Revelation and Revelations: Discerning God in Other Religions, Beyond a Static Valuation

Modem Theology 10:2 April 1994 ISSN 0266-7177

REVELATION AND REVELATIONS: DISCERNING GOD IN OTHER RELIGIONS. BEYOND A STATIC VALUATION GAVIN D'COSTA Introduction In much of the recent discussion on a Christian theology of religions, two major warnings have been sounded. First, there is the danger of 'smothering' where Otherness is either destroyed in assimilation, or entirely negated in rejection.1 The initial smothering is 'suffocation by love' whereby liberal minded pluraliste insist that all religions are the same and thereby to be respected and fully tolerated. The alternative is when hard-line exclusivists deny that there can by anything of God within our religions so that they are all branded as 'pure unbelief or 'sinful error'. While being on opposite ends of the spectrum of the debate the irony is that both pluraliste and exclusivists succeed in smothering Otherness. Both tactics are guilty of static valuations. (There is of course the further irony that pluraliste, despite their tolerant and fair-minded intentions, end up negating the Other in their magnanimous assimilation!)2 The second warning that has been sounded regards 'closure'. It has parallels with the previous criticism. It is concerned that theologies of religions (pluralism, exclusivism and inclusivism) have provided overarching theological structures that have answered all the questions prior to any real meeting with other religions and therefore prejudge the question. This warning is sounded by those who cast a plague on all three camps,3 and by those within one camp upon those from another.4 Dr Gavin D'Costa University of Bristol, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, 36 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol BS8 1PL, UK © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.

166 Gavin D'Costa In this essay I wish to respond to both these currents, in what will, at first, appear a somewhat oblique manner. This is because I will contend that the theology of religions properly and principally lies with the question of revelation. But I agree with the first criticism and wish to propose a more dynamic (inclusivist) valuation of other religions. I agree with the second criticism in as much as it is rightly suspicious of closure, but I hope to suggest that there is an inevitable and perfectly legitimate element of a priori assertion from within Christianity in responding to the question of the status of other religions, but this a priorism is not identical to closure. This a priori element is necessary as any Christian reflection on other religions should begin first with the nature of Christian revelation, before it can ask about the truth or possibility of revelation outside Christ - and therefore Christianity. Hence, my approach to the topic in this paper is extremely specific, both in its presuppositions and in the focus of the question. I write as a Roman Catholic involved in what is called the 'inter-faith' movement. Hence, my reflections are based on my limited experience and study of specific world religions, in the attempt to articulate a theology that is truthful to my own Christian tradition and to the experience and study of religions other than my own. This starting point implicitly rejects alternative strategies, such as by those who wish to reflect on the relationship of Christianity to other religions from vantage points which do not proceed from specifically Christological, trinitarian and ecclesiological presuppositions. 5 My question will be: can we find revelation within other religions? In effect, does God act within Hinduism and Islam, and address adherents of Buddhism and Sikhism, and reveal himself to Jews, Bhai's, and Unification Church members? If 'yes' there are important implications for assessing the role and value of other religions. Likewise, if the answer is ' n o ' . However, I shall in fact be proposing that the answer is both 'yes' and 'no', and, consequently, the implications are more complicated than at first sight. One cannot rest with any static valuation of other religions - thereby avoiding smothering and also closure. Revelation: its presuppositions within Christianity Before focusing on the possibility of revelation in other religions, I want very briefly to explore what is meant by revelation and what it presupposes when used within Christianity. 6 Only then is it meaningful to ask whether revelation is to be found within other religions for only then will we know what we are asking. 1. Ecclesiological presuppositions: The reality of revelation within Christianity presupposes, in some measure, the authority of the church. By this I mean that scriptural authority itself relies on the authority of the church in regard to fixing the canon and adjudicating between authentic and inauthentic testimonies among the documents vying for scriptural status. © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

