱ àȱ laȱ foisȱ lesȱ conditionsȱ soȬ cialesȱ deȱ l’accèsȱ desȱ individusȱ àȱ desȱ ressourcesȱ symboliquesȱ inégaleȬ mentȱ disponiblesȱ etȱ lesȱ conditionsȱ culturellesȱ deȱ l’emploiȱ deȱ cesȱ resȬ sourcesȱparȱlesȱintéressés”ȱ(HervieuȬLégerȱ2005:ȱ298).ȱ 4


whyȱ weȱ areȱ ableȱ toȱ construct,ȱ orȱ invent,ȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ reliȬ giosity.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ bricolageȱ analysisȱ seemsȱ slightlyȱ pejorative,5ȱ EdioȱSoaresȱseesȱinȱtheȱBrazilians’ȱproclivityȱaȱpoeticȱprocessȱofȱ butinage,ȱaȱtentativeȱapproachȱratherȱthanȱaȱsolution,ȱwhereȱtheȱ individualȱtravelsȱamongȱdifferentȱreligiousȱspacesȱandȱcreatesȱ hisȱownȱmeaningȱwithoutȱclaimingȱtoȱbeȱ“done”ȱwithȱhisȱspirȬ itualȱquest.ȱ Onȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱsyncretismȱ–ȱlikeȱitsȱsynonymȱhybridityȱ–ȱ remainsȱ difficultȱ toȱ define.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ ultimateȱ agreementȱ onȱ oneȱ definition.ȱ Differentȱ colloquiaȱ haveȱ beenȱ heldȱ andȱ booksȱ haveȱ beenȱ editedȱ onȱ theȱ topicȱ (cf.,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Leopoldȱ andȱ Jensenȱ 2005;ȱ Gortȱ etȱ al.ȱ 1989),ȱ yetȱ noȱ agreementȱ hasȱ beenȱ reachedȱ –ȱ evenȱ regardingȱ itsȱ utility.ȱ Whileȱ Arthurȱ Drogeȱ holdsȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱ shouldȱ beȱ retrofitted,ȱ andȱ retiredȱ fromȱ theȱ lexiconȱ ofȱ anȬ alyticalȱcategories,ȱ6ȱAndréȱDroogersȱarguesȱthatȱsyncretismȱasȱaȱ conceptȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱabandonedȱbutȱincludeȱanalysesȱonȱpowȬ erȱ dynamicsȱ (Droogersȱ 1989).ȱ Inȱ aȱ similarȱ fashion,ȱ Homiȱ BhaȬ bha’sȱnotionȱofȱhybridityȱpointsȱoutȱissuesȱregardingȱresistanceȱ andȱsubversion:ȱ Theȱ regulationȱ andȱ negotiationȱ ofȱ thoseȱ spacesȱ …ȱ areȱ conȬ tinually,ȱ contingently,ȱ “openingȱ out,”ȱ remakingȱ theȱ boundȬ aries,ȱ exposingȱ theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ anyȱ claimȱ toȱ aȱ singularȱ orȱ auȬ tonomousȱ signȱ ofȱ differenceȱ –ȱ beȱ itȱ class,ȱ genderȱ orȱ race.ȱ (Bhabhaȱ1994:ȱ219)7ȱ ȱInȱLeȱpèlerinȱetȱleȱconvertiȱ(1999:ȱ25)ȱHervieuȬLégerȱrefersȱtoȱ“l’éȬ parpillementȱindividualisteȱduȱcroire,ȱparȱlaȱdisjonctionȱdesȱcroyancesȱ etȱdesȱappartenancesȱconfessionnellesȱetȱparȱlaȱdiversificationȱdesȱtraȬ jectoiresȱparcouruesȱparȱdesȱ‘croyantsȱbaladeurs’”ȱ(HervieuȬLéger).ȱȱ 5

ȱ Drogeȱ 2001:ȱ 376:ȱ “Syncretismȱ isȱ aȱ categoryȱ devoidȱ ofȱ explanȬ atoryȱ utility.ȱ Putȱ differently,ȱ whenȱ historiansȱ ofȱ religionȱ employȱ theȱ termȱsyncretism,ȱtheyȱpresumeȱtoȱofferȱanȱanswer,ȱwhenȱinȱfactȱtheyȱ areȱ merelyȱ statingȱtheȱ problem.ȱ Butȱ thereȱ isȱ more.ȱ Syncretism,ȱ Iȱ subȬ mit,ȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱretrofittedȱbyȱconstitutingȱitȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱdataȱofȱreȬ ligion:ȱitȱmustȱbeȱretiredȱfromȱtheȱlexiconȱofȱanalyticalȱcategoriesȱemȬ ployedȱinȱtheȱstudyȱofȱreligion.”ȱ 6

7ȱBoyarinȱandȱBurrusȱ2005:ȱ434:ȱ“Theȱproblemȱwithȱheresy,ȱthen,ȱ isȱthatȱitȱlooksȱveryȱmuchȱlikeȱtrueȱChristianity.ȱInȱBhabha’sȱterms,ȱtheȱ


Theȱ termȱ isȱ thusȱ inȱ tuneȱ withȱ postcolonialȱ studies,ȱ whereȱ deȬ construction,ȱ suspicionȱ ofȱ essentialism,ȱ andȱ powerȱ dynamicsȱ areȱprofoundlyȱdisputed.ȱForȱCharlesȱStewart,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱsuchȱ thingȱasȱ“aȱculture”ȱorȱaȱreligion.ȱThus,ȱ syncretismȱ describesȱ theȱ processȱ byȱ whichȱ culturesȱ conȬ stituteȱ themselvesȱ atȱ anyȱ givenȱ pointȱ inȱ time.ȱ Today’sȱ hyȬ bridizationȱ willȱ simplyȱ giveȱ wayȱ toȱ tomorrow’sȱ hybridizȬ ation,ȱ whoseȱ formȱ willȱ beȱ dictatedȱ byȱ historicȱ orȱ politicalȱ eventsȱandȱcontingencies.ȱ(Stewartȱ1999:ȱ41)ȱ

Inȱtheȱend,ȱsomeȱsuggestȱopeningȱupȱnewȱwaysȱofȱunderȬ standingȱreligiousȱinterpenetrationȱbyȱapplyingȱnewȱcategories.ȱ FollowingȱAloysiusȱPieris,ȱElisabethȱHarrisȱsuggestsȱthat,ȱwhileȱ neitherȱsyncretismȱnorȱsynthesisȱareȱappropriateȱtermsȱforȱthinkȬ ingȱ positivelyȱ aboutȱ interreligiousȱ encounters,ȱ symbiosisȱ wouldȱ beȱ (Harrisȱ 2002:ȱ 88).ȱ Butȱ theȱ exchangeȱ hereȱ seemsȱ minimal:ȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ suchȱ encounter,ȱ oneȱ isȱ taughtȱ aboutȱ one’sȱ ownȱ tradition,ȱbutȱnoȱstrongȱ“mixing”ȱisȱinvolved.ȱ IȱproposeȱtoȱconsiderȱmestizajeȱandȱcreolizedȱformsȱofȱreliȬ giosityȱ asȱ aȱ distinctiveȱ category,ȱ withȱ itsȱ ownȱ epistemologicalȱ status,ȱbetweenȱtheȱbricolageȱandȱsyncretismȱpolesȱofȱreligiousȱinȬ terpenetration.8ȱUnlikeȱbricolage,ȱaȱcreolizedȱidentityȱknowsȱwhyȱ itȱ borrowsȱ thisȱ orȱ thatȱ religiousȱ component;ȱ itȱ remainsȱ inȱ solȬ idarityȱ withȱ theȱ referredȱ religiousȱ systemȱ sinceȱ theȱ attemptȱ toȱ combineȱ twoȱ traditionsȱ isȱ notȱ byȱ itselfȱ individualistic.ȱ Ifȱ resisȬ tanceȱ isȱ alsoȱ impliedȱ inȱ aȱ creolizedȱ identity,ȱ asȱ inȱ hybridȱ andȱ syncretisticȱprocesses,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱhoweverȱthriveȱinȱorderȱtoȱreȬ duceȱtheȱtensionȱsoȱasȱtoȱmakeȱaȱnewȱhomogenous,ȱconsistent,ȱ andȱ selfȬgoverningȱ entity.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ mestizajeȱ originatesȱ fromȱtwoȱdifferentȱrealmsȱandȱattemptsȱtoȱassumeȱtheȱconflict,ȱ toȱ acceptȱ theȱ strainȱ resultingȱ fromȱ beingȱ torn,ȱ andȱ notȱ toȱ fleeȱ

hereticȱ isȱ aȱ mimic,ȱ ‘notȱ quite’ȱ Christianȱ (thusȱ alsoȱ veryȱ nearlyȱ ChrisȬ tian),ȱandȱtheȱconsequenceȱofȱthis,ȱitȱwouldȱseem,ȱisȱthatȱtheȱChristianȱ isȱ‘notȱquite’ȱ(thusȱalsoȱveryȱnearly)ȱheretical.ȱ”ȱȱ ȱ Forȱ aȱ moreȱ theoreticalȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ concepts,ȱ cf.ȱ amongȱothers:ȱMedinaȱ2009,ȱAudinetȱ1999,ȱGruzinskiȱ1999,ȱLaplantineȱ andȱNoussȱ1997,ȱGlissantȱ1995,ȱElizondoȱ2000.ȱ 8


ambiguitiesȱandȱcontradictionsȱthatȱwillȱemergeȱfromȱsuchȱdualȱ posture.ȱAsȱLindaȱAlcoffȱbeautifullyȱnarratesȱinȱherȱownȱ“MesȬ tizoȱ identity,”ȱ aȱ gapȱ remains,ȱ resists,ȱ whichȱ thenȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ takenȱuponȱoneself:ȱ OnlyȱrecentlyȱhaveȱIȱfinallyȱcomeȱtoȱsomeȱacceptanceȱofȱmyȱ ambiguousȱ identity.ȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ simplyȱ whiteȱ norȱ simplyȱ LaȬ tina,ȱandȱtheȱgapȱthatȱexistsȱbetweenȱmyȱtwoȱidentitiesȱ–ȱinȬ deed,ȱ myȱ twoȱ familiesȱ –ȱ aȱ gapȱ thatȱ isȱ cultural,ȱ racial,ȱ lingȬ uistic,ȱandȱnational,ȱfeelsȱtooȱwideȱandȱdeepȱforȱmeȱtoȱspan.ȱ Iȱ cannotȱ bridgeȱ theȱ gap,ȱ soȱ Iȱ negotiateȱ it,ȱ standingȱ atȱ oneȱ pointȱ here,ȱ andȱ thenȱ there,ȱ movingȱ betweenȱ locationsȱ asȱ eventsȱorȱotherȱpeople’sȱresponsesȱpropelȱme.ȱIȱneverȱreachȱ shore….ȱPeaceȱhasȱcomeȱforȱmeȱbyȱlivingȱthatȱgap,ȱandȱnoȱ longerȱseekingȱsomeȱpermanentȱhomeȱonshore.ȱWhatȱIȱseekȱ nowȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ aȱ home,ȱ butȱ perhapsȱ aȱ lighthouse,ȱ thatȱ mightȱ illuminateȱ thisȱ placeȱ inȱ whichȱ Iȱ live,ȱ forȱ myselfȱ asȱ muchȱasȱforȱothers.ȱ(Alcoffȱ2000:ȱ160)ȱ

Thus,ȱ mestizajeȱ nowadaysȱ representsȱ aȱ vibrantȱ callȱ forȱ aȱ transformationȱ ofȱ itsȱ socialȱ semantic.ȱ Mestizo/asȱ shouldȱ refuseȱ theȱ nonȬbeingȱ stateȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ placed9ȱ andȱ makeȱ theirȱ positionȱanȱopportunityȱ(Elizondoȱ2000:ȱ129).ȱTheȱfactȱofȱbeingȱ anȱinsiderȬoutsiderȱtoȱtwoȱspheres,ȱandȱofȱbeingȱinȱtheȱbetween,ȱ giveȱthemȱaȱuniqueȱroleȱasȱpassers.ȱPeopleȱwithȱdualȱbelongingȱ becomeȱeminentȱtranslatorsȱinȱtheirȱreligiousȱbilingualism.ȱBut,ȱ insistsȱ Nestorȱ Medinaȱ (2009),ȱ thereȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ oneȱ wayȱ toȱ beȱ mestizo/aȱbutȱmany:ȱtheȱnotionȱshouldȱnotȱleadȱtoȱaȱnewȱhomoȬ genousȱ groupȱ ofȱ people,ȱ norȱ shouldȱ itȱ forgetȱitsȱ dreadfulȱ past.ȱ Rather,ȱitȱshouldȱwitnessȱtoȱtheȱstruggle,ȱtheȱheterogeneity,ȱandȱ theȱpluralityȱofȱinterȬmixtureȱexperiences.ȱ ȱ ȱElizondoȱ1988:ȱ18:ȱ“Manyȱofȱmyȱschoolȱfriendsȱhadȱdarkerȱskinȱ thanȱ myselfȱ andȱ Iȱ rememberȱ wellȱ theȱ problemsȱ weȱ experiencedȱ justȱ tryingȱtoȱgoȱtoȱtheȱtoilet.ȱIfȱweȱwentȱintoȱtheȱoneȱmarkedȱ‘colored’ȱweȱ wereȱchasedȱoutȱbyȱtheȱblacksȱbecauseȱweȱwereȱnotȱtechnicallyȱblack.ȱ Yet,ȱweȱwereȱoftenȱchasedȱoutȱfromȱtheȱonesȱmarkedȱ‘white’ȱbecauseȱ weȱ hadȱ darkȱ skin.ȱ Soȱ weȱ didn’tȱ evenȱ haveȱ toiletsȱ toȱ whichȱ weȱ couldȱ go.ȱOurȱbeingȱwasȱactuallyȱourȱ‘nonȬbeing’.”ȱȱ 9


PluralityȱofȱPosturesȱ Theȱmestized/creolizedȱreligiousȱindividualȱwhoȱcommitsȱhimȬ selfȱ toȱ twoȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ isȱ notȱ simpleȱ toȱ identify.ȱ Sinceȱ thereȱ areȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ religiousȱ identitiesȱ withinȱ oneȱ religiousȱ tradition,ȱ thereȱ is,ȱ similarly,ȱ aȱ multiplicityȱ ofȱ differentȱ reasonsȱ andȱ storiesȱ inȱ multipleȱ religiousȱ commitments.ȱ Iȱ willȱ roughlyȱ outlineȱsomeȱdifferentȱtraitsȱhere.ȱ ForȱMichaelȱAmaladoss,ȱpursuingȱandȱpracticingȱtwoȱreliȬ giousȱtraditionsȱseriouslyȱremainsȱaȱvocation.ȱNotȱeveryoneȱcanȱ takeȱ responsibilityȱ forȱ twoȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ andȱ spiritualȱ practices,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ heȱ claimsȱ toȱ knowȱ “manyȱ peopleȱ whoȱ liveȱ it”ȱ (Amaladossȱ 2009:ȱ 531).ȱ Thisȱ specialȱ vocationȱ doesȱ notȱ entailȱ specialȱ vows,ȱ however.ȱ Differentȱ levelsȱ ofȱ commitmentȱ mayȱbeȱundertaken.ȱHence,ȱvocationȱmayȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱ“aȱ call”ȱ –ȱ “aȱ choiceȱ made,ȱ notȱ byȱ me,ȱ butȱ byȱ God”ȱ (Amaladossȱ 2009:ȱ 527)ȱ –ȱ thatȱ canȱ takeȱ placeȱ inȱ aȱ secularȱ life:ȱ “Iȱ mayȱ feelȱ called,ȱnotȱtoȱabandonȱmyȱway,ȱbutȱtoȱexploreȱalsoȱotherȱwaysȱ throughȱ whichȱ theȱ divineȬhumanȱ encounterȱ canȱ happen”ȱ (Amaladossȱ 2009:ȱ 529).ȱ Thereȱ is,ȱ therefore,ȱ aȱ strongȱ disparityȱ betweenȱ practicingȱ hathaȱ yogaȱ onceȱ aȱ weekȱ moreȱ asȱ aȱ physicalȱ exerciseȱ andȱ theȱ integrationȱ ofȱ differentȱ principles,ȱ bothȱ nutriȬ tionallyȱandȱspiritually,ȱforȱinstance.ȱAndȱevenȱmoreȱsoȱwhenȱaȱ Christianȱ becomesȱ aȱ discipleȱ ofȱ aȱ Hinduȱ guru,ȱ asȱ Bettinaȱ Bäumerȱ (2004)ȱ did.ȱ Inȱ sum,ȱ aȱ mestizedȱ individualȱ willȱ beȱ sureȱ toȱpreserveȱandȱtoȱdeepenȱbothȱtraditions:ȱ“Suchȱpeopleȱmayȱbeȱ calledȱ liminalȱ people,ȱ onȱ theȱ borders,ȱ butȱ showingȱ possibleȱ waysȱ ofȱ beingȱ togetherȱ inȱ God’sȱ presence”ȱ (Amaladossȱ 2009:ȱ 529).ȱ Toȱ whatȱ extentȱ couldȱ thisȱ doubleȱ commitmentȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ theȱradicalizationȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱ–ȱwhereȱdialogueȱisȱ noȱ longerȱ betweenȱ twoȱ peopleȱ butȱ withinȱ oneȱ individual?ȱ Asȱ Raimundoȱ Pannikarȱ raisesȱ theȱ questionȱ inȱ hisȱ bookȱ Theȱ IntraȬ religiousȱDialogue,ȱthereȱisȱaȱformȱofȱinterpenetrationȱandȱsenseȱ ofȱ growthȱ inȱ theȱ intrareligiousȱ experience.ȱ Asȱ Dupuisȱ summarȬ izes,ȱ Eachȱ partnerȱ inȱ dialogueȱ mustȱ enterȱ intoȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱotherȱinȱanȱeffortȱtoȱgraspȱthatȱexperienceȱfromȱwithin.ȱ Inȱorderȱtoȱdoȱthis,ȱheȱorȱsheȱmustȱriseȱaboveȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtheȱ conceptsȱ inȱ whichȱ thisȱ experienceȱ isȱ imperfectlyȱ expressedȱ

422ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ toȱ attain,ȱ insofarȱ asȱ possible,ȱ throughȱ andȱ beyondȱ theȱ concepts,ȱtoȱtheȱexperienceȱitself.ȱ(Dupuisȱ2002:ȱ63)ȱ

And,ȱasȱWhalingȱputsȱit,ȱ ToȱknowȱtheȱreligionȱofȱanotherȱisȱmoreȱthanȱbeingȱcognizȬ antȱofȱtheȱfactsȱofȱtheȱother’sȱreligiousȱtradition.ȱItȱinvolvesȱ gettingȱ insideȱ theȱ skinȱ ofȱ theȱ other,ȱ itȱ involvesȱ walkingȱ inȱ theȱother’sȱshoes,ȱitȱinvolvesȱseeingȱtheȱworldȱinȱsomeȱsenseȱ asȱtheȱotherȱseesȱitȱ….ȱ(Whalingȱ1986:ȱ130Ȭ31)ȱ

Thus,ȱ “deep”ȱ interȬȱ orȱ intrareligiousȱ dialogueȱ leadsȱ inexorablyȱ toȱsomeȱsortȱofȱalteration,ȱtransformation,ȱveryȱclose,ȱinȱfact,ȱtoȱ whatȱmestizedȱreligiousȱpeopleȱareȱexperiencing.ȱ Moreover,ȱ thereȱ areȱ othersȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ followȱ twoȱ tradiȬ tionsȱoutȱofȱaȱvocationalȱdesire,ȱbutȱoutȱofȱmereȱreligiousȱheriȬ tage:ȱ thoseȱ bornȱ toȱ mixedȱ couplesȱ (oneȱ Buddhist,ȱ theȱ otherȱ Christian,ȱ forȱ instance)ȱ doȱ notȱ inevitablyȱ wantȱ norȱ chooseȱ beȬ tweenȱwhatȱtheyȱinheritȱandȱwillȱtryȱtoȱupholdȱbothȱtraditionsȱ asȱmuchȱasȱtheyȱcan.10ȱItȱisȱnotȱbyȱchoiceȱhereȱthatȱoneȱmayȱgrowȱ upȱinȱaȱmixedȱenvironmentȱbutȱaȱmatterȱofȱbirth.ȱAndȱifȱsomeȱ parentsȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ decidedȱ whatȱ religionȱ theirȱ childrenȱ willȱ follow,ȱothersȱwillȱraiseȱthemȱinȱbothȱtraditions.ȱ Theȱ religiousȱ legacyȱ isȱ alsoȱ importantȱ forȱ Christianȱ comȬ munitiesȱoutsideȱ“Christianized”ȱEuropeȱwhere,ȱonȱaȱcommunȬ alȱlevel,ȱChristiansȱreclaimȱtheirȱlocalȱspiritualȱheritage.ȱIndianȱ communities,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ refuseȱ toȱ becomeȱ alienatedȱ fromȱ

Thereȱisȱaȱlackȱofȱstudiesȱonȱtheȱtopicȱalreadyȱonȱaȱculturalȱlevelȱ (Philippeȱ 2008).ȱ Theȱ wayȱ “mixedȱ couples”ȱ manageȱ theirȱ differences,ȱ negotiateȱ themȱ andȱ raiseȱ theirȱ offspring,ȱ haveȱ notȱ beenȱ greatlyȱ exȬ aminedȱ soȱ far.ȱ Theȱ caseȱ isȱ thusȱ evenȱ moreȱ understudiedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱreligiousȱissuesȱimplied.ȱYet,ȱdueȱtoȱglobalȱmigrations,ȱaȱgrowingȱ numberȱofȱcasesȱappearȱinȱWesternȱcountriesȱthatȱneedȱtoȱbeȱassessed,ȱ asȱ inȱ otherȱ countriesȱ whereȱ religiousȱ pluralismȱ exists.ȱ Theȱ resultȱ ofȱ suchȱsocialȱscienceȱstudiesȱwouldȱgreatlyȱhelpȱtoȱunderstandȱhowȱbothȱ traditionsȱ mayȱ sometimesȱ beȱ claimedȱ togetherȱ inȱ theȱ end,ȱ atȱ theȱ miȬ crolevelȱofȱfamilies.ȱ 10


theirȱcultureȱandȱspiritualȱlegacy,ȱandȱthusȱreclaimȱHinduȱphiloȬ sophyȱandȱspiritualityȱasȱChristian.11ȱ ChancesȱandȱChallengesȱ Givenȱ thatȱ mestizedȱ spiritualȱ livesȱ areȱ moreȱ frequentȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱWesternȱcountries,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱbutȱalsoȱinȱcasesȱofȱlocalȱ culturesȱreclaimingȱbothȱaȱlocalȱheritageȱandȱaȱ(rather)ȱnewȱfiȬ delityȱ toȱ Christȱ today,ȱ manyȱ questionsȱ ariseȱ regardingȱ theȱ strengths,ȱproblems,ȱandȱlimitsȱofȱnewȱreligiousȱidentities.ȱIȱwillȱ tryȱtoȱsketchȱsomeȱofȱthem,ȱevenȱthoughȱIȱhaveȱtoȱapologizeȱforȱ theȱlackȱofȱaȱcompleteȱanalysisȱdueȱtoȱspace.ȱ Aȱ firstȱ centralȱ issueȱ concernsȱ belonging:ȱ weȱ oftenȱ useȱ theȱ coinedȱ expressionȱ “doubleȱ belonging,”ȱ “multipleȱ belonging,”ȱ orȱ“dualȱbelonging”ȱasȱifȱitȱdoesȱjusticeȱtoȱwhatȱisȱatȱstake.ȱButȱ theȱ veryȱ notionȱ ofȱ belongingȱ isȱ recurrentlyȱ questioned,ȱ bothȱ byȱ laypeopleȱandȱtheologians.ȱIsȱ“toȱbeȱaȱdisciple”ȱreducibleȱtoȱbeȬ longingȱtoȱaȱcommunity?ȱWhatȱaboutȱpersonalȱpracticesȱandȱbeȬ liefs?ȱTheȱSwissȱpastorȱJeanȬClaudeȱBasset,ȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱaȱcolloȬ quiumȱonȱdrinkingȱfromȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱwell,ȱrecommendedȱweȱ broadenȱourȱvocabularyȱand,ȱdependingȱonȱcases,ȱmakeȱuseȱofȱ expressionsȱ likeȱ systemȱ ofȱ reference,ȱ allegiance,ȱ affinities,ȱ orȱ ȱCf.ȱAmalorpavadass’sȱdenunciationȱ(Amalorpavadassȱ1985:ȱ11Ȭ 12):ȱ “Theȱ Gospelȱ hadȱ theȱ tradeȬmarkȱ ofȱ westernȱ Christianity.ȱ CorȬ respondinglyȱ itȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ eliminationȱ orȱ disparagingȱ ofȱ theȱ localȱculturesȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱevangelized.ȱChristianizationȱmeantȱwesȬ ternizationȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ socioȬculturalȱ life.ȱ Itsȱ consequenceȱ wasȱ aliȬ enationȱofȱChristianȱpeopleȱfromȱtheirȱownȱculture,ȱsocialȱmilieusȱandȱ religiousȱtraditions,ȱandȱevasionȱfromȱtheirȱpeople’sȱhistoricalȱadvenȬ tureȱ andȱ driftingȱ awayȱ fromȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ ofȱ nationalȱ life.ȱ Theȱ Christiansȱwereȱconsideredȱasȱaliensȱorȱatȱleastȱasȱsecondȱclassȱcitizensȱ andȱaȱmarginalȱgroupȱlivingȱinȱaȱghettoȱofȱtheirȱown.…ȱTheȱimpactȱofȱ thisȱonȱtheȱmindsȱofȱnonȬChristiansȱwasȱharmful:ȱmissionaryȱactivityȱ wasȱlookedȱuponȱasȱanȱactȱofȱspiritualȱaggressionȱ….ȱTheȱnonȬChrisȬ tiansȱhaveȱbecomeȱallergicȱtoȱmissionȱ workȱandȱlookȱuponȱtheȱevanȬ gelizingȱChurchȱasȱaȱforeignȱbody,ȱasȱaȱstateȱwithinȱstate,ȱasȱaȱpressureȱ groupȱandȱalienatingȱforce.”ȱTheȱcaseȱcould,ȱofȱcourse,ȱbeȱobservedȱinȱ otherȱindigenousȱcultures/areasȱaroundȱtheȱglobe,ȱwhereȱChristianityȱ wasȱimposedȱdisrespectfullyȱofȱlocalȱcultures.ȱȱ 11


preferencesȱ (Bassetȱ 2000:ȱ 188).12ȱ Others,ȱ likeȱ theȱ Frenchȱ theoȬ logianȱFrançoisȱBousquet,ȱhaveȱevokedȱfidelityȱasȱaȱbetterȱnotionȱ (Bousquetȱ2005).ȱTheȱquestion,ȱtherefore,ȱmayȱnotȱbeȱjustȱoneȱofȱ vocabulary,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ semanticsȱ coversȱ (orȱ doesȱ notȱ cover)ȱ difȬ ferent,ȱ andȱ sometimesȱ overlapping,ȱ specificȱ spacesȱ butȱ exemȬ plifiesȱtheȱdifferentȱareasȱatȱstakeȱhere.ȱ Withȱ Graceȱ Davie’sȱ bookȱ Religionȱ inȱ Britainȱ sinceȱ 1945:ȱ BeȬ lievingȱ withoutȱ Belonging,ȱ theȱ argumentȱ wasȱ spelledȱ outȱ withȱ force:ȱindividualȱfaithȱisȱbecomingȱcentralȱinȱBritain,ȱwhileȱadȬ herenceȱisȱquiteȱsecondary,ȱifȱnotȱtrivial.ȱHowȱisȱitȱpossibleȱforȱ faithȱ toȱ assumeȱ twoȱ differentȱ worldviews,ȱ sometimesȱ comȬ pletelyȱoppositeȱfromȱoneȱanother?ȱIfȱunderstoodȱasȱcognitivelyȱ basedȱ beliefs,ȱ theȱ issueȱ seemsȱ thwartedȱ –ȱ butȱ notȱ completely.ȱ Evenȱatȱtheȱpointȱwhereȱoneȱtruthȱseemsȱabsolute,ȱtheȱresultȱisȱ notȱnecessarilyȱtheȱrejectionȱofȱtheȱother,ȱasȱFrancisȱX.ȱClooneyȱ concludesȱinȱhisȱHinduȱGod,ȱChristianȱGod:ȱ IȱconfessȱthatȱJesusȱisȱLord,ȱbutȱIȱcannotȱnowȱassertȱthatȱSivaȱ isȱ notȱ Lordȱ norȱ thatȱ Narayanaȱ didȱ notȱ graciouslyȱ undergoȱ embodimentȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ enableȱ humansȱ toȱ encounterȱ theirȱ God.ȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ theologianȱ isȱ aȱ workȱ ofȱ faithȱ andȱ reason,ȱandȱitȱisȱnotȱcompleteȱuntilȱbothȱhaveȱdoneȱtheȱbestȱ theyȱcan.ȱ(Clooneyȱ2001:ȱ181)ȱ

However,ȱifȱfaithȱisȱunderstoodȱasȱtrust,ȱasȱaȱpersonalȱencounterȱ withȱaȱ supremeȱbeingȱ orȱ asȱ aȱ commitmentȱwithȱtheȱ unknown,ȱ thenȱwhyȱwouldȱaȱmestizedȱindividualȱnotȱbeȱableȱtoȱlearnȱhowȱ toȱspeakȱtwoȱsetsȱofȱbelief?ȱWhoȱsaidȱthatȱweȱhaveȱexhaustedȱallȱ ofȱ God’sȱ mystery?ȱ Someȱ mystics,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Abhishiktananda,ȱ aȱ Frenchȱmonkȱwhoȱtookȱtheȱsannyasiȱvowȱwhileȱnotȱrenouncingȱ hisȱChristianȱfaith,ȱmakeȱitȱoneȱofȱtheirȱprincipalȱarguments:ȱbeȬ causeȱ Godȱ remainsȱ unknown,ȱ howȱ canȱ weȱ excludeȱ otherȱ reliȬ giousȱ grammarsȱ fromȱ decryptingȱ divineȱ reality?ȱ Onlyȱ experȬ ienceȱ shouldȱ beȱ stressed.ȱ Aȱ seriousȱ counterargumentȱ remainsȱ regardingȱ thatȱ option:ȱ Toȱ whatȱ extentȱ doȱ worldviewsȱ functionȱ asȱ matricesȱ orȱ templatesȱ forȱ religiousȱ experience?ȱ Asȱ Ghislainȱ ȱ Seeȱ theȱ differentȱ interventionȱ andȱ Basset’sȱ conclusionȱ inȱ Giraȱ andȱScheuerȱ2000.ȱ 12


Lafontȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ forȱ Abhishiktananda,ȱ experienceȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ interpretedȱbyȱaȱworldviewȱbutȱwillȱalsoȱbeȱaȱprioriȱdeterminedȱ andȱ conditionedȱ byȱ theȱ wordsȱ usedȱ toȱ narrateȱ itȱ (Lafontȱ 1986:ȱ 303Ȭ05).ȱ Hence,ȱ beliefȱ inȱ oneȱ cosmologyȱ willȱ directlyȱ shape,ȱ structure,ȱ andȱ provideȱ aȱ horizonȱ ofȱ meaningȱ forȱ (pastȱ andȱ fuȬ ture)ȱreligiousȱexperiences.ȱ Ifȱoneȱfollowsȱtwoȱpaths,ȱwillȱreligiousȱselvesȱnotȱthenȱbeȬ comeȱschizophrenic?ȱManyȱargueȱthatȱthisȱrealityȱmakesȱitȱimȬ possibleȱ forȱ theȱ faithfulȱ toȱ followȱ twoȱ pathsȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time.ȱ Here,ȱ shiftingȱ theȱ focalȱ pointȱ toȱ practiceȱ –ȱ howȱ canȱ weȱ underȬ standȱ religiousȱ experiencesȱ inȱ action?ȱ –ȱ commitmentȱ toȱ orȱ parȬ ticipationȱ inȱ religiousȱ instructionsȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ assessedȱ withȱ moreȱgradations,ȱhowever.ȱIfȱthereȱisȱaȱscaleȱofȱdifferentȱdegreesȱ ofȱcommitment,ȱasȱIȱsaidȱabove,ȱthereȱareȱalsoȱdifferentȱwaysȱforȱ oneȱtoȱcommitȱtoȱanotherȱreligion.ȱJacquesȱScheuer,ȱinȱreflectingȱ onȱ theȱ spiritualȱ guidanceȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ doubleȱ orȱ multipleȱ practitioners,ȱ showsȱ howȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ trajectoriesȱ thriveȱ inȱ thisȱ realm,ȱbutȱnotȱalwaysȱwithȱtheȱbestȱresults.ȱWarningȱthatȱsomeȱ mayȱfaceȱsolitude,ȱisolation,ȱorȱlackȱsignificantȱmarkers,ȱheȱalsoȱ pointsȱoutȱthatȱothersȱmayȱbecomeȱtooȱbulimicȱaboutȱreligiousȱ experiences,ȱ whileȱ othersȱ mayȱ alsoȱ sufferȱ fromȱ vertigoȱ orȱ beȱ takenȱ apartȱ byȱ hearingȱ differentȱ philosophiesȱ (Scheuerȱ 2005).ȱ Yet,ȱfollowingȱRoseȱDrew’sȱresults,ȱwhoȱstudiedȱtheȱcaseȱofȱsixȱ individualsȱ whoȱ publiclyȱ andȱ seriouslyȱ identifyȱ withȱ bothȱ ChristianȱandȱBuddhistȱtraditions,ȱoneȱcanȱalsoȱdefendȱtheȱcaseȱ that,ȱ whenȱ wellȱ balanced,ȱ thisȱ doubleȱ pathȱ doesȱ notȱ threatenȱ butȱstrengthensȱone’sȱspiritualȱlifeȱ(Drewȱ2011).ȱSchizophrenia,ȱ forȱher,ȱisȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱpossibleȱoutcomeȱofȱsuchȱmestizedȱpracȬ tice,ȱbutȱspiritualȱcoherenceȱcanȱtakeȱplaceȱ–ȱandȱripen.ȱ AlteredȱTruth,ȱContaminatedȱIndividualsȱ Atȱtheȱcoreȱofȱreligiousȱidentityȱ–ȱdefined,ȱatȱtheȱveryȱleast,ȱasȱbeȬ longingȱtoȱaȱcommunity,ȱfollowingȱdifferentȱpracticesȱ(religiousȱ andȱethical),ȱandȱkeepingȱfaithȱinȱaȱspecificȱworldviewȱ–ȱliesȱtheȱ vagueȱbutȱdeepȱandȱpolysemicȱnotionȱofȱtruth.ȱHowȱdoesȱmesȬ tizedȱspiritualityȱnegotiateȱaȱseeminglyȱ“doubleȱtruth”?ȱHowȱisȱ aȱmonotheisticȱrevelationȱcompatibleȱwithȱexperience,ȱwisdom,ȱ orȱ theȱ Buddhistȱ Fourȱ Nobleȱ Truths,ȱ forȱ instance?ȱ Willȱ oneȱ notȱ findȱ manyȱ contradictionsȱ inȱ havingȱ “twoȱ faiths”ȱ andȱ againȱ undergoȱinternalȱdivisions,ȱsplits,ȱorȱnervousȱbreakdowns?ȱ


TheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱfaithȱandȱtruthȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱrevisȬ itedȱhere.ȱFirst,ȱtheȱgistȱaboutȱfaithȱcannotȱbeȱreducedȱtoȱknowlȬ edge,ȱasȱhasȱmainlyȱbeenȱtheȱcaseȱinȱmodernȱtimesȱ–ȱwhereȱfaithȱ isȱ equatedȱ toȱ cognitiveȱ truth.ȱ Apparently,ȱ “Aristotelianȱ truth”ȱ (adequationȱ ofȱ aȱ statementȱ toȱ reality)ȱ shouldȱ beȱ differentiatedȱ fromȱ “personalȱ truth,”ȱ asȱ existentialismȱ emphasizes.ȱ Or,ȱ ifȱ weȱ considerȱfaithȱasȱsurrender,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱrock,ȱasȱdeȱBéthuneȱputsȱ it,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ trust,ȱ confidenceȱ withoutȱ certainty.13ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ hereȱ theȱcontentȱofȱfaithȱorȱtheȱvisȬàȬvisȱwillȱdetermineȱone’sȱreligiousȱ identity.ȱ Yetȱ ifȱ thisȱ visȬàȬvisȱ isȱ inaccessible,ȱ whatȱ canȱ weȱ positivelyȱ sayȱaboutȱone’sȱidentity?ȱFrancisȱX.ȱClooneyȱhasȱanȱinterestingȱ answerȱ whenȱ heȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ Godȱ willȱ accommodateȱ ourȱ deȬ mands:ȱ AsȱweȱloveȱGod,ȱGodȱadjustsȱandȱcomesȱtoȱusȱaccordingly;ȱ ifȱsomeoneȱlovesȱlikeȱaȱbride,ȱGodȱcomesȱasȱaȱgroom.…ȱ[I]nȱ contemplationȱ weȱ constructȱ aȱ pathȱ ofȱ religiousȱ belongingȱ thatȱsuitsȱourȱownȱspiritualȱimagining;ȱweȱdoȱthisȱaccordingȱ toȱ ourȱ traditionsȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ availableȱ inȱ ourȱ timeȱ andȱ place.ȱ Inȱ allȱ ofȱ this,ȱ Godȱ agreesȱ toȱ meetȱ there;ȱ ifȱ ourȱ contemplationȱ happensȱ toȱ crossȱ religiousȱ boundaries,ȱ Godȱagreesȱtoȱmeetȱusȱthereȱtoo.ȱ(Clooneyȱ2002:ȱ45)ȱ

Another,ȱ moreȱ apophatic,ȱ approachȱ toȱ religiousȱ identityȱ shouldȱalsoȱleadȱtoȱmoreȱhumilityȱinȱdefiningȱone’sȱidentity.14ȱIfȱ Godȱremainsȱaȱmystery,ȱifȱGodȱwilledȱhisȱownȱkenoticȱapproachȱ toȱtheȱworld,ȱthenȱsurelyȱweȱshouldȱbeȱveryȱcautiousȱaboutȱhowȱweȱ defineȱreligiousȱidentity.ȱTowardȱtheȱendȱofȱDoesȱDialogueȱChangeȱ Faith?ȱJeanȬMarieȱPlouxȱstressesȱtheȱfactȱthatȱneitherȱChristiansȱ ȱBéthuneȱ2007:ȱ201:ȱ“Laȱfoiȱlaȱplusȱforteȱneȱseȱbaseȱpasȱsurȱleȱroc;ȱ elleȱestȱabandonȱdansȱlaȱconfiance.”ȱThereȱisȱmuchȱtoȱsayȱhereȱaboutȱ thisȱotherȱ–ȱmoreȱmysticalȱ–ȱaspectȱofȱfaith.ȱAsȱoneȱhermitȱusedȱtoȱputȱ it:ȱ Jesusȱ wasȱ closestȱ toȱ Godȱ whenȱ heȱ shoutedȱ “Eliȱ Eli,ȱ lamaȱ sabachȬ thaniȱ(MyȱGod,ȱmyȱGod,ȱwhyȱhaveȱyouȱforsakenȱme)?”ȱ(Matthewȱ27:ȱ 46)ȱ onȱ theȱ cross.ȱ Contemporaryȱ mystics,ȱ likeȱ Simoneȱ Weil,ȱ willȱ haveȱ similarȱreflections.ȱ 13

ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Cornille’sȱ latestȱ bookȱ(2008)ȱ inȱ whichȱ sheȱ highlightsȱ humilityȱasȱaȱnecessaryȱcriterionȱforȱinterreligiousȱdialogue.ȱ 14


norȱ theȱ Churchȱ areȱ doneȱ withȱ theȱ disclosureȱ ofȱ Truthȱ (Plouxȱ 2007:ȱ191).ȱButȱPlouxȱisȱnotȱaloneȱinȱsayingȱso:ȱmysticsȱandȱtheoȬ logiansȱ repeatȱ timeȱ andȱ againȱ thatȱ Godȱ overflowsȱ ourȱ mindsȱ andȱconcepts.ȱThereȱwouldȱbeȱmuchȱtoȱsayȱaboutȱtheȱmysteryȱofȱ God,ȱandȱhowȱGregoryȱofȱNyssa,ȱThomasȱAquinas,ȱandȱMasterȱ Eckhartȱ expressȱ it,ȱ forȱ instance.ȱ Andȱ many,ȱ ifȱ notȱ all,ȱ pluralistȱ theologiansȱ–ȱsuchȱasȱJohnȱHickȱorȱPaulȱKnitterȱ–ȱinsistȱonȱtheȱ sameȱ ideaȱ thatȱ truthȱ claims,ȱ althoughȱ universalistȱ inȱ nature,ȱ cannotȱbeȱabsolutizedȱorȱtakenȱasȱdefinitive.ȱYetȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȱ Christianȱ textsȱ toȱ assessȱ God’sȱ unreachableȱ realityȱ isȱ theȱ ProȬ logueȱtoȱtheȱgospelȱofȱJohnȱwhereȱitȱsays:ȱ“Noȱoneȱ[amongȱus]ȱ hasȱeverȱseenȱGodȱ…”ȱ(Johnȱ1:18).ȱ ProvidedȱthatȱGodȱremainsȱaȱmysteryȱandȱwillȱadaptȱhim/ȱ herselfȱ toȱ theȱ believer,ȱ withoutȱ remainingȱ staticȱ orȱ immutable,ȱ cannotȱweȱpresumeȱtheȱsameȱforȱhumanȱpersonalȱidentity?ȱNotȱ thatȱweȱcanȱadaptȱtoȱanyȱdemandsȱasȱGodȱdoesȱ(!),ȱbutȱweȱcanȱ certainlyȱ adapt,ȱ learn,ȱ change,ȱ moveȱ onȱ fromȱ oneȱ pointȱ toȱ anȬ other.ȱWhileȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱisȱgoingȱon,ȱaȱpositiveȱalterȬ ationȱ isȱ produced.ȱ Thenȱ whyȱ doȱ someȱ denounceȱ itsȱ “corrupȬ tion”ȱwhileȱothersȱrejoiceȱinȱitsȱ“enrichment”?ȱWhatȱisȱthereȱtoȱ protectȱinȱqualifyingȱchangesȱasȱcontamination?ȱ Iȱamȱnotȱsureȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱhistoricalȱanalysesȱhaveȱbeenȱ thoroughlyȱ integratedȱ intoȱ systematicȱ theologyȱ andȱ theirȱ conȬ sequencesȱ assumed.ȱ Sinceȱ “truthȱ hasȱ nothingȱ butȱ historyȱ forȱ language,” 15ȱ faithȱ cannotȱ beȱ extractedȱ norȱ purifiedȱ fromȱ itsȱ soȬ ciohistoricalȱ settings.ȱ Neitherȱ truthȱ norȱ faithȱ canȱ beȱ examinedȱ withoutȱ historicalȱ investigation,ȱ butȱ theyȱ willȱ neverȱ beȱ “fully”ȱ expressedȱasȱsuchȱinȱsociohistoricalȱinstancesȱ(Geffréȱ1983:ȱ57).ȱ Becauseȱ discoursesȱ areȱ thusȱ alwaysȱ conditionedȱ byȱ theirȱ conȬ textsȱandȱbecauseȱtheȱcontextsȱareȱdiverse,ȱdiscoursesȱandȱpracȬ ticesȱ springingȱ fromȱ faithsȱ andȱ truthȱ haveȱ noȱ otherȱ optionȱ butȱ toȱbeȱmany.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ toȱ disagreeȱ withȱ Hendrikȱ M.ȱ Vroom’sȱ appreciationȱ ofȱ syncretismȱ whenȱ heȱ writes:ȱ “Syncretismȱ denotesȱ theȱ adopȬ tionȱofȱbeliefsȱwhichȱalterȱtheȱessentialȱexperienceȱandȱtheȱcenȬ ȱDeȱCerteauȱ1987:ȱ58ȱ:ȱ“Laȱvéritéȱn’aȱjamaisȱqueȱl’histoireȱpourȱ langage.”ȱ 15


tralȱbeliefsȱofȱaȱtradition”ȱ(Vroomȱ1989:ȱ34).ȱHere,ȱbothȱsyncreȬ tismȱandȱmestizajeȱareȱonȱtheȱsameȱside,ȱsinceȱtheyȱbothȱ“alter”ȱ anȱ “essential”ȱ experience.ȱ How,ȱ indeed,ȱ canȱ weȱ holdȱ anȱ “orȬ iginalȱidentity”ȱorȱevenȱ“basicȱbeliefs”ȱasȱ“pure”ȱifȱweȱtakeȱhisȬ toryȱ seriously?ȱ Whatȱ doesȱ thatȱ tendencyȱ toȱ essentializeȱ religionȱ mean?ȱ Troeltsch’sȱ studies,ȱ whichȱ showedȱ Christianityȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ historicalȱ phenomenonȱ –ȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ aȱ syncretisticȱ productȱ ofȱ Judaism,ȱ pagan,ȱ andȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ culturalȱ mixȱ –ȱ stillȱ remainȱ topical.16ȱ Iȱ thusȱ followȱ deȱ Certeauȱ whenȱ heȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ aȱ doubleȱwagerȱhasȱtoȱbeȱmadeȱforȱhistoryȱandȱdivineȱrevelation.17ȱ Inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱ however,ȱ fidelityȱ toȱtheȱpastȱ willȱ alsoȱ entailȱ rupȬ

ȱCf.ȱalso,ȱamongȱothers,ȱOȇLearyȱ2002ȱandȱGiselȱ2002.ȱWeȱcouldȱ questionȱ theȱ veryȱ conceptȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Isȱ thisȱ aȱ viableȱ andȱ operationalȱ conceptȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ place?ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ wasȱ notȱ onlyȱ raisedȱ byȱ CantwellȱSmithȱandȱthisȱpostmodernȱtrend;ȱThomasȱAquinasȱalreadyȱ didȱ notȱ considerȱ religionȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ theologicalȱ virtueȱ butȱ simplyȱ theȱ correctȱpracticeȱofȱpiousȱdeeds.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱhistory,ȱtheȱveryȱbounȬ daryȱbetweenȱreligionȱandȱcultureȱisȱalsoȱatȱstakeȱhere.ȱHowȱcanȱoneȱ distinguishȱ withoutȱ anyȱ doubtȱ betweenȱ theȱ two?ȱ Whenȱ “religion”ȱ isȱ modified,ȱ isȱ itȱ inȱ factȱ religionȱ orȱ cultureȱ thatȱ isȱ changing?ȱ Theȱ veryȱ leastȱoneȱcanȱsayȱhereȱisȱthatȱthereȱareȱnoȱmoreȱadvantagesȱtoȱreadingȱ Aristotleȱ thanȱ toȱ readingȱ theȱ Bhagavadȱ Gitaȱ toȱ expoundȱ theȱ Gospels’ȱ significance.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ whileȱ Aristotleȱ hasȱ beenȱ usedȱ aȱ greatȱ deal,ȱSanskritȱorȱotherȱimportantȱphilosophicalȱtraditionsȱmayȱwellȱbeȱ importantȱareasȱtoȱexploreȱforȱnewȱmeanings.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱtoȱsay,ȱhowȬ ever,ȱthatȱweȱareȱaddingȱIndianȱspicesȱtoȱaȱChristianȱdishȱthatȱhasȱlostȱ itsȱflavorȱ–ȱthereȱisȱanȱessentialistȱtwistȱtoȱthatȱcritiqueȱthatȱlooksȱawkȬ ward.ȱAsȱpartȱofȱtheȱhumanȱheritageȱinȱgeneral,ȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱtoȱwhomȱ inȱparticularȱphilosophicalȱtextsȱbelong,ȱbutȱIȱknowȱthatȱtoȱputȱthemȱinȱ dialogueȱwillȱcertainlyȱgenerateȱnewȱinvigoratingȱstreamsȱofȱideas.ȱ 16

ȱ Deȱ Certeauȱ 1987:ȱ 116ȱ:ȱ “Autoritéȱ ouȱ autorités?ȱ Laȱ réflexionȱ chrétienneȱseȱsitueȱ àȱcetteȱarticulationȱpérilleuseȱentreȱleȱsingulierȱdeȱ Dieuȱ etȱ leȱ plurielȱ deȱ l’histoire.ȱ Elleȱ doitȱ conjuguerȱ l’unȱ avecȱ l’autre,ȱ êtreȱ fidèleȱ àȱ l’Uniqueȱ dansȱ laȱ variété,ȱ voirȱ laȱ dispersion,ȱ desȱ maniȬ festationsȱetȱdesȱrepèresȱdeȱlaȱfoi.ȱElleȱestȱplacéeȱàȱceȱcroisementȱparȱleȱ risqueȱmêmeȱdeȱcroireȱenȱunȱDieuȱincarné.”ȱ 17


turesȱwithȱsomeȱ“traditional”ȱformsȱofȱreligiosity.ȱTraditionȱcanȱ onlyȱdieȱifȱitȱremainsȱ“intact.”18ȱ Therefore,ȱwhenȱusingȱexpressionsȱsuchȱasȱ“pureȱfaith,”ȱdoȱ weȱreferȱtoȱaȱperfectȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱcontentȱorȱtoȱtheȱauȬ thenticȱ heartȱ thatȱ thirstsȱ forȱ it?ȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ identity,ȱ isȱ itȱ notȱ moreȱ appropriateȱ toȱ stressȱ theȱ pursuit,ȱ theȱ quest,ȱ theȱ yearningȱ forȱ God/Truth/theȱ Absolute,ȱ thanȱ theȱ responseȱ itself,ȱ whichȱ mightȱjustȱbeȱtemporary?ȱPierreȱGiselȱwroteȱaboutȱtheȱ“excess”ȱ ofȱ believingȱ asȱ radicalizationȱ ofȱ theȱ question.19ȱ Weȱ mustȱ keepȱ theȱtension,ȱtheȱconflict,ȱtheȱanguish:ȱfaithȱisȱnotȱ(only)ȱaboutȱseȬ curing,ȱconsoling,ȱreassuring,ȱbutȱalsoȱaboutȱburning,ȱsearchingȱ inȱanȱuncomfortableȱpostureȱasȱwellȱ–ȱthisȱisȱatȱleastȱwhatȱaȱmesȬ tizedȱspiritualȱbeingȱexperiencesȱexistentially.ȱ Consequently,ȱweȱcouldȱconcludeȱthisȱsectionȱwithȱquotingȱ Elizondo:ȱ Theȱ problemȱ withȱ mestizajeȱ hasȱ neverȱ beenȱ biologicalȱ orȱ cultural,ȱbutȱsocial.ȱTheȱgreatȱhistoricalȱheresyȱofȱhumanityȱ hasȱbeenȱtheȱthoughtȱthatȱoneȱhadȱtoȱbeȱaȱpureȱbloodȱ–ȱthatȱ oneȱ couldȱ isolateȱ oneselfȱ fromȱ theȱ influenceȱ andȱ impactȱ ofȱ others.ȱ(Elizondoȱ2000:ȱ121)ȱ