Revelation and revelations 167 Discriminating the boundaries of Scripture presupposes the authority and mandate of the church to make such a decision, whüe still being bound by the authority of Scripture. This leads to a second point. Revelation resides within the living community of the church, not simply in Scripture, or behind Scripture, but in the reading and practice of Scripture, in the life of the church: making Christ present. This is not to strictly identify the church with revelation or the kingdom of God. However, while being distinguishable from these, one must also say that the church is indissolubly related and bound to God's self-revelation and, with that, to his kingdom. Finally, revelation therefore presupposes the trinitarian foundations of the church, for the rationale of the church's existence is to give glory and honour to the triune God. 7 1 stress such ecclesiological presuppositions simply to indicate my distance from alternatives that have been forwarded which speak of revelation and the kingdom as if one could do so without speaking of the community within which it takes place and to which it is entrusted. 8 2. The economic trinity is the immanent trinity: My next presupposition follows Barth rather than Rahner in affirming that the economic trinity is the immanent trinity (contrary to Rahner's addition of vice versa, so that the immanent is the economic, thereby conceding the epistemological priority of the triune historical self-revelation). 9 In affirming this principle, without wishing here to spell out the nature of the triune God (even were I able to!), the point I want to make is this. The nature of the revelation of Father, Son and Spirit, while being both hidden, concealed and at the same time selfdisclosing and self-revealing, is the self-disclosure and hiddenness of God in himself. Revelation is not a front for God, or, on behalf of God, but God's self being freely given, inviting human persons into communion and participation with the living God. Revelation is principally an invitation of being to communion. While not denying that there are difficult epistemological issues viz. our knowledge of God, I stress this point to counter two views: that revelation is finally subject to human criticism and correction, with the hidden implication that humans construct their own God; and the view that because all our knowledge of God is limited and partial, our knowledge cannot be properly seen as speaking of God in himself. Hence, such knowledge is sometimes deemed 'mythical' or 'iconic' and severs the relation between the economic and immanent trinity.10 Nevertheless, even while defending the relationship between economic and immanent, it is also necessary to recognize that this is far from stating that Christians know God as he is, without remainder. The hiddenness and concealedness of God's self-revealing is part of revelation's eschatological dimension. As St. Paul reminds us, despite the glory that we have beheld in Christ, we now 'see in a glass dimly' (1 Cor. 13:12). St. John, of course, is also vividly aware of this tension, so that even while he confesses that the 'Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth' (Jn 1:14), nevertheless, in the farewell discourses, the disciples are told that they cannot © Basü Blackwell Ltd 1994

168 Gavin D'Costa

fully bear the 'many things' Jesus brings, so 'when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth' (Jn 16:12-13). This eschatological dimension to revelation is highly significant and leads to my third point regarding the presupposition of revelation in Christianity. 3. Revelation 'was closed with the death of the last Apostles' (Denzinger 2020s). This teaching is reiterated in Vatican II (less bluntly) and has often been viewed as the basis for closure in the debate. It is easy to misconstrue the proper purpose of 'closed' in this statement but it indicates an important presupposition in the claim that God has revealed himself. That is, if God has truly revealed himself in Christ, then we can expect no new revelation as such, for the plenitude of God's being is present in Christ. Hence, the 'closed' operates to centrifugally bind all truth of God as being present, hidden, disclosed and concealed in Christ in so much as God is present in Christ. As Rahner puts it when discussing Denzinger 2020: 'Now there is nothing more to come: no new age, no other aion, no fresh plan of salvation, but only the unveiling of what is already ' 'here" as God's presence at the end of a human time stretched out to breaking-point. . . It is because the definitive Reality which resolves history proper is already here that Revelation is "closed". Closed, because open to the concealed presence of divine plenitude in Christ'. Rahner is therefore rightly keen to stress the positive nature of this 'closed', when he adds: 'That Revelation has been closed is a positive and not a negative statement, a pure Amen, a conclusion which includes everything and excludes nothing of the divine plenitude, conclusion as fulfilled presence of an all-embracing plenitude'.11 Hence, with this point in mind, one may argue in principle that nothing can dispose of and overturn revelation - if revelation is revelation. If the economic trinity is the immanent trinity, then we cannot discover something new about God, in the sense of ontologically unrelated or contradictory to Christ. However, on the other hand, and to be equally stressed, the pilgrim church is constantly struggling and growing in faith, plumbing the riches of the plenitude of communion with a God who cannot be exhausted in our worship and praise and knowledge of him. Implicitly, there is no limit being set on God's activity within the world (as if the church could determine his freedom!), but the principle that revelation is 'closed' safeguards the necessary significance of revelation as God's self-disclosure of God's self. Without denying the difficulties involved in affirming the contents of such revelation, I have stressed this third presupposition to counter the way in which some writers have used the term revelation while entirely relativising its significance.12 We are now in a clearer position to consider the main question. 7s there revelation within other religions?

I want to suggest that the answer to this question must be both 'no' and 'yes', and that this a priori negation and affirmation require to be held in unresolved © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994

Revelation and revelations 169 tension, a tension which is then controlled, adjusted and determined by the a posteriori contact and encounter with specific religions. I assume (wrongly, in the eyes of some) that it is appropriate and possible to offer such a priori reflections without yet making specific judgements upon any particular religions. So: is there the possibility of revelation within other religions? No: This no is not a negative judgement on non-Christian religion but rather delimits and preserves the significance of Christian revelation and follows from the presuppositions above. It is solely aimed at stressing the definitive eschatological character of God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Hence, in one sense, the answer to the question must be negative in so much as, strictly speaking, God's self-revelation has occurred in its trinitarian form, and if the economic trinity is the immanent trinity, then there can be no new revelations of God. I have in mind two primary senses of 'new'. First, there cannot be new revelation which is ontologically different and/or independent of Christ, such that there is now a new addition to our knowledge of God which is entirely novel and totally unrelated to God's self disclosure as Father, Son and Spirit. This does not require that there can be no 'new' revelation historically and geographically apart from Jesus Christ. The context of this ontological denial is to maintain that if God is God, and God has revealed himself as he is in the trinity, then there is no fourth or fifth in God such that alongside the Father, Son and Spirit resides Brahman and Allah. This will mean necessarily that Allah and Brahman, if they are of God (possibilities which I leave entirely open), are intrinsically, ontologically and organically to be understood by Christians within the context of the triune God. That is, in some way or other, attention to Allah or Brahman within Islam and Hinduism could help the Christian to recognize more profoundly and freshly both doctrinally and practically the known or, as yet, hidden riches within the triune God. The dialectic between known and hiddenness precludes smothering and closure, while necessarily retaining some element of truth claim. Second, there can be no new revelations in the sense of changing God's self disclosure as Father, Son and Spirit. This does not mean that Christians infallibly understand and interpret God's self-revelation correctly at all times and in all places. Far from it! The context of this criteriological denial is to maintain that if God is God, and God has revealed himself as he is in the trinity, then God cannot deceive or contradict himself and appear as something other than himself in another religion - or in Christianity. Hence, if a claim for revelation in another religion were made which, after proper and careful consideration, was seen to contradict God's triune self-revelation, that claim could not stand without correction, contextualization or even respectful and sensitive criticism and questioning. While not being traditionally inter-religious in nature a clear example is found in the judgement of the Barmen Declaration on the German Christians during the second world war, where the claim to revelation by the Nazi Christians had to be denied - to © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