Ifȱ mestizaje,ȱ alongȱ withȱ syncretismȱ here,ȱ challengesȱ theȱ estabȬ lishedȱ order,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ moreȱ forȱ liberatingȱ religionsȱ fromȱ themselvesȱthanȱforȱthreateningȱthem.ȱ

ȱ Deȱ Certeauȱ 1987:ȱ 81ȱ:ȱ “Laȱ traditionȱ neȱ peutȱ êtreȱ queȱ morteȱ siȱ elleȱresteȱintacte,ȱsiȱelleȱn’estȱpasȱchangéeȱparȱunȱacteȱquiȱlaȱrecréeȱ….”ȱ 18

ȱ Giselȱ 1990:ȱ 140:ȱ “L’excèsȱ seȱ tientȱ auȱ seuilȱ deȱ l’expérienceȱ duȱ mondeȱ etȱ deȱ laȱ naissanceȱ àȱ soi.ȱ Pasȱ laȱ folie,ȱ horsȱ lieu,ȱ niȱ leȱ défi,ȱ héȬ roïqueȱ etȱ tropȱ liéȱ auȱ moi;ȱ maisȱ bienȱ l’excès,ȱ commeȱ radicalisationȱ d’uneȱ questionȱ d’existence,ȱ oùȱ vouloirȱ seȱ garder,ȱ c’estȱ seȱ perdreȱ (neȱ pasȱnaître),ȱoùȱneȱpasȱacquiescerȱàȱsaȱsingularité,ȱsaȱfinitudeȱetȱsaȱmorȬ talité.ȱC’estȱseȱmanquerȱàȱjamais.ȱIlȱyȱaȱexcèsȱdansȱl’exacteȱmesureȱoùȱ laȱ vieȱ estȱ contingente;ȱ excèsȱ parceȱ qu’enȱ sonȱ fond,ȱ laȱ vieȱ estȱ inȬ conditionnelle,ȱetȱdèsȱlorsȱpassion.”ȱ 19


Conclusionȱ Doubleȱ commitmentsȱ revealȱ themselvesȱ asȱ thoughtȬprovokingȱ conundrums.ȱTheȱlabelȱforȱdescribingȱtheȱvariousȱpicturesȱisȱinȱ itselfȱ difficultȱ toȱ establish,ȱ andȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ knowȱ aȱ betterȱ wayȱ toȱ portrayȱ theseȱ situationsȱ thanȱ throughȱ theȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ mesȬ tizaje/creolization.ȱTheȱfactȱthatȱmoreȱpeopleȱpracticeȱyogaȱand/ȱ orȱsomeȱsortȱofȱBuddhistȱmeditationȱtodayȱtoȱdeepenȱtheirȱspirȬ itualȱ lifeȱ cannotȱ beȱ reducedȱ toȱ aȱ mereȱ deviationȱ inȱ faith.20ȱ Itȱ seemsȱ necessary,ȱ therefore,ȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ issueȱ moreȱ thorȬ oughlyȱagainȱandȱnotȱmarginalizeȱsuchȱcases,ȱevenȱthoughȱmesȬ tizedȱreligiousȱindividualsȱremainȱaȱminority.ȱFollowingȱrecentȱ pioneersȱlikeȱPanikkar,ȱAbhishiktananda,ȱVandana,ȱandȱothers,ȱ aȱ criticalȱ numberȱ ofȱ theologiansȱ andȱ practitionersȱ areȱ indeedȱ ableȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱdoubleȱcommitmentȱisȱandȱ shouldȱbeȱpossible.ȱ 21ȱIȱdoȱnotȱthereforeȱthinkȱweȱcanȱcondemnȱ thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ modifyingȱ aȱ classicalȱ religiousȱ identity.ȱ Andȱ Iȱ agreeȱ withȱ Jacquesȱ Dupuisȱ onȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ notȱ judgingȱ deȬ ductivelyȱ butȱ theologizingȱ inductivelyȱ onȱ theȱ matter.ȱ Toȱ turnȱ awayȱ fromȱ suchȱ reflectionsȱ withoutȱ givingȱ itȱ carefulȱ attentionȱ beforeȱseemsȱdefinitelyȱimprudent,ȱtoȱsayȱtheȱleast.ȱ Inȱmyȱview,ȱonlyȱoneȱidentityȱremains,ȱbutȱitȱisȱnourished,ȱ inȱ itsȱ questȱ andȱ itsȱ searchȱ ofȱ meaning,ȱ byȱ multipleȱ historicallyȱ basedȱandȱsociallyȱconditionedȱtruths.ȱIdentityȱhasȱmultipleȱfaȬ ȱSomeȱmoreȱsociologicalȱprobingȱexampleȱaboutȱthatȱtrendȱisȱloȬ catedȱ inȱ centersȱ likeȱ St.ȱ Virgilȱ inȱ Salzburg:ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ EmmausȬ Chapel,ȱ hostsȱ haveȱ accessȱ toȱ aȱ delightfulȱ ZenȬlikeȱ meditationȱ roomȱ whereȱworkshopsȱonȱBuddhistȱmeditationȱareȱgivenȱbyȱorȱforȱ“ChrisȬ tians.”ȱ 20

ȱ Inȱ 2009,ȱ butȱ sinceȱ writingȱ ofȱ thisȱ paper,ȱ twoȱ booksȱ haveȱ beenȱ publishedȱbyȱpreȬeminentȱtheologians:ȱPaulȱKnitter’sȱWithoutȱBuddhaȱIȱ Couldȱ Notȱ beȱ aȱ Christianȱ (2009)ȱ andȱ Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukel’sȱ TransȬ formationȱbyȱIntegrationȱ–ȱHowȱInterȬfaithȱEncounterȱChangesȱChristianityȱ (2009).ȱBothȱargueȱeloquentlyȱforȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱdoubleȱbelonging:ȱ whileȱtheȱformerȱexplainsȱhisȱchoiceȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱBuddhist,ȱtheȱlatterȱ brilliantlyȱarguesȱforȱdualȱbelonging.ȱAndȱagain,ȱDrew’sȱforthcomingȱ monographȱ onȱ Buddhistȱ Christianȱ dualȱ belongingȱ shouldȱ alsoȱ shedȱ moreȱlightȱonȱtheȱissue.ȱ 21


cetsȱandȱdifferentȱallegiances,ȱasȱAminȱMaaloufȱbeautifullyȱdeȬ monstratedȱinȱhisȱ1998ȱessayȱLesȱidentitésȱmeurtrièresȱ(seeȱMaalȬ oufȱ2001),ȱbutȱremainsȱuniquelyȱpersonal.ȱWeȱareȱneverȱonlyȱaȱ Christian,ȱ aȱ mother,ȱ orȱ aȱ professor;ȱ weȱ areȱ muchȱ moreȱ andȱ allȱ theseȱ traitsȱ together.ȱ Hence,ȱ asȱ someȱ mayȱ speakȱ twoȱ languagesȱ andȱbeȱconsideredȱbilingual,ȱitȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱpossibleȱtoȱassertȱ theȱ sameȱ forȱ religiousȱ peopleȱ whoȱ speakȱ twoȱ religiousȱ tradiȬ tions.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ differentȱ levelsȱ ofȱ proficiency,ȱ andȱ notȱ allȱ areȱ perfectlyȱbilingualȱinȱthisȱsense,ȱbutȱeveryoneȱchangesȱthroughȱ time.ȱThereȱisȱthusȱbothȱanȱhistorical,ȱunachievedȱdimensionȱtoȱ theȱquestionȱ–ȱhowȱcanȱIȱevenȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱsolelyȱaȱrealȱChristian?ȱ –ȱandȱanȱirreducibleȱdimensionȱdueȱtoȱtheȱmysticȱnatureȱofȱtheȱ quest.ȱSinceȱthereȱisȱnoȱwayȱtoȱknowȱexactlyȱandȱthoroughlyȱmyȱ identity,ȱ canȱ weȱ notȱ acceptȱ workingȱ withȱ anȱ imperfect,ȱ evenȱ contrary,ȱ definitionȱ ofȱ “whoȱ Godȱ is”ȱ andȱ “whoȱ weȱ are,”ȱ filledȱ withȱgapsȱandȱconsentȱtoȱourȱpartialȱignoranceȱinȱdealingȱwithȱ thatȱissue?ȱThisȱisȱwhatȱIȱpropose.ȱ EvenȱifȱmestizedȱposturesȱnaturallyȱgenerateȱinternalȱconȬ flicts,ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ seeȱ themȱ asȱ problematicȱ inȱ themselves:ȱ opposiȬ tionsȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱfruitfulȱandȱbringȱenrichingȱperspectives,ȱproȬ videdȱweȱacceptȱquestioningȱorȱchangingȱsomeȱpresuppositionsȱ here.ȱ Why,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ shouldȱ identityȱ –ȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mainȱquestionȱatȱstakeȱhereȱ–ȱbeȱhomogenous,ȱconsistent,ȱstatic,ȱ unchanging?ȱ Howȱ canȱ wrestling,ȱ dismantlement,ȱ orȱ strainȱ beȱ incorporatedȱintoȱourȱunderstandingȱofȱ(religious)ȱidentity?ȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ convincedȱ ofȱ stancesȱ regardingȱ complementariȬ nessȱandȱconvergenceȱweȱsometimesȱhearȱforȱjustifyingȱinterreȬ ligiousȱ dialogueȱ –ȱ andȱ Iȱ wishȱ Iȱ hadȱ timeȱ toȱ developȱ thisȱ ideaȱ moreȱ fullyȱ here.ȱ Becauseȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ knowȱ aboutȱ ourselves,ȱ theȱ worldȱandȱultimateȱreality,ȱspaceȱforȱreflectionȱopensȱup.ȱReliȬ giousȱ identity,ȱ inȱ itsȱ strictestȱ sense,ȱ cannotȱ beȱ straightforward,ȱ notwithstandingȱ whatȱ religiousȱ institutionsȱ andȱ manyȱ faithfulȱ wouldȱ declare:ȱ Whoȱ indeedȱ canȱ claimȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ realȱ Christianȱ orȱ Hindu,ȱasȱifȱitȱencompassedȱallȱvarietiesȱofȱbeing?ȱTruthȱisȱmulȬ tivalent,ȱ asȱ areȱ religiousȱ identities.ȱ Bordersȱ betweenȱ themȱ areȱ porous,ȱnotȱwatertight.ȱYetȱthereȱareȱirreducibleȱdifferencesȱthatȱ oneȱ cannotȱ minimizeȱ norȱ forget.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ why,ȱ insteadȱ ofȱ inteȬ grationȱ andȱ synthesis,ȱ Iȱ believeȱ struggle,ȱ stress,ȱ andȱ tussleȱ areȱ positiveȱposturesȱ–ȱasȱtheȱmestizajeȱsemanticȱfieldȱconveys.ȱSinceȱ consistenciesȱandȱcontradictionsȱflowȱhandȱinȱhandȱwithinȱone’sȱ


self,ȱ whyȱ shouldȱ theȱ aimȱ beȱ toȱ abandonȱ oneȱ traditionȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱofȱtheȱother?ȱCanȱweȱnotȱmakeȱprogressiveȱsenseȱofȱinterȬ nalȱconflicts,ȱandȱlearnȱhowȱtoȱmoveȱfromȱoneȱhomeȱtoȱanother?ȱ Antithesesȱ mayȱ remain,ȱ andȱ mayȱ engenderȱ anguishȱ andȱ doubts.ȱButȱthisȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱpartȱofȱone’sȱidentity,ȱnotȱaȱ threatȱinȱitself.ȱDoubleȱcommitment,ȱexistentiallyȱassessed,ȱthusȱ entailsȱbothȱsymbioticȱresultsȱandȱdismemberedȱconclusions.ȱ Ifȱ duplicityȱ isȱ aȱ synonymȱ ofȱ deceitfulness,ȱ doublenessȱ soundsȱ moreȱ likeȱ “twiceȱ asȱ many”ȱ –ȱ twiceȱ asȱ manyȱ questions,ȱ andȱtwiceȱasȱmanyȱdiscoveries.ȱWhileȱitȱcertainlyȱenriches,ȱIȱamȱ cautiousȱ inȱ sayingȱ thatȱ itȱ complements,ȱ asȱ ifȱ Iȱ couldȱ alreadyȱ haveȱ anȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱ picture.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ thingȱ Iȱ knowȱ forȱ sureȱ isȱ theȱ thirst:ȱ aȱ desireȱ toȱ knowȱ moreȱ aboutȱ theȱ mysteryȱ ofȱ lifeȱ –ȱ andȱ death.ȱ Toȱ speakȱ twoȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ ratherȱ thanȱ oneȱenlargesȱthisȱunderstanding.ȱHence,ȱIȱbelieveȱ–ȱandȱtoȱechoȱ andȱfurtherȱtheȱwordsȱofȱPeterȱPhanȱ(andȱPaulȱKnitter)ȱ–ȱtoȱbeȱ multireligiousȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱaȱdaringȱandȱfascinatingȱwayȱtoȱbeȱ religiousȱtoday,ȱevenȱifȱitȱraisesȱmanyȱcrucialȱquestions.ȱ Literatureȱ Abhishiktananda.ȱ(1986).ȱLaȱmontéeȱauȱfondȱduȱcoeur.ȱParis:ȱOEIL.ȱ (1978).ȱ Souvenirsȱ dȇArunachala:ȱ Récitȱ dȇunȱ ermiteȱ chrétienȱ enȱ terreȱ hindoue.ȱParis:ȱÉditeursȱÉpi.ȱ Alcoff,ȱ L.ȱ (2000).ȱ “Mestizoȱ Identity.”ȱ Inȱ R.ȱ Bernasconiȱ andȱ T.L.ȱ Lottȱ (eds.).ȱTheȱIdeaȱofȱRace.ȱIndianapolis:ȱHackettȱPub.ȱCo.ȱPp.ȱ139Ȭ60.ȱ Amaladoss,ȱM.ȱ(2009).ȱ“DoubleȱReligiousȱIdentity:ȱIsȱitȱPossible?ȱIsȱitȱ Necessary?”ȱVidyajyotiȱJournalȱofȱTheologicalȱReflectionȱ73/7:ȱ519Ȭ32.ȱ (1997).ȱÀȱlaȱrencontreȱdesȱcultures:ȱCommentȱconjuguerȱunitéȱetȱplurȬ alitéȱdansȱlesȱÉglises.ȱParis:ȱÉditionsȱdeȱl’Atelier.ȱ Amalorpavadass,ȱ D.S.ȱ (1985).ȱ Gospelȱ andȱ Cultureȱ:ȱ Evangelizationȱ andȱ Inculturation.ȱBangalore:ȱNBCLC.ȱ Amselle,ȱJ.ȬL.ȱ(1999).ȱLogiquesȱmétisses.ȱParis:ȱPayot.ȱ Audinet,ȱJ.ȱ(1999).ȱLeȱtempsȱduȱmétissage.ȱParis:ȱLesȱéditionsȱdeȱlȇAtelier.ȱ Basset,ȱ J.ȬC.ȱ (2000).ȱ “Deȱ lȇappartenanceȱ àȱ laȱ préférence.”ȱ In:ȱ D.ȱ Giraȱ andȱ J.ȱ Scheuerȱ (eds.).ȱ Vivreȱ deȱ plusieursȱ religions:ȱ Promesseȱ ouȱ ilȬ lusion?ȱParis:ȱLesȱéditionsȱdeȱl’Atelier.ȱPp.ȱ187Ȭ92.ȱ Baumer,ȱ B.ȱ (2004).ȱ “Gourouȱ hindouȱ –ȱ discipleȱ chrétienne.”ȱ Voiesȱ deȱ lȇOrientȱ91:ȱ23Ȭ30.ȱ Béthune,ȱ P.ȬF.ȱ de.ȱ (2007).ȱ LȇHospitalitéȱ sacréeȱ entreȱ lesȱ religions.ȱ Paris:ȱ AlbinȱMichel.ȱ

DOUBLEȱCOMMITMENTȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ433ȱ Bhabha,ȱH.ȱ(1994).ȱTheȱLocationȱofȱCulture.ȱNewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Bousquet,ȱ F.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Fromȱ DoubleȬMembershipȱ toȱ Fidelityȱ toȱ Bothȱ GodȱandȱHumanity.”ȱInȱP.ȱFridlund,ȱL.ȱKaennel,ȱandȱC.ȱStenqvistȱ (eds.).ȱ Pluralȱ Voices.ȱ Intradisciplinaryȱ Perspectivesȱ onȱ Interreligiousȱ Issues.ȱLouvain:ȱPeetersȱPublishers.ȱPp.ȱ221Ȭ30.ȱ Boyarin,ȱD.,ȱandȱV.ȱBurrus.ȱ(2005).ȱ“HybridityȱasȱSubversionȱofȱOrthoȬ doxy?ȱJewsȱandȱChristiansȱinȱLateȱAntiquity.”ȱSocialȱCompassȱ52:ȱ 431Ȭ41.ȱ Certeau,ȱM.ȱde.ȱ(1987).ȱLaȱFaiblesseȱdeȱcroire.ȱParis:ȱÉditionsȱduȱSeuil.ȱ Clooney,ȱFrancisȱX.ȱSJ.ȱ(2002).ȱ“GodȱforȱUs:ȱMultipleȱReligiousȱBelongȬ ingȱ asȱ Spiritualȱ Practiceȱ andȱ Divineȱ Response.”ȱ In:ȱ C.ȱ Cornilleȱ (ed.).ȱ Manyȱ Mansions?ȱ Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belongingȱ andȱ Christianȱ Identity.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱPp.ȱ44Ȭ60.ȱ (2001).ȱ Hinduȱ God,ȱ Christianȱ God:ȱ Howȱ Reasonȱ Helpsȱ Breakȱ Downȱ theȱBoundariesȱbetweenȱReligions.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ Cornille,ȱ C.ȱ (2008).ȱ Theȱ ImȬPossibilityȱ ofȱ Interreligiousȱ Dialogue.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱCrossroadȱPublishingȱCompany.ȱ (ed.).ȱ (2002).ȱ Manyȱ Mansions?ȱ Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belongingȱ andȱ ChristianȱIdentity.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ Davie,ȱ G.ȱ (1994).ȱ Religionȱ inȱ Britainȱ sinceȱ 1945:ȱ Believingȱ withoutȱ BeȬ longing.ȱLondon:ȱWileyȬBlackwell.ȱ Drew,ȱR.ȱ(2011).ȱBuddhistȱandȱChristian?ȱAnȱExplorationȱofȱDualȱBelongȬ ing.ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge.ȱForthcoming.ȱ Droge,ȱ A.J.ȱ (2001).ȱ “Retrofitting/Retiringȱ ‘Syncretism’.”ȱ Historicalȱ ReȬ flectionsȱ/ȱRéflexionsȱHistoriquesȱ27/3:ȱ375Ȭ87.ȱ Dupuis,ȱJ.ȱ(2002).ȱ“ChristianityȱandȱReligionsȱ–ȱComplementarityȱandȱ Convergence.”ȱIn:ȱC.ȱCornilleȱ(ed.).ȱManyȱMansions?ȱMultipleȱReȬ ligiousȱ Belongingȱ andȱ Christianȱ Identity.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱ Orbisȱ Books.ȱ Pp.ȱ61Ȭ75.ȱ Elizondo,ȱ V.ȱ (2000).ȱ Theȱ Futureȱ isȱ Mestizo:ȱ Lifeȱ Whereȱ Culturesȱ Meet,ȱ RevisedȱEdition.ȱBoulder:ȱUniversityȱPressȱofȱColorado.ȱ Geffré,ȱ C.ȱ (1983).ȱ Leȱ christianismeȱ auȱ risqueȱ deȱ lȇinterprétation.ȱ Paris:ȱ Cerf.ȱ Gira,ȱ D.,ȱ andȱ J.ȱ Scheuerȱ (eds.).ȱ (2000).ȱ Vivreȱ deȱ plusieursȱ religions:ȱ ProȬ messeȱouȱillusion?ȱParis:ȱÉditionsȱdeȱlȇAtelier.ȱ Gisel,ȱ P.ȱ (1990).ȱ L’excèsȱ duȱ croire:ȱ Expérienceȱ duȱ mondeȱ etȱ accèsȱ àȱ soi.ȱ Paris:ȱDescléeȱdeȱBrouwer.ȱ ȱ (2002).ȱ “Penserȱ laȱ religionȱ aujourdȇhui.”ȱ In:ȱ P.ȱ Giselȱ andȱ J.ȬM.ȱ Tétazȱ (eds.).ȱ Théoriesȱ deȱ laȱ religion:ȱ Diversitéȱ desȱ pratiquesȱ deȱ reȬ cherche,ȱchangementsȱdesȱcontextesȱsocioȬculturels,ȱrequêtesȱréflexives.ȱ

434ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Genève:ȱLaborȱetȱFides.ȱPp.ȱ362Ȭ92.ȱ andȱ J.ȬM.ȱ Tétazȱ (eds.).ȱ (2002).ȱ Théoriesȱ deȱ laȱ religion:ȱ Diversitéȱ desȱ pratiquesȱ deȱ recherche,ȱ changementsȱ desȱ contextesȱ socioȬculturels,ȱ reȬ quêtesȱréflexives.ȱGenève:ȱLaborȱetȱFides.ȱ Glissant,ȱ É.ȱ (1995).ȱ Introductionȱ àȱ uneȱ poétiqueȱ duȱ divers.ȱ Paris:ȱ GalliȬ mard.ȱ Gort,ȱ J.D.ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.).ȱ (1989).ȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ Syncretism:ȱ Anȱ InterdisciȬ plinaryȱApproach.ȱGrandȱRapids:ȱW.B.ȱEerdmans.ȱ Gruzinski,ȱS.ȱ(1999).ȱLaȱpenséeȱmétisse.ȱParis:ȱFayard.ȱ HervieuȬLéger,ȱD.ȱ(1999).ȱLeȱpèlerinȱetȱleȱconvertiȱ–ȱLaȱreligionȱenȱmouveȬ ment.ȱParis:ȱFlammarion.ȱ (2005).ȱ“BricolageȱvautȬilȱdissémination?ȱQuelquesȱréflexionsȱsurȱ lȇopérationalitéȱ sociologiqueȱ dȇuneȱ métaphoreȱ problématique.”ȱ SocialȱCompassȱ52/3:ȱ295Ȭ308.ȱ Knitter,ȱ P.F.ȱ (ed.).ȱ (2005).ȱ Theȱ Mythȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Superiority:ȱ Multifaithȱ ExplorationsȱofȱReligiousȱPluralism.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱbooks.ȱ (2009).ȱ Withoutȱ Buddhaȱ Iȱ Couldȱ notȱ beȱ aȱ Christian.ȱ Oxford:ȱ OneȬ worldȱPublications.ȱ Lafont,ȱG.ȱ(1986).ȱDieu,ȱleȱtempsȱetȱlȇêtre.ȱParis:ȱÉditionsȱduȱCerf.ȱ Laplantine,ȱF.,ȱandȱA.ȱNouss.ȱ(1997).ȱLeȱmétissage.ȱParis,ȱFlammarion.ȱ Leopold,ȱA.M.,ȱandȱJ.S.ȱJensenȱ(eds.).ȱ (2005).ȱSyncretismȱinȱReligion:ȱAȱ Reader.ȱNewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Maalouf,ȱA.ȱ(2001).ȱLesȱidentitésȱmeurtrières.ȱParis:ȱGrassetȱetȱFasquelle.ȱ Publishedȱ inȱ Englishȱ underȱ theȱ title:ȱ Inȱ theȱ Nameȱ ofȱ Identity:ȱ ViolenceȱandȱtheȱNeedȱtoȱBelongȱ(2000).ȱ Mary,ȱ A.ȱ (2001).ȱ “Enȱ finirȱ avecȱ leȱ bricolage...?”ȱ Archivesȱ deȱ Sciencesȱ SocialesȱdesȱReligionsȱ116:ȱ27Ȭ30.ȱ Medina,ȱ N.ȱ (2009).ȱ Mestizaje:ȱ (Re)mappingȱ Race,ȱ Culture,ȱ andȱ Faithȱ inȱ Latina/oȱCatholicism.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱbooks.ȱ OȇLeary,ȱ J.S.ȱ (2002).ȱ “Towardȱ aȱ Buddhistȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ Christianȱ Truth.”ȱ In:ȱ C.ȱ Cornilleȱ (ed.).ȱ Manyȱ Mansions?ȱ Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belongingȱ andȱ Christianȱ Identity.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱ Orbisȱ Books.ȱ Pp.ȱ 29Ȭ 43.ȱ Panikkar,ȱ R.ȱ (1981).ȱ TheȱUnknownȱ Christȱ ofȱHinduism:ȱ Towardsȱ anȱ EcuȬ menicalȱ Christophany.ȱ Revisedȱ andȱ Enlargedȱ Edition.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱ OrbisȱBooks.ȱ (1999).ȱ Theȱ Intrareligiousȱ Dialogue.ȱ 2ndȱ ed.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Paulistȱ Press.ȱ Philippe,ȱC.ȱ(2008).ȱ“Êtreȱparentsȱdansȱunȱcoupleȱmixteȱ:ȱÉlémentsȱdeȱ réflexion.”ȱInformationsȱsocialesȱ5ȱ(149):ȱ114Ȭ23.ȱ

DOUBLEȱCOMMITMENTȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ435ȱ Ploux,ȱ J.ȬM.ȱ (2007).ȱ Leȱ dialogueȱ changeȬtȬilȱ laȱ foi?ȱ Paris:ȱ Éditionsȱ deȱ lȇAtelier.ȱ Scheuer,ȱ J.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Accompagnerȱ desȱ personnesȱ vivantȱ deȱ plusieursȱ traditions.”ȱVoiesȱdeȱlȇOrientȱ97:ȱ27Ȭ38.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱP.ȱ(2009).ȱTransformationȱbyȱIntegration:ȱHowȱInterȬfaithȱ EncounterȱChangesȱChristianity.ȱLondon:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ Soares,ȱE.ȱ(2009).ȱLeȱbutinageȱreligieux:ȱPratiquesȱetȱpratiquantsȱauȱBrésil.ȱ Genève/Paris:ȱInstitutȱdeȱhautesȱétudesȱinternationalesȱetȱduȱdéȬ veloppement/Karthala.ȱ Stewart,ȱC.ȱ(1999).ȱ“SyncretismȱandȱitsȱSynonyms.”ȱDiacriticsȱ29:ȱ40Ȭ62.ȱ andȱR.ȱShawȱ(eds.).ȱ(1994).ȱSyncretism/AntiȬSyncretism:ȱTheȱPoliticsȱ ofȱReligiousȱSynthesis.ȱLondon/NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge.ȱ Whaling,ȱF.ȱ(1986).ȱChristianȱTheologyȱandȱWorldȱReligions:ȱAȱGlobalȱApȬ proach.ȱLondon:ȱMarshallȱPickering.ȱ

ȱ

IndexȱofȱSubjectsȱ ȱ ȱ apologeticsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ31,ȱ153,ȱ190,ȱ 198,ȱ 234ȱ 237,ȱ 238,ȱ 240,ȱ 241,ȱ 357,ȱ371,ȱ372,ȱ377ȱ authorityȱofȱscriptureȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ121,ȱ 123ȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ roots.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 4,ȱ 270Ȭ 75,ȱ278,ȱ281,ȱ286ȱ belongerȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ110,ȱ152ȱ belongingȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 93,ȱ 114,ȱ 125,ȱ 126,ȱ 132,ȱ 133,ȱ 134,ȱ 146,ȱ 152,ȱ 154,ȱ155,ȱ158Ȭ60,ȱ173,ȱ247Ȭ49,ȱ 257,ȱ 261,ȱ 268,ȱ 282,ȱ 283,ȱ 287,ȱ 334,ȱ 415,ȱ 420,ȱ 423Ȭ26,ȱ 430,ȱ 433,ȱ434ȱ double/dual/multipleȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ93,ȱ125,ȱ126,ȱ146,ȱ159,ȱ 247,ȱ 248,ȱ 257, 261, 420, 423, 430, 433, 434ȱ bricolageȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ416Ȭ19,ȱ434ȱ Buddhism.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.passimȱ Christianityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.passimȱ ChristianȱRightȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ289,ȱ291Ȭ 96,ȱ 299Ȭ301,ȱ 303,ȱ 304,ȱ 307,ȱ 310,ȱ311,ȱ314,ȱ344ȱ Christologicalȱprincipleȱ 235,ȱ236ȱ church.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ3,ȱ4,ȱ6Ȭ8,ȱ10,ȱ11,ȱ13,ȱ 15Ȭ17,ȱ 19,ȱ 20Ȭ22,ȱ 28,ȱ 31,ȱ 63,ȱ 86,ȱ 87,ȱ 90,ȱ 92,ȱ 95,ȱ 98,ȱ 101,ȱ 115Ȭ17,ȱ 120,ȱ 123,ȱ 127,ȱ 133,ȱ 134,ȱ 137,ȱ 151,ȱ 168,ȱ 182,ȱ 190,ȱ 213,ȱ215,ȱ231Ȭ35,ȱ241,ȱ243Ȭ48,ȱ 254,ȱ 258,ȱ 260Ȭ62,ȱ 287,ȱ 293,ȱ 295Ȭ97,ȱ 301,ȱ 302,ȱ 311,ȱ 312,ȱ 314,ȱ 320,ȱ 323,ȱ 338,ȱ 339,ȱ 348,ȱ 351,ȱ 357,ȱ 363,ȱ 376,ȱ 398,ȱ 399,ȱ

407,ȱ408,ȱ411,ȱ417,ȱ423,ȱ427ȱ comparativeȱreligionsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ108,ȱ 357,ȱ362ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 9,ȱ 10,ȱ 11,ȱ 24,ȱ 25,ȱ 28,ȱ 45,ȱ 104,ȱ 107Ȭ11,ȱ125,ȱ131Ȭ41,ȱ143,ȱ145Ȭ 47,ȱ 149Ȭ72,ȱ 174,ȱ 175,ȱ 177Ȭ85,ȱ 187Ȭ201,ȱ 203,ȱ 231Ȭ43,ȱ 245,ȱ 247Ȭ55,ȱ257Ȭ63,ȱ328,ȱ331,ȱ333ȱ complementarians.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 294,ȱ 295,ȱ296,ȱ303,ȱ304,ȱ305ȱ complementarity.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ88,ȱ433ȱ confessionalȱtheologyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ187Ȭ 90,ȱ 192,ȱ 193,ȱ 198,ȱ 199,ȱ 200,ȱ 237,ȱ241ȱ contextualizationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ174,ȱ187,ȱ 253,ȱ390,ȱ399ȱ culturalȱknowledgeȱȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ391ȱ culturalȱperformanceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ385,ȱ 394ȱ culturalȱturnȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ242,ȱ250,ȱ386,ȱ 394,ȱ400,ȱ401,ȱ402,ȱ404ȱ cultureȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ4,ȱ28,ȱȱ91,ȱȱ145,ȱ146,ȱȱ 165,ȱȱ178,ȱȱ182,ȱȱ195,ȱȱ226Ȭ29,ȱȱ 234,ȱȱ280,ȱȱ294,ȱȱ296,ȱȱ305Ȭ06,ȱȱ 309,ȱ ȱ 310,ȱ ȱ 313,ȱ ȱ 318,ȱ ȱ 324,ȱȱ 345,ȱȱ381Ȭ87,ȱȱ389,ȱȱ390,ȱȱ391,ȱȱ 392,ȱ ȱ 394Ȭ413,ȱ ȱ 417,ȱ ȱ 419,ȱȱ 423,ȱȱ428,ȱȱ432Ȭ34ȱ digimodernismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ308,ȱ313ȱ distanciationȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 171Ȭ74,ȱ 184ȱ dogmaticsȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 15,ȱ 164,ȱ 233,ȱ 234,ȱ 246,ȱ 252,ȱ 254,ȱ 255,ȱ 317,ȱ 322,ȱ393,ȱ415ȱ engagementȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 60,ȱ 65,ȱ 73,ȱ

438ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ 76,ȱ83,ȱ95,ȱ103,ȱ104,ȱ107,ȱ112Ȭ 15,ȱ120,ȱ122Ȭ24,ȱ133,ȱ151,ȱ153,ȱ 260,ȱ333,ȱ336,ȱ338,ȱ346,ȱ347ȱ ethicalȱcritiqueȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ333,ȱ335,ȱ 337,ȱ339Ȭ43,ȱ345,ȱ347Ȭ49,ȱ351ȱ exclusivismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ9,ȱ54,ȱ55,ȱ83,ȱ 84,ȱ 105,ȱ 106,ȱ 127,ȱ 162,ȱ 163,ȱ 181,ȱ 317,ȱ 318,ȱ 327,ȱ 328,ȱ 330,ȱ 393ȱ extratextualityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ169,ȱ388ȱ femaleȱcircumcisionȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ275Ȭ 80,ȱ286,ȱ287ȱ feminismȱ.ȱ.ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ64,ȱ79Ȭ82,ȱ212,ȱ 271,ȱ 272,ȱ 295,ȱ 297,ȱ 299,ȱ 305,ȱ 314,ȱ335,ȱ336,ȱ341Ȭ44,ȱ352ȱ feministȱtheologyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ79,ȱ81,ȱ 82,ȱ352ȱ fundamentalismȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 233,ȱ 307,ȱ310,ȱ345,ȱ375ȱ genderȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 82,ȱ 93,ȱ 204,ȱ 209,ȱ 210Ȭ19,ȱ 224,ȱ 226,ȱ 228,ȱ 229,ȱ 267Ȭ75,ȱ 277,ȱ 279,ȱ 281,ȱ 283,ȱ 285,ȱ287Ȭ89,ȱ291Ȭ96,ȱ300,ȱ303Ȭ 05,ȱ 310Ȭ15,ȱ 335,ȱ 336,ȱ 343Ȭ48,ȱ 351,ȱ352,ȱ418,ȱ432ȱ genderednessȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.215,ȱ218ȱ genderȱ issuesȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 82,ȱ 267,ȱ 271Ȭ74,ȱ285,ȱ348ȱ globalizationȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 155,ȱ 156,ȱ 187,ȱ 259,ȱ 290,ȱ 309,ȱ 310,ȱ 314,ȱ 383,ȱ394,ȱ412ȱ HartmanȱHevrutaȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ60Ȭ62ȱ hermeneuticalȱstrategy.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ33,ȱ 34,ȱ36ȱ hermeneutics.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱpassimȱȱ ofȱdifferenceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ11,ȱ19,ȱ20,ȱ 22,ȱ199ȱ interfaith.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ59,ȱ61,ȱ63,ȱ65,ȱ

67,ȱ69,ȱ71,ȱ73,ȱ75,ȱ77ȱ intratextualȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.162,ȱ174ȱ Hinduismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ8,ȱ49,ȱ95,ȱ101,ȱ 125,ȱ 127,ȱ 131Ȭ47,ȱ 150,ȱ 153,ȱ 155,ȱ 182ȱ 191,ȱ 200,ȱ 226,ȱ 239,ȱ 246,ȱ 249,ȱ 256,ȱ 257,ȱ 259,ȱ 334,ȱ 389,ȱ 295,ȱ 421,ȱ 423,ȱ 424,ȱ 431,ȱ 433,ȱ434ȱȱ Hineininterpretierung.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ177,ȱ 181ȱ hospitalityȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 65,ȱ 212,ȱ 213,ȱ 216,ȱ218,ȱ219,ȱ224ȱ hybridityȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 248,ȱ 387,ȱ 406,ȱ 413,ȱ418,ȱ433ȱ ideasȱofȱdifference.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ80ȱ identityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ3,ȱ4,ȱ6,ȱ8Ȭ15,ȱ19Ȭ 21,ȱ36,ȱ87,ȱ88,ȱ89,ȱ93,ȱ97,ȱ121,ȱ 140,ȱ 143,ȱ 159,ȱ 161,ȱ 166,ȱ 175,ȱ 178,ȱ 182,ȱ 183,ȱ 192,ȱ 195,ȱ 203,ȱ 204,ȱ 212Ȭ17,ȱ 221,ȱ 225,ȱ 226,ȱ 233,ȱ 235,ȱ 244,ȱ 251,ȱ 255Ȭ57,ȱ 291,ȱ 317,ȱ 318,ȱ 320,ȱ 325,ȱ 326,ȱ 327,ȱ 329,ȱ 331,ȱ 332,ȱ 351,ȱ 384,ȱ 387,ȱ401,ȱ403Ȭ06,ȱ408,ȱ410Ȭ12,ȱ 419,ȱ420,ȱ425Ȭ34ȱ culturalȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ383,ȱ384,ȱ387,ȱ 401,ȱ403Ȭ06,ȱ412ȱ interreligious.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.317,ȱ320ȱ queerȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ204,ȱ216ȱ religious.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 10,ȱ 19Ȭ21,ȱ 89,ȱ 93,ȱ 175,ȱ 183,ȱ 203,ȱ 204,ȱ 214,ȱ 216,ȱ 256,ȱ 317,ȱ 318,ȱ 320,ȱ 326,ȱ 327,ȱ 329,ȱ 331,ȱ 332,ȱ 425,ȱ 426,ȱ430Ȭ32ȱ immigrantsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ268,ȱ269,ȱ274,ȱ 286,ȱ323ȱ inclusiveȱBibleȱtranslationȱ 292,ȱ 300,ȱ 301,ȱ 303Ȭ05,ȱ 314,ȱ 315ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINDEXȱOFȱSUBJECTSȱ

inclusivismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ9,ȱ13,ȱ37,ȱ49,ȱ 51Ȭ53,ȱ55,ȱ83,ȱ84,ȱ92,ȱ105,ȱ110,ȱ 127,ȱ 162,ȱ 163,ȱ 181,ȱ 197,ȱ 199,ȱ 317,ȱ318,ȱ327,ȱ328,ȱ330,ȱ393ȱ inculturalȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ324ȱ individualizationȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 267,ȱ 268,ȱ275,ȱ377,ȱ417,ȱ418,ȱ419ȱ interculturalȱcommunicationȱ 388ȱ interculturalȱdialogueȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.9ȱ interculturalȱtheology.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ189,ȱ 234Ȭ36,ȱ 382,ȱ 390,ȱ 397,ȱ 410,ȱ 411ȱ interculturalityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ190,ȱ409,ȱ ȱ 410ȱ interculturationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ398,ȱ407,ȱ 410ȱ interfaith/interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ4,ȱ8,ȱ9,ȱ15,ȱ27,ȱ 47,ȱ 48,ȱ 75,ȱ 76,ȱ 79,ȱ 93,ȱ 100,ȱ 104,ȱ 107,ȱ 122,ȱ 124,ȱ 125,ȱ 138,ȱ 144,ȱ 149,ȱ 155,ȱ 171,ȱ 181,ȱ 183,ȱ 184,ȱ 198,ȱ 227,ȱ 236,ȱ 246,ȱ 247,ȱ 249,ȱ 257,ȱ 258,ȱ 261,ȱ 263,ȱ 306,ȱ 319,ȱ 321,ȱ 335,ȱ 346,ȱ 348,ȱ 350,ȱ 381Ȭ83,ȱ387Ȭ90,ȱ392,ȱ416,ȱ421,ȱ 426,ȱ427,ȱ431,ȱ433 interreligiosityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ190ȱ interreligiousȱlearningȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ317Ȭ 32ȱ interreligiousȱtheologyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ167,ȱ 170,ȱ203ȱ intrareligiousȱdialogue.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ84,ȱ 246,ȱ260,ȱ319,ȱ421,ȱ422,ȱ434ȱ intratextualityȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 162,ȱ 166Ȭ 68,ȱ169,ȱ174,ȱ181ȱ Judaismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱpassimȱ liberalȱtraditionȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ53,ȱ54ȱ

ȱ

439ȱ

marriageȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .43,ȱ 207,ȱ 211,ȱ 212,ȱ 215,ȱ 217,ȱ 220,ȱ 221,ȱ 223,ȱ 228,ȱ 272,ȱ 275,ȱ 280Ȭ86,ȱ 297,ȱ 299,ȱ305,ȱ312,ȱ345,ȱ359ȱ mestizajeȱ(creolization)ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ415,ȱ 419,ȱ 420,ȱ 428,ȱ 429,ȱ 430,ȱ 431,ȱ 434ȱ mestizationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ403,ȱ415,ȱ419,ȱ 421Ȭ25,ȱ429Ȭ31ȱ mutualȱcontradictionȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ50ȱ mysticismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ23,ȱ40,ȱ49,ȱ61,ȱ 146,ȱ 150,ȱ 151,ȱ 156,ȱ 223,ȱ 225,ȱ 232,ȱ246,ȱ424,ȱ426,ȱ427,ȱ431ȱ piaȱinterpretatioȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ28,ȱ33,ȱ36,ȱ 40,ȱ41,ȱ46ȱ pluralismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ..ȱpassimȱ polemical/polemicsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ27,ȱ28,ȱ 30,ȱ 31,ȱ 32Ȭ36,ȱ 42Ȭ44,ȱ 48,ȱ 107,ȱ 121,ȱ 234,ȱ 243,ȱ 353,ȱ 355Ȭ57,ȱ 364,ȱ373Ȭ75,ȱ377ȱ polytheismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ49ȱ postcolonialismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ6,ȱ7,ȱ8,ȱ20,ȱ 21,ȱ 23,ȱ 111,ȱ 233,ȱ 252,ȱ 306,ȱ 315,ȱ 379,ȱ 384,ȱ 386,ȱ 387,ȱ 402,ȱ 412,ȱ419ȱ postliberalismȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 162,ȱ 165,ȱ 168ȱ postmodernismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ6,ȱ7,ȱ170,ȱ 182,ȱ 185,ȱ 219,ȱ 290,ȱ 293,ȱ 303,ȱ 308,ȱ 309,ȱ 310,ȱ 312,ȱ 313,ȱ 342,ȱ 383,ȱ386,ȱ387,ȱ404,ȱ407,ȱ428ȱ povertyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ86,ȱ87,ȱ88,ȱ91,ȱ95,ȱ 96,ȱ98ȱ prayerȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ75,ȱ138,ȱ140,ȱ146,ȱ 205,ȱ 208,ȱ 244,ȱ 274,ȱ 322,ȱ 324Ȭ 26,ȱ357,ȱ371ȱ privatizationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ267,ȱ268,ȱ 289,ȱ294ȱ ȱ ȱ

440ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ processȱreligiosityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ317,ȱ318,ȱ 321,ȱ324Ȭ26,ȱ329,ȱ331ȱ propheticȱasceticismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ87ȱ ȱ queerȱtheologyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ203Ȭ05,ȱ207,ȱ 209,ȱ 211Ȭ21,ȱ 223,ȱ 225,ȱ 227,ȱ 229ȱ referenceȱreligiosityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.317Ȭȱ ȱ 18,ȱ324,ȱ325,ȱ327,ȱ329,ȱ331ȱ referentialityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.176,ȱ236ȱ religiosityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.157,ȱ190,ȱ203,ȱ 205Ȭ07,ȱ 209,ȱ 211,ȱ 213,ȱ 215,ȱ 217,ȱ 219,ȱ 221,ȱ 223,ȱ 225,ȱ 227,ȱ 229,ȱ 270,ȱ 286,ȱ 317,ȱ 318,ȱ 321,ȱ 324Ȭ27,ȱ329,ȱ331,ȱ416,ȱ417Ȭ19,ȱ 429ȱ religiousȱotherȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ4,ȱ8,ȱ10,ȱ15,ȱ 20Ȭ22,ȱ 27,ȱ 105,ȱ 161Ȭ64,ȱ 169,ȱ 180,ȱ 181,ȱ 319,ȱ 333,ȱ 335,ȱ 336,ȱ 339ȱ religiousȱstudiesȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ7,ȱ8,ȱ78,ȱ 128,ȱ 149,ȱ 152,ȱ 158,ȱ 184,ȱ 189,ȱ 193,ȱ 231,ȱ 235Ȭ38,ȱ 241Ȭ43,ȱ 246,ȱ 248Ȭ53,ȱ 342,ȱ 343,ȱ 347,ȱ 351,ȱ365,ȱ384ȱ salvationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ5,ȱ17,ȱ21,ȱ35,ȱ53,ȱ 82,ȱ 137,ȱ 162,ȱ 183,ȱ 222,ȱ 227,ȱ 238,ȱ 262,ȱ 305,ȱ 318,ȱ 326,ȱ 328Ȭ 30,ȱ348,ȱ398Ȭ99ȱ salvificȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ13,ȱ16,ȱ17,ȱ18,ȱ52Ȭ 54,ȱ 105,ȱ 106,ȱ 162,ȱ 187,ȱ 232,ȱ 327,ȱ328,ȱ410ȱ ScripturalȱReasoningȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ28,ȱ 57,ȱ59Ȭ78,ȱ79Ȭ82,ȱ83Ȭ102,ȱȱ104,ȱ 107Ȭ09,ȱ112,ȱ114,ȱ126,ȱ336Ȭ39,ȱ 347,ȱ350ȱ SecondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱ 3Ȭ5,ȱ7,ȱ10,ȱ14,ȱ15,ȱ21,ȱ22,ȱ127,ȱ

235,ȱ244,ȱ397ȱ Sexualityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ204,ȱ212,ȱ213,ȱ 216Ȭ18,ȱ 222,ȱ 225,ȱ 226,ȱ 228,ȱ 287,ȱ292Ȭ95,ȱ303,ȱ310,ȱ344ȱ soteriologyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ120,ȱ162,ȱ163,ȱ 181,ȱ210ȱ supersessionismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ114,ȱ120ȱ symbiosisȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 83Ȭ102,ȱ 127,ȱ 419ȱ syncretismȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ83,ȱ84,ȱ87,ȱ88,ȱ 97,ȱ 126,ȱ 417,ȱ 417Ȭ19,ȱ 427Ȭ29,ȱ 433Ȭ35ȱ theologyȱofȱreligionsȱ..ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ4Ȭ13,ȱ 17Ȭ21,ȱ 25,ȱ 37,ȱ 80,ȱ 100,ȱ 104,ȱ 105,ȱ 107,ȱ 109Ȭ11,ȱ 113,ȱ 127,ȱ 137,ȱ 155,ȱ 161Ȭ65,ȱ 182,ȱ 183,ȱ 185,ȱ 187,ȱ 192Ȭ94,ȱ 196Ȭ201,ȱ 227,ȱ 231Ȭ33,ȱ 243,ȱ 245,ȱ 246,ȱ 258,ȱ 261,ȱ 262,ȱ 318,ȱ 327,ȱ 328,ȱ 329,ȱ331,ȱ351,ȱ382,ȱ393,ȱ415ȱ transculturalȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 324,ȱ 399,ȱ 413ȱ transgressiveȱlearningȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱ150,ȱ 154ȱ translationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ29,ȱ31Ȭ33,ȱ40,ȱ 47,ȱ 105,ȱ 107,ȱ 153,ȱ 182,ȱ 183,ȱ 192,ȱ 196,ȱ 287,ȱ 292,ȱ 300Ȭ06,ȱ 308,ȱ 313,ȱ 314,ȱ 315,ȱ 336,ȱ 365,ȱ 367,ȱ 376,ȱ 391,ȱ 392,ȱ 399,ȱ 402,ȱ 405Ȭ12ȱ truthȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ7,ȱ12,ȱ16Ȭ18,ȱ27,ȱ30,ȱ 31,ȱ 33Ȭ39,ȱ 43,ȱ 44,ȱ 48,ȱ 52,ȱ 66,ȱ 67,ȱ70,ȱ73,ȱ75,ȱ91,ȱ92,ȱ94,ȱ108Ȭ 14,ȱ 117,ȱ 123,ȱ 124,ȱ 128,ȱ 134,ȱ 135,ȱ 137,ȱ 140,ȱ 142,ȱ 144,ȱ 155,ȱ 167,ȱ 176,ȱ 182,ȱ 185,ȱ 189,ȱ 196,ȱ 197,ȱ 232,ȱ 233,ȱ 235,ȱ 238,ȱ 241Ȭ 45,ȱ 251,ȱ 255,ȱ 257,ȱ 260,ȱ 289,ȱ 299,ȱ 305,ȱ 307,ȱ 308,ȱ 311,ȱ 312,ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINDEXȱOFȱSUBJECTSȱ 314,ȱ 321,ȱ 324,ȱ 326,ȱ 328,ȱ 329,ȱ 330,ȱ 331,ȱ 346,ȱ 355,ȱ 357,ȱ 358,ȱ 376,ȱ 388,ȱ 397,ȱ 398,ȱ 405,ȱ 412,ȱ 424Ȭ27,ȱ429Ȭ31,ȱ434ȱ

Verstehenȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ 151,ȱ 154,ȱ 155,ȱ 157,ȱ395,ȱ396ȱ violenceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ8,ȱ29,ȱ43,ȱ51,ȱ81,ȱ 233,ȱ 253,ȱ 280,ȱ 284,ȱ 335,ȱ 337,ȱ 341Ȭ44,ȱ 347,ȱ 350,ȱ 357,ȱ 362,ȱ 363,ȱ434ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

441ȱ

womenȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ63,ȱ79,ȱ80,ȱ90,ȱ91,ȱȱ 210,ȱ 213,ȱ 215Ȭ21,ȱ 223,ȱ 225,ȱ 227Ȭ29,ȱ 269,ȱ 271Ȭ88,ȱ 290Ȭ92,ȱ 294Ȭ300,ȱ 305,ȱ 312Ȭ15,ȱ 336,ȱ 343,ȱ 344,ȱ 346,ȱ 350,ȱ 352,ȱ 360,ȱ 385ȱ worldȱscripturesȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ337,ȱ339,ȱ 352ȱ writingȱcultureȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ386,ȱ395,ȱ 404,ȱ405,ȱ412ȱ

Contributorsȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ NicholasȱAdamsȱisȱseniorȱlecturerȱinȱTheologyȱandȱEthicsȱatȱtheȱUniȬ versityȱofȱEdinburgh.ȱHisȱresearchȱcoversȱtheȱimpactȱofȱGermanȱIdealȬ ismȱonȱtheology,ȱtheȱnatureȱofȱpublicȱreligiousȱargumentation,ȱandȱtheȱ significanceȱ ofȱ developmentsȱ inȱ interfaithȱ engagementȱ forȱ theology.ȱ Heȱ isȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Habermasȱ andȱ Theologyȱ (Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2006)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ articlesȱ onȱ Germanȱ Idealismȱ andȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning.ȱ ȱ Dr.ȱDavidȱCheetham,ȱSeniorȱLecturerȱinȱTheologyȱandȱReligion,ȱUniȬ versityȱ ofȱ Birmingham,ȱ UK.ȱ Researchȱ Areas:ȱ Interculturalȱ Theology,ȱ PhilosophyȱandȱReligiousȱDiversity.ȱPublications:ȱJohnȱHickȱ(Ashgate,ȱ 2003),ȱ Contemporaryȱ Practiceȱ andȱ Methodȱ inȱ theȱ Philosophyȱ ofȱ Religionȱ (Continuum,ȱ2008),ȱnumerousȱpapersȱinȱacademicȱjournalsȱsuchȱasȱSoȬ phia,ȱHeythropȱJournal,ȱIslamȱandȱChristianȬMuslimȱRelations,ȱNewȱBlackȬ friars.ȱ http://www.ptr.bham.ac.uk/staff/cheetham.shtmlȱ ȱ JohnȱChesworthȱisȱLecturerȱatȱtheȱCentreȱforȱMuslimȬChristianȱStudȬ ies,ȱ Oxford,ȱ andȱ Honoraryȱ Researchȱ Fellowȱ atȱ St.ȱ Stephen’sȱ House,ȱ Oxford.ȱ Formerly,ȱ heȱ wasȱ Seniorȱ Lecturerȱ atȱ St.ȱ Paul’sȱ University,ȱ Limuru,ȱ Kenya.ȱ Hisȱ currentȱ researchȱ interestsȱ are:ȱ Theȱ vilificationȱ ofȱ PaulȱinȱMuslimȱwritings;ȱMuslimȬChristianȱrelationsȱinȱAfrica.ȱRecentȱ publicationsȱ include:ȱ “Theȱ Africanȱ Christianȱ andȱ Islamicȱ Da‘waȱ andȱ Polemics,”i:ȱ Laminȱ Sanneh,ȱ Josiahȱ IdowuȬFearonȱ andȱ Johnȱ Azumahȱ eds.),ȱ Theȱ Africanȱ Christianȱ andȱ Islam,ȱ Langhamȱ Monographsȱ (forthȬ coming);ȱ “Theȱ Churchȱ andȱ Islam:ȱ Vyamaȱ Vingiȱ (Multipartyism)ȱ andȱ theȱ Ufungamanoȱ Talks,”in:ȱ B.ȱ Knightonȱ (ed.),ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Politicsȱ inȱ Kenyaȱ (Palgrave,ȱ 2009),ȱ pp.ȱ 155Ȭ80;ȱ “Challengesȱ toȱ theȱ nextȱ ChrisȬ tendom:ȱ Islamȱ inȱ Africa,”ȱ in:ȱ F.ȱ Wijsenȱ andȱ R.ȱ Schreiterȱ (eds.),ȱ Globalȱ Christianity:ȱContestedȱClaimsȱ(EditionsȱRodopi,ȱ2007),ȱpp.ȱ117Ȭ32.ȱ http://www.cmcsoxford.org.ukȱ ȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ Clooney,ȱ SJ,ȱ Parkmanȱ Professorȱ ofȱ Divinityȱ andȱ ComparativeȱTheology,ȱHarvardȱDivinityȱSchool,ȱDirectorȱofȱtheȱCenȬ terȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Worldȱ Religions,ȱ Harvardȱ University.ȱ Researchȱ Areas:ȱChristianȱtheology;ȱHinduȬChristianȱcomparativeȱtheology;ȱtheȱ HinduȬChristianȱ missionaryȱ encounters,ȱ 1500Ȭtheȱ present.ȱ PublicaȬ tions:ȱ Comparativeȱ Theology:ȱ Deepȱ Learningȱ acrossȱ Religiousȱ Bordersȱ (WileyȬBlackwell,ȱ2010);ȱBeyondȱCompare:ȱSt.ȱFrancisȱdeȱSalesȱandȱSriȱVeȬ dantaȱDesikaȱonȱLovingȱSurrenderȱtoȱGodȱ(GeorgetownȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ

444ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ 2008);ȱTheȱTruth,ȱtheȱWay,ȱtheȱLife:ȱTheȱChristianȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱThreeȱ HolyȱMantrasȱofȱtheȱSrivaisnavaȱHinduȱTraditionsȱ(Peeters,ȱ2008).ȱ http://www/hds.harvard.edu/faculty/clooney.cfmȱ ȱ Rev.ȱDr.ȱHeleneȱEgnellȱisȱcurrentlyȱBishop’sȱadviserȱatȱtheȱCentreȱforȱ Interȱ Faithȱ Dialogueȱ inȱ theȱ dioceseȱ ofȱ Stockholm.ȱ Herȱ mainȱ researchȱ areaȱ isȱ theȱ intersectionȱ ofȱ feminismȱ andȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ ImȬ portantȱ publications:ȱ doctoralȱ dissertation:ȱ Otherȱ Voices:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ ChristianȱFeministȱApproachesȱtoȱReligiousȱPluralityȱEastȱandȱWest,ȱStudiaȱ MissionaliaȱSvecanaȱCȱ(Uppsalaȱ2006);ȱ“TheȱDiscourseȱatȱtheȱMargins:ȱ Aȱ Feministȱ Approachȱ toȱ Religiousȱ Plurality,”ȱ in:ȱ Simoneȱ Sinnȱ (ed.),ȱ Deepeningȱ Faith,ȱ Hopeȱ andȱ Loveȱ inȱ Relationsȱ withȱ Neighboursȱ ofȱ Otherȱ Faiths,ȱ (Theȱ Lutheranȱ Worldȱ Federation,ȱ 2008),ȱ “Theȱ Messinessȱ ofȱ ActualȱExistence:ȱFeministȱContributionsȱtoȱTheologyȱofȱReligions,”ȱinȱ AnnetteȱEsserȱet.ȱalȱ(eds.),ȱFeministȱApproachesȱtoȱInterreligiousȱDialogueȱ ESWTRȱJournalȱ17/2009.ȱ www.centrumforreligionsdialog.seȱ ȱ Xavierȱ GravendȬTiroleȱ graduatedȱ fromȱ McGillȱ Universityȱ withȱ anȱ undergraduateȱ degreeȱ inȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ andȱ philosophyȱ andȱ thenȱ wentȱonȱaȱworldȱtourȱtoȱaȱseriesȱofȱsacredȱsitesȱbelongingȱtoȱdifferentȱ religiousȱtraditions.ȱWhileȱinȱIndia,ȱheȱencounteredȱChristianȱashrams.ȱ Aȱ fewȱ yearsȱ later,ȱ afterȱ aȱ newȱ Baccaulareateȱ inȱ Theologyȱ fromȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ Paris,ȱ andȱ aȱ Masterȱ ofȱ Theologicalȱ Studiesȱ fromȱ Harvard,ȱheȱdecidedȱtoȱtakeȱIndianȱChristianȱrelationshipsȱasȱtheȱfocalȱ pointȱ forȱ hisȱ dissertationȱ onȱ interreligiousȱ relations.ȱ Hisȱ researchȱ exploresȱ ifȱ andȱ howȱ creolizationȱ canȱ becomeȱ fertileȱ theologicalȱ groundsȱ forȱ examiningȱ identity,ȱ relationshipsȱ withȱ theȱ otherȱ andȱ religiousȱ pluralism.ȱ Publicationsȱ include:ȱ “croireȱ écartelé,”ȱ inȱ Pierreȱ Giselȱ andȱ Pierreȱ Margelȱ (eds.),ȱ Leȱ croireȱ auȱ cœurȱ desȱ sociétésȱ etȱ desȱ culturesȱ (Laborȱ etȱ Fides;ȱ atȱ press);ȱ “Fromȱ Solaȱ Scripturaȱ toȱ Pluralibusȱ Scripturis,”ȱin:ȱClaireȱClivazȱandȱJeanȱZumstein,ȱinȱcollaborationȱwithȱ J.ȱReadȬHeimerdingerȱandȱPaikȱ(eds.),ȱReadingȱNewȱTestamentȱPapyriȱinȱ Contextȱ(Peeters;ȱatȱpress);ȱ“CatholicismȱandȱtheȱAIDSȱPandemic,”ȱin:ȱ ArvindȱSharmaȱ(ed.),ȱReligionȱandȱHumanȱRightsȱ(Portsmouth:ȱPraegerȱ Publ.,ȱ 2008),ȱ pp.ȱ 115Ȭ44ȱ (http://books.google.ch/ȱ books?id=XOM5DȬ pj7kIC&pg=RA1ȬPA115).ȱ ȱ Judithȱ Gruber,ȱ PhDȱ candidateȱ atȱ theȱ Centreȱ ofȱ Interculturalȱ Theologyȱ andȱInterreligiousȱStudies,ȱSalzburgȱUniversity,ȱAustria.ȱResearchȱareas:ȱ methodologyȱ andȱ epistemologyȱ ofȱ interculturalȱ theology,ȱ theologyȱ andȱ culturalȱ studies,ȱ liberationȱ theology.ȱ Publications:ȱ “Christianȱ Identities:ȱAnȱImaginativeȱandȱInnovativeȱQuestȱforȱPluriformȱUnity,”ȱ

CONTRIBUTORSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ445ȱ eSharpȱ 14ȱ (2009),ȱ http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/esharp/;ȱ “Kircheȱ undȱ Kultur:ȱ Eineȱ spannungsvolleȱ Identifizierungȱ imȱ Anschlussȱ anȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ spes,”ȱ in:ȱ Franzȱ GmainerȬPranzlȱ andȱ Magdalenaȱ HolzȬ trattnerȱ(eds.),ȱPartnerinȱderȱMenschenȱȬȱZeuginȱderȱHoffnung:ȱDieȱKircheȱ imȱ Lichtȱ derȱ Pastoralkonstitutionȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ spes,ȱ Salzburgerȱ TheoȬ logischeȱ Studienȱ 41ȱ (Tyrolia,ȱ 2010),ȱ pp.ȱ 303Ȭ24.;ȱ “Rememberingȱ BorȬ ders:ȱTowardȱaȱSystematicȱTheologyȱofȱMigration,”ȱin:ȱKirstyȱHooperȱ (ed.).ȱTraces:ȱCulturalȱandȱMaterialȱResiduesȱofȱMigration.ȱLiverpoolȱUniȬ versityȱPressȱMigrationsȱandȱIdentitiesȱ(forthcoming).ȱ ȱ Drȱ Elizabethȱ Jȱ Harris,ȱ Liverpoolȱ Hopeȱ University.ȱ Researchȱ Areas:ȱ Theravadaȱ Buddhism;ȱ BuddhistȬChristianȱ Relationships;ȱ Interfaithȱ Relationships;ȱReligionȱinȱSriȱLanka.ȱPublications:ȱTheravadaȱBuddhismȱ andȱtheȱBritishȱEncounter:ȱReligious,ȱMissionaryȱandȱColonialȱexperienceȱinȱ Nineteenthȱ Centuryȱ Sriȱ Lankaȱ (Routledge,ȱ 2006);ȱ Buddhismȱ forȱ aȱ Violentȱ World:ȱ Aȱ Christianȱ Reflectionȱ (Epworth,ȱ 2010);ȱ Whatȱ Buddhistsȱ Believeȱ (Oneworld,ȱ1998).ȱ ȱ Drȱ Paulȱ Hedgesȱ isȱ Programmeȱ Leaderȱ forȱ Theologyȱ andȱ Religiousȱ Studiesȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Winchester,ȱ UK,ȱ andȱ hasȱ taughtȱ atȱ otherȱ British,ȱ Canadianȱ andȱ Chineseȱ universities.ȱ Publicationsȱ includeȱ PreȬ parationȱandȱFulfilmentȱ(2001),ȱChristianȱApproachesȱtoȱOtherȱFaithsȱ(textȬ book:ȱ 2008;ȱ reader:ȱ 2009,ȱ bothȱ withȱ Alanȱ Race),ȱ andȱ Controversiesȱ inȱ InterreligiousȱDialogueȱandȱtheȱTheologyȱofȱReligionsȱ(2010).ȱHeȱisȱonȱtheȱ editorialȱboardȱofȱTheȱJournalȱofȱReligiousȱHistoryȱandȱaȱcoȬeditorȱofȱtheȱ Australianȱ Religionȱ Studiesȱ Review.ȱ Hisȱ researchesȱ bothȱ asȱ aȱ Christianȱ theologianȱ andȱ scholarȱ ofȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱ focusingȱ particularlyȱ onȱ interreligiousȱ andȱ interculturalȱ encountersȱ (includingȱ historical,ȱ theological,ȱ andȱ ethicalȱ issues),ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ suchȱ areasȱ asȱ modernȱ andȱ contemporaryȱ Christianȱ theologies,ȱ sacredȱ spaceȱ andȱ pilgrimage,ȱ death,ȱidentity,ȱreligionȱinȱEastȱAsia,ȱandȱmetatheoryȱinȱreligion.ȱ www.winchester.ac.uk/academicdepartments/theology/staff%20profil es/Pages/DrPaulHedges.aspxȱ ȱ Magdalenȱ Lambkinȱ isȱ aȱ PhDȱ studentȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Glasgowȱ workingȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱinterreligiousȱdialogueȱandȱhermeneutics.ȱSheȱ isȱ aȱ boardȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ Scottishȱ Interfaithȱ Councilȱ andȱ wasȱ coȬorȬ ganiserȱ ofȱ theȱ symposiumȱ “Christianityȱ andȱ Islam:ȱ Betweenȱ Love,ȱ LawȱandȱSecularity”ȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱGlasgow,ȱOctoberȱ2010;ȱandȱ theȱ colloquiumȱ “Theȱ Questionȱ ofȱ Theologicalȱ Truth:ȱ Hermeneuticsȱ andȱ Contemporaryȱ Philosophyȱ inȱ aȱ MultiȬReligiousȱ World”ȱ atȱ theȱ CatholicȱUniversityȱofȱLouvain,ȱMayȱ2011ȱ

446ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ Publications:ȱ ‘Canȱ Scripturesȱ Unite?ȱ Aȱ Theologicalȱ Explorationȱ ofȱ theȱ Interreligiousȱ Practiceȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ Reasoning,”ȱ eSharpȱ 15ȱ (2010),ȱhttp://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/esharp/.ȱ ȱ Oddbjørnȱ Leirvikȱ isȱ Professorȱ inȱ Interreligiousȱ Studies,ȱ Facultyȱ ofȱ Theology,ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Oslo.ȱ Areasȱ ofȱ research:ȱ interreligiousȱ diaȬ logue,ȱIslam,ȱChristianȬMuslimȱrelations,ȱreligionȱandȱpolitics,ȱreligionȱ andȱ secularity,ȱ hermeneutics.ȱ Publications:ȱ Imagesȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ Christȱ inȱ Islamȱ (Continuumȱ 2010);ȱ Humanȱ Conscienceȱ andȱ MuslimȬChristianȱ Relations:ȱModernȱEgyptianȱThinkersȱonȱalȬDamirȱ(Routledgeȱ2006/2010);ȱ Theȱ Powerȱ ofȱ Faithsȱ inȱ Globalȱ Politics,ȱ coȬeditedȱ withȱ Sturlaȱ J.ȱ Stålsettȱ andȱPeterȱBeyerȱ(Novusȱ2004).ȱForȱaȱfullȱlistȱofȱpublications,ȱseeȱhttp://ȱ folk.uio.no/leirvik/tekster/publication.html.ȱ Homeȱpage:ȱhttp://folk.uio.no/leirvikȱ ȱ Marianneȱ Moyaertȱ isȱ aȱ postȬdoctoralȱ researcherȱ atȱ theȱ Centreȱ forȱ Religiousȱ Studiesȱ andȱ Interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ atȱ theȱ Facultyȱ ofȱ Theology,ȱCatholicȱUniversityȱofȱLouvain,ȱBelgium.ȱTheȱbroadȱfieldȱofȱ herȱresearchȱisȱtheȱcontemporaryȱcontextȱofȱculturalȱandȱreligiousȱdiȬ versityȱasȱaȱtheological,ȱhermeneuticalȱandȱethicalȱchallenge.ȱSheȱhasȱ scholarlyȱ expertiseȱ inȱ Judaismȱ andȱ especiallyȱ inȱ CatholicȬJewishȱ diaȬ logueȱ andȱ postȬHolocaustȱ studies.ȱ Publicationsȱ include:ȱ M.ȱ Moyaertȱ andȱ D.ȱ Pollefeytȱ (eds.),ȱ Neverȱ Revoked:ȱ Nostraȱ Aetateȱ asȱ Ongoingȱ Challengeȱ forȱ JewishȬChristianȱ Dialogue,ȱ Louvainȱ Theologicalȱ andȱ PasȬ toralȱMonographsȱ(Louvain:ȱPeeters,ȱ2010);ȱFragileȱIdentities:ȱTowardsȱaȱ TheologyȱofȱInterreligiousȱHospitality,ȱCurrentsȱofȱEncounterȱ39ȱ(Rodopi:ȱ Amsterdam.ȱ2011).ȱ SheȱhasȱpublishedȱamplyȱbothȱinȱinternationalȱpeerȬreviewedȱjournalsȱ (suchȱasȱHorizons,ȱEthicalȱPerspectives,ȱTheȱHeythropȱJournal). ȱ Prof.ȱ Dr.ȱ Andreasȱ Nehring,ȱ Fullȱ Professorȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Studiesȱ atȱ Erlangen,ȱ Germany.ȱ Researchȱ areas:ȱ methodȱ andȱ theoryȱ ofȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱWesternȱrepresentationsȱofȱAsianȱreligions,ȱpoststructuralismȱ andȱ postcolonialȱ theoryȱ inȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ religion,ȱ religionȱ andȱ media,ȱ religionȱandȱpoliticsȱinȱsouthȱAsia.ȱPublications:ȱ“ReligionȱundȱKultur:ȱ ZurȱBeschreibungȱeinerȱDifferenz,”ȱin:ȱAndreasȱNehringȱandȱJoachimȱ Valentinȱ(eds.),ȱReligiousȱTurnsȱȬȱTurningȱReligions:ȱVeränderteȱkulturelleȱ Diskurse,ȱ neueȱ religiöseȱ Wissensformen,ȱ ReligionsKulturenȱ 1ȱ (KohlhamȬ mer,ȱ2008),ȱpp.ȱ11Ȭ31;ȱ“’ImȱWunderlandȱdesȱGlaubens’:ȱReligionswisȬ senschaftȱzwischenȱKulturpolitikȱundȱKulturhermeneutik,”ȱin:ȱWalterȱ Sparnȱ andȱ Hedwigȱ Wagnerȱ (eds.),ȱ Kulturhermeneutik:ȱ interdisziplinäreȱ Beiträgeȱ zumȱ Umgangȱ mitȱ kulturellerȱ Differenzȱ (Fink,ȱ 2008),ȱ pp.ȱ 407Ȭ28;ȱ “DieȱErfindungȱderȱreligiösenȱErfahrung,”ȱin:ȱChristianȱStreckerȱ(ed.),ȱ

CONTRIBUTORSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ447ȱ Kontexteȱ derȱ Schrift,ȱ vol.ȱ 2.ȱ Kultur,ȱ Politik,ȱ Religion,ȱ Sprache,ȱ Festschriftȱ forȱ Wolfgangȱ Stegemannȱ onȱ hisȱ 60thȱ birthdayȱ (Kohlhammer,ȱ 2005),ȱ pp.ȱ301Ȭ22.ȱ http://www.theologie.uniȬerlangen.de/institute/institutȬfuerȬ praktischeȬtheologie/lehrstuhlȬfuerȬreligionsȬundȬ missionswissenschaft.htmlȱ ȱ Albertinaȱ (Tineke)ȱ Nugterenȱ isȱ anȱ Indologistȱ byȱ trainingȱ (PhD,ȱ Universitiesȱ ofȱ Utrechtȱ andȱ Leiden:ȱ Godȱ asȱ anȱ Alternative?ȱ IsvarapraȬ nidhanaȱinȱtheȱYogasutrasȱofȱPatanjaliȱandȱtheȱCommentariesȱonȱThemȱ[GaȬ rant,ȱ1991]),ȱandȱworksȱasȱaȱreligiousȱstudiesȱspecialistȱatȱtheȱFacultyȱ ofȱ Humanities,ȱ Tilburgȱ University,ȱ theȱ Netherlands.ȱ Herȱ presentȱ reȬ searchȱisȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱnexusȱofȱreligionȱandȱnatureȱ(keyȱpublication:ȱ Belief,ȱ Bounty,ȱ andȱ Beauty:ȱ Ritualsȱ aroundȱ Sacredȱ Treesȱ inȱ Indiaȱ [Brill,ȱ 2005]),ȱ onȱ ritualȱ dynamicsȱ amongȱ Hindusȱ inȱ diasporaȱ (keyȱ publicaȬ tion:ȱ Hinduȱ Ritualȱ Dynamics:ȱ Caseȱ Studiesȱ fromȱ Contemporaryȱ Westernȱ Europe,ȱaȱspecialȱguestȬeditedȱissueȱofȱJournalȱofȱReligionȱinȱEuropeȱ2/2ȱ (2009),ȱpp.ȱ71Ȭ198),ȱandȱbothȱtheoryȱandȱmethodsȱofȱritualȱstudiesȱasȱaȱ multidisciplinaryȱdomain.ȱ ȱwww.tilburguniversity/people/anugterȱ www.albertinaȬnugteren.nlȱ ȱ SigridȱRettenbacher,ȱisȱaȱteachingȱandȱresearchȱassociateȱatȱtheȱCentreȱ forȱ Interculturalȱ Theologyȱ andȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Religions/Departmentȱ forȱ Systematicȱ Theologyȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Salzburg;ȱ PhDȱ projectȱ onȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religionsȱ inȱ aȱ Postcolonialȱ Perspective:ȱ Epistemologicalȱ andȱ Ecclesiologicalȱ Reflections.ȱ Researchȱ areas:ȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ andȱ postcolonialȱ studies,ȱ ecclesiology,ȱ ChristianȬMuslimȱ dialogue.ȱ Publications:ȱ“TheologieȱderȱReligionenȱundȱkomparativeȱTheologieȱ–ȱ AlternativeȱoderȱErgänzung?ȱDieȱAuseinandersetzungȱzwischenȱPerryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱundȱKlausȱvonȱStoschȱumȱdieȱReligionstheologie,“ȱin:ȱ Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaftȱ 60ȱ (2005):ȱ 181Ȭ94;ȱ “WeltReligionen:ȱ Dieȱ Kircheȱ inȱ derȱ Weltȱ derȱ Religionenȱ vonȱ heute,”ȱ in:ȱ Franzȱ GmainerȬPranzlȱ andȱ Magdalenaȱ Holztrattnerȱ (eds.),ȱ Partnerinȱ derȱ Menschenȱ Ȭȱ Zeuginȱ derȱ Hoffnung:ȱ Dieȱ Kircheȱ imȱ Lichtȱ derȱ Pastoralkonstitutionȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ spes,ȱ Salzburgerȱ TheologischeȱStudienȱ41ȱ(Tyrolia,ȱ2010),ȱpp.ȱ325Ȭ50;ȱ“Endlichȱendlich?ȱ Vomȱ Überlebenȱ derȱ Kircheȱ imȱ Anerkennenȱ ihrerȱ eigenenȱ Endlichkeit,“ȱin:ȱGregorȱMariaȱHoffȱ(ed.),ȱEndlich!ȱLebenȱundȱÜberleben,ȱ SalzburgerȱHochschulwochenȱ(Tyrolia,ȱ2010).ȱ http://www.uniȬsalzburg.at/ztkr/sigrid.rettenbacherȱ ȱ Anneȱ Sofieȱ Roaldȱ isȱ Professorȱ inȱ Religiousȱ Studiesȱ andȱ Seniorȱ ResearcherȱandȱformerȱheadȱofȱtheȱresearchȱprogramȱPoliticsȱofȱFaithȱ

448ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ atȱChr.ȱMichelsenȱInstituteȱ(CMI),ȱBergen,ȱNorway.ȱSheȱhasȱpublishedȱ widelyȱinȱSwedish,ȱNorwegian,ȱandȱEnglish.ȱHerȱinternationalȱpublicȬ cationsȱ includeȱ Tarbiya:ȱ Educationȱ andȱ Politicsȱ inȱ Islamicȱ Movementsȱ inȱ Jordanȱ andȱ Malaysiaȱ (1994),ȱ Womenȱ inȱ Islam:ȱ Theȱ Westernȱ Experienceȱ (Routledge,ȱ 2001),ȱ andȱ Newȱ Muslimsȱ inȱ aȱ Newȱ Context:ȱ Scandinavianȱ ConvertsȱtoȱIslamȱ(Brill,ȱ2004).ȱHerȱpublicationsȱdealȱmainlyȱwithȱgenȬ derȱissues,ȱconversion,ȱmulticulturalism,ȱIslamism,ȱandȱArabȱmedia.ȱ http://www.cmi.no/staff/?annesofieȬroaldȱ ȱ Dr.ȱ Martinȱ Rötting,ȱ pastoralȱ coworkerȱ atȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Studentȱ ChaplaincyȱatȱtheȱMaximiliansȱUniversityȱinȱMunichȱandȱaȱmemberȱofȱ theȱ boardȱ ofȱ OCCURSO,ȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ Interreligiousȱ andȱ Interculturalȱ Encounter.ȱ Publications:ȱ Treffpunktȱ Weltreligionen:ȱ Praxisbuchȱ interreȬ ligiöseȱJugendarbeitȱ(DonȱBosco,ȱ2010);ȱInterreligiöseȱSpiritualität:ȱVerantȬ wortungsvollerȱUmgangȱderȱReligionenȱ(EOS,ȱ2008);ȱInterreligiösesȱLernenȱ imȱ buddhistischȬchristlichenȱ Dialog,ȱ Lerntheoretischerȱ Zugangȱ undȱ empirȬ ischeȱUntersuchungȱinȱDeutschlandȱundȱSüdkoreaȱ(EOS,ȱ2007).ȱ ȱ Hendrikȱ Rungelrath,ȱ bornȱ inȱ 1987,ȱ studiedȱ Catholicȱ theologyȱ andȱ philosophyȱ atȱ theȱuniversitiesȱ ofȱ Bonnȱ andȱSalzburgȱ andȱ isȱ currentlyȱ workingȱonȱ aȱPhDȱinȱSalzburg.ȱPublicationsȱinclude:ȱ“’Siehe,ȱjetztȱistȱ derȱTagȱdesȱHeils’ȱ(2Korȱ6,2/GSȱ82):ȱZumȱBegriffȱderȱZeitȱinȱGaudiumȱ etȱspes,”ȱin:ȱFranzȱGmainerȬPranzlȱandȱMagdalenaȱHolztrattnerȱ(eds.),ȱ Partnerinȱ derȱ Menschenȱ Ȭȱ Zeuginȱ derȱ Hoffnung:ȱ Dieȱ Kircheȱ imȱ Lichtȱ derȱ Pastoralkonstitutionȱ Gaudiumȱ etȱ spes,ȱ Salzburgerȱ Theologischeȱ Studienȱ 41ȱ(Tyrolia,ȱ2010).ȱ ȱ Susanneȱ Scholz,ȱ PhD,ȱ isȱ Associateȱ Professorȱ ofȱ Oldȱ Testament/ȱ HeȬ brewȱBibleȱatȱPerkinsȱSchoolȱofȱTheologyȱatȱSouthernȱMethodistȱUniȬ versityȱ (SMU),ȱ Dallas,ȱ Texas,ȱ USA.ȱ Herȱ researchȱ areaȱ isȱ inȱ feministȱ andȱ culturalȱ biblicalȱ studies.ȱ Amongȱ herȱ publicationsȱ areȱ Sacredȱ Witness:ȱ Rapeȱ inȱ theȱ Hebrewȱ Bibleȱ (Fortress,ȱ 2010),ȱ Introducingȱ theȱ WoȬ men’sȱHebrewȱBibleȱ(T&TȱClark,ȱ2007),ȱandȱBiblicalȱStudiesȱAlternativelyȱ (PrenticeȱHall,ȱ2003).ȱ ȱ Davidȱ Slakter,ȱ PhDȱ candidateȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Liverpool.ȱ ReȬ searchȱ areas:ȱ Indianȱ philosophy,ȱ comparativeȱ philosophy,ȱ comparaȬ tiveȱtheology.ȱPublications:ȱ“OnȱM¬tsyany¬ya:ȱTheȱStateȱofȱNatureȱinȱ IndianȱThought.”ȱAsianȱPhilosophyȱ20:3ȱ(2010).ȱ ȱ Dr.ȱPimȱ(W.G.B.M.)ȱValkenberg,ȱassociateȱprofessorȱofȱtheologyȱandȱ ChristianȬMuslimȱ relations,ȱ Loyolaȱ Universityȱ Maryland,ȱ Baltimoreȱ MD,ȱ USA.ȱ Researchȱ interests:ȱ medievalȱ theology;ȱ ChristianȬMuslimȱ

CONTRIBUTORSȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ449ȱ relationsȱ inȱ pastȱ andȱ present;ȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Publications:ȱ Wordsȱ ofȱ theȱ Livingȱ God:ȱ Placeȱ andȱ Functionȱ ofȱ Holyȱ Scriptureȱ inȱ theȱ TheologyȱofȱSt.ȱThomasȱAquinasȱ(Peeters,ȱ2000);ȱTheȱThreeȱRings:ȱTextualȱ StudiesȱinȱtheȱHistoricalȱTrialogueȱofȱJudaism,ȱChristianity,ȱandȱIslamȱ(coȬ editedȱ withȱ Barbaraȱ Roggemaȱ andȱ Marcelȱ Poorthuis)ȱ (Peeters,ȱ 2005);ȱ Sharingȱ Lightsȱ onȱ theȱ Wayȱ toȱ God:ȱ MuslimȬChristianȱ Dialogueȱ andȱ TheoȬ logyȱ inȱ theȱ Contextȱ ofȱ Abrahamicȱ Partnership,ȱ Currentsȱ ofȱ Encounterȱ 26ȱ (Amsterdam/NewȱYork,ȱ2006).ȱ ȱ Dr.ȱUlrichȱWinkler,ȱAssociate.ȱProfessorȱofȱSystematicȱTheologyȱandȱ CoȬDirectorȱ ofȱ theȱ Centreȱ ofȱ Interculturalȱ Theologyȱ andȱ Interreligiousȱ Studies,ȱ Salzburgȱ University,ȱ Austria.ȱ Researchȱ areas:ȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ JewishȬChristianȱ relations.ȱ PublicaȬ tions:ȱ “Grundlegungenȱ komparativerȱ Theologie(n):ȱ Keithȱ Wardȱ undȱ Robertȱ C.ȱ Neville,“ȱ in:ȱ Reinholdȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ Klausȱ vonȱ Stoschȱ (eds.),ȱ Komparativeȱ Theologie:ȱ Interreligiöseȱ Vergleicheȱ alsȱ Wegȱ derȱ ReliȬ gionstheologie,ȱ Beiträgeȱ zuȱ einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionenȱ 7ȱ (Zürich,ȱ 2009),ȱ pp.ȱ 69Ȭ98.;ȱ “Vonȱ Gotteskindern,ȱ Heidenȱ undȱ Teufelskindern:ȱ ReligionstheologieȱversusȱIsraeltheologie.ȱEinȱneuerȱDiskursȱdesȱVerȬ gessens?“ȱin:ȱGerhardȱLangerȱandȱGregorȱMariaȱHoff,ȱ(eds.),ȱDerȱOrtȱ desȱJüdischenȱinȱderȱkatholischenȱTheologieȱ(Göttingen,ȱ2009),ȱpp.ȱ220Ȭ63.ȱ

Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe: Between Texts and People

People and Texts: Relationships in Medieval Literature

Deaf People in Hitler's Europe

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, Scriptural Politics, and Human Rights: Between Text and Context

Experiencing the Postmetaphysical Self: Between Hermeneutics and Deconstruction

Hermeneutics, Religion, and Ethics (Yale Studies in Hermeneutics)

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Transport Links Between Europe and Asia

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Uniting Europe: Journey Between Gloom And Glory

Europe, Policies and People: An Economic Perspective

Europe, Policies and People: An Economic Perspective

Making Europe: People, Politics, and Culture

Banking, currency, and finance in Europe between the wars

Banking, Currency, and Finance in Europe between the Wars

Structuralism and Hermeneutics

Economics and Hermeneutics

Young People In Europe: Labour Markets And Citizenship

Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia (Suny Series in Judaica, Hermeneutics, Mysticism and Religion)

A Pluralistic Universe

A Pluralistic Universe

Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe: Between Texts and People

People and Texts: Relationships in Medieval Literature

Deaf People in Hitler's Europe

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, Scriptural Politics, and Human Rights: Between Text and Context

Experiencing the Postmetaphysical Self: Between Hermeneutics and Deconstruction

Hermeneutics, Religion, and Ethics (Yale Studies in Hermeneutics)

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Transport Links Between Europe and Asia

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

Uniting Europe: Journey Between Gloom And Glory

Europe, Policies and People: An Economic Perspective

Europe, Policies and People: An Economic Perspective

Making Europe: People, Politics, and Culture

Banking, currency, and finance in Europe between the wars

Banking, Currency, and Finance in Europe between the Wars

Structuralism and Hermeneutics

Economics and Hermeneutics

Young People In Europe: Labour Markets And Citizenship

Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia (Suny Series in Judaica, Hermeneutics, Mysticism and Religion)

A Pluralistic Universe

A Pluralistic Universe

Recommend Documents