170 Gavin O'Costa be true to revelation. Clearly, and unlike my example, many such decisions are far more complex. However, this ' n o ' must now be balanced with a 'yes' that is required in virtue of a correct delimiting achieved by the initial negation. Yes: Following this 'no', there must also be a 'yes', for the triune God is certainly not the property of Christians, rather they are possessed by him; and the full freedom of God cannot be restricted by Christians, rather they find their freedom in him. The yes is generated from God's own selfrevelation, not by any generous gesture by Christians! Most Christians testify that God has been active in and through creation and history. Part of this history is institutionally celebrated by Christianity in the pre-history of Christianity in the history of Israel u p to the time of Christ. Israel's history is one of God's dealing with his people. The point here is that in the light of Christ, if God is admitted as acting within the history of Israel chronologically before Christ and therefore also historically apart from Christ, then we have an entirely orthodox Christian confession regarding the selfrevealing activity of God within history apart from Jesus Christ. This affirmation, however, requires some careful qualifications in order to be understood correctly. First, I do not wish to suggest that the relationship (theologically and historically) between Judaism and Christianity is entirely similar to that between Christianity and other religions. Vatican II makes it clear that Christianity is closest to Judaism, then to Islam, and then to other religions (and even here there are subtle distinctions). 13 The Jewish-Christian relation is sui generis. Second, and despite this, analogical similarities are not out of the question. For example, in other religions we might find anticipations and longings (not always recognized by all adherents of that religion) for Christ in an analogous manner found in pre-first century Judaism. Furthermore, it could in principle be possible that in just such religions, if Christ were accepted, a re-reading of that tradition may suggest an analogous relationship (of Christianity to Judaism) of continuity and fulfilment, without denying discontinuity, crisis, and challenge. Third, it could in principle be possible that a person who becomes Christian and re-orders their heritage and culture in the light of this conversion will find that their past, in the light of Christ, was already in part a profound response to grace. Hence, we do find some who want to be Hindu Christians (Brahmabandhab Upadhyay), analogously to some who want to be Jewish Christians. Fourth, given the historical connections between Christian anti-Judaism and fulfilment and supersessionist theologies, Christians need to be extremely vigilant about the ideological subtexts concealed within their theology of religions. The shameful colonial imperialism that has so often attended mission should not be obscured or hidden. 14 These qualifications allow us to unreservedly affirm the possibility of God revealing himself outside visible Christianity and at this, Christians should surely rejoice. However, this 'yes' must not © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

Revelation and revelations 171 only be seen in the light of the previous 'no', but also in the light of a new ' n o ' which must now follow. No: This new ' n o ' is generated by the hiddenness and concealedness of God in God's self-disclosure and must necessarily follow the affirmation of the possibility of revelation outside the visible church. Because God's selfrevelation requires faith and free human assent for its affirmation as God's revelation, revelation is an action that veils and unveils, an action that both conceals and reveals. Revelation and self-disclosure are not akin to Superman being seen on the rooftops with the uncontrollable response: 'holy smoke, it's Superman'. Rather self-disclosure is akin to the Emmaus experience of not always recognizing, while yet being in relationship and dimly learning, and finally having our hearts set on fire - a different kind of holy smoke! (Lk. 24:13ff). Hence, this 'no' follows the affirmation of the possibility of revelation in other religions for it is the reminder that even when such an event takes place, revelation does not overrule human or divine freedom. Hence, one such consequence is that the reception of God by men and women is open to distortion, misinterpretation and even denial in such a way as to remain within that religion a partly or even a totally hidden and concealed revelation. Let me expand on the terms distort, misinterpret and deny. A distortion is the grasping of a truth, but not in its wholeness and completeness, such that in affirming this truth it is not in fact fully and correctly affirmed and grasped. For example, it may be revealed that one must act justly to all people at all times, but because of the context in which this truth is received one may thereby believe that this truth is only applicable in relation to all females and males under eighteen. Hence, all men over eighteen are excluded from considerations of justice. In this case, only part of the truth is held, although the distortion blocks its full and proper manifestation and in consequence may radically hinder the attainment of a full and proper understanding. In time, the tradition of transmission might have lost the possibility of recovering the full and complete revelation that had initially been responded to. 15 The difference between distortion and misinterpretation is a matter of degree such that (to keep to the same example) the revealed truth that one must act justly to all people at all times, is, for whatever reason, so restrictedly appropriated and understood as to actually obscure the proper meaning altogether, although it may not be totally lost to sight. For example, if this truth were taken to apply only to Anglo-Saxon upper class men, thereby excluding all other human beings, one might say that the distortion has now become misinterpretation so that the overall context actually works against, although not totally denies, the original truth proclaimed. Finally, denial is not just a difference in degree from distortion and misinterpretation, but a difference in kind, for here the truth is actually denied, noticed and discarded and there is no positive or even partial appropriation of it whatsoever. © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994

172

Gavin Ό'Costa

Utter obstinacy, rigid concentration on another truth at the expense of this, and so on - could all be reasons for denial. Needless to say, all these possibilities also of course exist within Christianity. My main point is one of principle: that the affirmative 'yes', must also now contain within it a qualifying question in order to take into account the way in which human sinfulness and the overall context of a religion may obscure revelation, which in its hiddenness allows for and respects h u m a n and divine freedom. The significance of this rejoinder is twofold. First, it shows that even if authentic revelation were to take place, we cannot be assured as to what degree it would be evident and clear, if at all, to adherents of the religion in question, nor to what degree and whether at all it would be clear to observers from outside that religion. This veil is only lifted by virtue of the Holy Spirit. This is to underscore the complexity of the hermeneutical task in responding to another religion with these questions in mind, leaving aside for the moment the equally difficult question of appropriate criteria by which such discernment could take place. Second, it also underlines the way in which in the process of inculturation, Christians may appropriate the explicit and/or implicit revelation within a religious culture, and by so doing, possibly trans­ form it out of all recognition to a person within that religion. Hence, a Hindu may find difficulty with a Christian who h a d been a Hindu, who claims that her understanding of the Brahma Sutra's fundamental question was one which actually pointed to Christ as the real answer. St. Paul, you will recall, had similar difficulties with his Jewish brothers and sisters. 1 6 In this sense revelation has to be understood always within the context of relationship: it is not like God being in some stone relic that is kept inside a cupboard and forgotten about, neither is it like an abstract propositional truth which was once learnt and now forgotten, but rather is more like a friendship which has been soured, distorted, or denied in our lives and thereby falsely nourished or entirely neglected. Analogies like this are always limited. My point is that revelation primarily constitutes transformative social relationship that en­ tails a propositional element and cultic enactment. In the light of this ' n o ' , which properly clarifies the nature of the initial ' n o ' and following 'yes', the logic of God's revelation requires us to also now again say 'yes', a 'yes' determined by the unveiling nature of revelation. Yes: if the previous ' n o ' was related to the hiddenness and concealedness of God's self-revelation, then it must also be followed by the awesome affirmation which is related to God's unveiling and disclosing. And again, in this 'yes' following the previous ' n o ' , we see that the a priori negations and affirmations must be held in unresolved tension. Hence, w h e n some claimed aspect of God's revelation (such as his transcendence in Islam - to take one example) is explicitly celebrated within a religion, the Christian must be ready and in principle willing to acknowledge the reality of God's selfpresence within that tradition. This affirmation requires two positive quali­ fications. First, the example of Islam is an easy one and Vatican II makes it © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

Revelation and revelations 173

clear that there are many such explicit doctrinal truths to be found within other religions, especially theistic Judaism and Islam.17 However, one also needs to pay careful attention to religions which are non-theistic, for their non-theism may not be a straightforward denial of God and may contain within it affirmation. The most obvious example is in fact Theravada Buddhism where historically its non-theism emerged in the context of the Indian/Hindu discussion regarding the nature of ätman and brahman, such that it can be convincingly argued that there is not properly speaking an explicit denial of what Christians confess as God.18 Given this 'space' in which to explore further, one might well find doctrinal insights within Theraväda Buddhism that are in keeping with, or illuminate, or challenge doctrines found within Christianity. Clearly the same may be said for Sankara's Advaita Hinduism, where the theistic Isvara of Sankara, and its final ontological subordination to the paramathika Brahman, can hardly be said to be a straightforward rejection of God (as affirmed in Christianity). In fact many Roman Catholics in India have found a deep affinity with Sankara and see in Advaita profound spiritual truths, rather than with the more overtly theistic Rämänuja, or the almost Lutheran Madhva. These engagements have been on the level of doctrine and practice.19 Here, there is an immense, complicated and extremely demanding task and one must necessarily remain dependent upon the work of others in various specialist fields. This leads to the second qualification. In being radically open to the possibility of God's self-revelation outside Christianity, Christians must also be radically open to the possibility of judgement and questioning. Christians may come to realise the errors within their own understanding of faith and its practice, such that deep repentance may be required - as is especially the case with Christian-Jewish relations. Christians may also come to see the poverty of their own commitment and relationship to God in the light of what they learn from their neighbour. The depth, difficulty, and extent of this challenge and questioning cannot be minimized. Beside doctrinal truths one must also note that when aspects of God's revelation (such as signs of his kingdom) are explicitly celebrated within a religion, one must be prepared to acknowledge the reality of God's selfpresence within that tradition. There are many unargued-for assumptions here, but the main one is that human actions may be used instrumentally by God, as a free response to his grace, to bring about his Kingdom. This is not to say that human acting has any control over the Kingdom; it does not. Neither is it to argue that human action and God's action are one and the same thing; they are not.20 It is simply to say that the church has a tradition, following St. Paul, in recognizing that there are 'fruits of the Spirit' and the greatest of these is love. This means that in asking about God's revelation within other religions we are not simply asking about propositional truths, we are also asking about the ways of life proposed within those religions. © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994

174 Gavin D'Costa Of course, doctrine and practice cannot be understood apart from each other, but I make this point separately to underscore the multifaceted areas within which revelation may be discerned - here, by its fruits. John Paul II focuses on this important aspect in Redemptoris Missio (1991), where after saying that 'The Kingdom of God is not a concept, a doctrine, or a programme subject to free interpretation, but is before all else a person with the face and name of Jesus of Nazareth' (18), he argues that the indissoluble relationship between Christ, the Kingdom and the Church does not exclude 'the action of Christ and the Spirit outside the Church's visible boundaries' (18). Hence, he is able to affirm: 'It is true that the inchoate reality of the Kingdom can also be found beyond the confines of the Church among peoples everywhere, to the extent that they live 'Gospel values' and are open to the working of the Spirit who breathes when and where he wills (cf. Jn 3:8)' (20). Earlier gospel values are defined as 'working for liberation from evil in all its forms' (15) and promoting 'peace, justice, freedom, brotherhood' and sisterhood (17). The logic of this acknowledgement is clear: that the Spirit and Christ may be at work within the other religions, and this may be evident through the practices found within other religions. Here again, important qualifications are required to preserve the proper nature of this 'yes' (which asserted unqualifiedly have led to many difficulties). 21 First, immediately following the passage cited affirming the signs of the Kingdom in people outside the church, John Paul II adds: 'But it must be immediately added that this temporal dimension of the Kingdom remains incomplete unless it is related to the Kingdom of Christ present in the Church and straining towards eschatological fullness. ' (20) This qualification is important in highlighting that only in full confession to Christ do the signs of the kingdom find their eschatological fullness, such that this 'yes' of acknowledgment in no way denies that ultimately the Kingdom is a person, the person of Christ: a person in communion with his people. Second, one must be careful to avoid Pelagianism, with the suggestion that it is good works that merit grace. Rather, I am arguing that good works may be a sign of human responding to grace. However, the most noble deeds may be done out of pride, greed, and so on. St. Paul was unambiguous that the greatest of the gifts of the Spirit was love, and without this, none of the other gifts are of worth (and in fact would not then be regarded as gifts of the Spirit). Quite simply, one may do the right thing for the wrong reason, which requires caution in judging the significance of ways of life. And conversely, one may do the wrong thing for the right reasons, which equally should alert us to the dangers in procedure when following this path. These qualifications simply reiterate the qualifications made above regarding the possibility of doctrinal truths, such that surface meaning can deceive and that context shapes significance. Hence, the task ahead is both complex and arduous, but none of this should actually stifle the positive 'yes' now © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

Revelation and revelations 175 being uttered which relates to the revealing and unveiling glory of God found within the world religions. Some tentative conclusions I want to organize my concluding comments based on the a priori no's and yes' outlined above under two headings, so as to focus more clearly the implications of my reflections for answering my basic question: is there revelation in other religions and how does this affect our Christian valuation of other religions? In this decade of evangelization, my two headings will be, 'mission and dialogue' and 'inculturation'. I have purposely chosen these subheadings to control the tendency towards theorising in the above. As will be seen, these areas are all closely related and my division is purely heuristic. I should also stress that these a priori reflections form the parameters, the grammar and rules, of how one speaks about other religions. But it is only a posteriori that any specific judgements can be made. Hence, the a priori nature of the reflections above do not in themselves lead to smothering the Other or to closure. The theologian/historian of religions who undertakes this task may find that some aspects of these a priori parameters are not so applicable and others may be stressed more rigorously and some of course, may be questioned. A. Mission and Dialogue The same tension as above must be maintained when addressing the relationship of mission and dialogue. Mission (following the first 'no') is primarily concerned in sharing and communicating the truth of the triune God which we behold and praise. If God is God, and the triune God is a self-disclosure of God in communion with himself and inviting communion with human persons, then Christians are always called to this redeeming relationship - and are always subject to inviting others. The church is prisoner to this call to saving communion. As the joint declaration from the Pontifical Commission for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelization of People's, Dialogue and Proclamation (1991), makes clear, there are many aspects to the methods and types of evangelising mission but they are united in 'the clear and unambiguous proclamation of the Lord Jesus' (8, my emphasis, citing Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975), 22). This is the central mission of the church, which it cannot abdicate if it is to remain faithful to its calling and vocation. Hence, the existence of other religions is, among other things, a call to mission, not in any triumphalisitic, smug or patronizing manner, but humbly, knowing that this invitation to communion and redemption is an invitation to all persons, regardless of race, religion, colour, age and sex, knowing that this invitation to communion is now entrusted to the church to take to all nations and all peoples, knowing that this invitation © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

176 Gavin D'Costa is such that the human person is only elevated not negated or denigrated in responding to this invitation, knowing that this invitation is not related to any virtue or vice of the church or to any of its own desires, but to the very nature of a God who seeks communion, knowing, finally, that the church has a chequered missionary history, often wilfully obscuring and neglecting this invitation and thereby betraying it at the same time.22 But now taking the 'yes' that followed the initial 'no' which was aimed at preserving the presupposition of revelation that God is God, we must also now recognize that in the very heart of mission we may be confronted by God - in surprising, challenging and disturbing ways. This is the troubling and joyful meaning of the 'yes'. This 'yes' has a number of implications for the relationship of mission and dialogue. First, it means that there is always a necessary moment in mission, when the evangelized person is met as one who may already implicitly or explicitly know God - and one from whom therefore the Christian missionary may learn and hear God's word. This moment of meeting requires the Otherness of the Other to be taken seriously. By this I mean that while one may know about Hinduism and Hindus, about their beliefs and practices, the foods they eat, the doctrines they hold, and so on, the Hindu's Otherness can only be communicated freely by a Hindu. An analogy comes from friendship where I may know about a person in some detail, but my meeting of them will allow me to know them in a way in which information about them can never replace and a way in which information about them may now, in the light of our meeting, be differently construed and understood. And it is from this living relationship that friendship and love grow - not in a relationship to information about a person, not in relation to propositional knowledge alone. And it is from this living relationship that we may hear the strange voice of God in the Other, both veiled and unveiled. Hence, dialogue becomes an intrinsic moment, an indispensable instant within mission. It is the 'space' in which the Other may disclose themselves, and more significantly regarding our question, it is the space in which we may discover God. Now this insight opens up an important perspective for the question of the relationship of dialogue to mission, that is, that dialogue is actually justified and required by the very nature of mission. 'The clear and unambiguous proclamation of Jesus Christ' cannot take place unambiguously or clearly without real dialogue and understanding of the other as other. This claim can be understood in two ways. Firstly, one cannot preach the gospel to persons without knowing their language, culture, customs and so on. This seems unquestionable. But to know this, one requires dialogue as well as scholarly preparations so that the Other is understood in their own difference and distinctiveness. Secondly, in this 'space' which is intrinsic to mission, we see that dialogue has a twofold entelechy: towards mission; but also in an openness to God. It is a necessary part of mission in being a presupposition of mission, for one can only communicate with the Other in the context of an © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

Revelation and revelations 177

I-Thou encounter, which is the space created by conversation/dialogue. But there is also the second entelechy viz. remaining open to God. This can take place in one of two ways. It could be that the Other has come to know God either through their religion or despite their religion. Clearly, this distinction is important in relation to our question about revelation. This question cannot be answered a priori, and in the attempt to answer it we will have to discover with the aid of the Other the meaning and dynamics of their religious life and practice as they see it, before any evaluation can take place. Even while this question remains open, nevertheless, we can see that there is a possible 'yes' present in affirming the possible providential purpose of other religions. But, even within this affirmative stance, we have the 'no' regarding the concealedness and hiddenness of God. Hence, while in the primary sense mission is aimed at 'the clear and unambiguous proclamation of the Lord Jesus', it is also a mission directed to address the distortions, misrepresentations and denials that veil the truth that God is God. Here we see a two-fold dynamic taking place, which is inseparable but distinguishable. First, the church in its mission is necessarily oriented towards inculturation, for in recognizing that religions and cultures may have already heard and responded to the promptings of God, the church must embrace and make its own all that it finds which is true and good. And this affirmation and transformation which constitutes inculturation is itself part of mission. Evangelii Nuntiandi points out that evangelization also means 'to bring the Good News into all areas of humanity, and through its impact, to transform that humanity from within, making it new.' (18). Secondly, while inculturation may be the blessings upon a church that seriously tries to live and preach the Word in a new culture, besides conversion, one should also keep sight of the transformative power that the gospel may have in purifying another religion in its attempt to resist Christianization. Finally, it should be noted that while dialogue and mission initially depend on the self definition and self disclosure of the Other, it will not be limited to this for it is clearly possible (and defensible) to argue that the Other does not have a monopoly on the interpretation of their religious heritage, and that it may actually be the case that they have misinterpreted the true sense of some aspect of their tradition. This is not imperialist arrogance, but simply a hermeneutical possibility required by the logic of our second 'no', which means that it may be the case that an inspired reading and living of The Bhagavadgïtâ may not coincide with that given by Sankara or Rämänuja. It is clear that this possibility was itself assumed by Rämänuja when criticising Sankara's reading of the GTtâ and then, of course both of their readings were challenged and superseded in Madhva's reading - or so it is claimed by followers of Madhva. So it is not out of court to suggest that through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, an Indian Christian community may find God's word within the GTtâ and, in so doing, are reading it legitimately, © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

178 Gavin D'Costa and may therefore celebrate it accordingly. One of the best examples of this kind of inspirational christological reading is found in Francis Clooney's exegesis of the Tamil-Sanskrit SrTvaishnava Älvär tradition in the form of Nammälvar's Tiruvaymoli.23 But we do not end with a 'no', but with the 'yes' of the revealedness of God, the unveiling of God's self in his revelation. Here, therefore there is in mission and dialogue the profound possibility that the church will meet judgement and will itself be fulfilled. Let me briefly address each of these two aspects. First, if the Spirit and Christ are active outside the visible church, then in the process of mission and dialogue the church may find itself under the judgement of the Holy Spirit, who has been given to the church to keep her in the truth. Examples of this may be in the terrible judgement and exposure of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim traditions within the church and its theology, which call for deep repentance and contrition as well as a re-examination of certain theological traditions.24 Or, for example, in the apophatic philosophy of Theraväda Buddhism the very silence and hiddenness of God may remind the church of its all too dangerous tendency to anthropomorphism. I am not suggesting that every criticism of the church is inspired by the Spirit, but rather if the church remains loyal and open to the promptings of the Spirit then it must remain open to the questioning of the religions for the Spirit may be working within the religions. Such openness will lead the church into a deeper understanding of the divine plenitude of Christ - and in fact has already done so for some two thousand years! This leads to my second point: fulfilment. The greatest weaknesses in Roman Catholic documents on Christianity and other religions is the onesided conception of fulfilment theology; that is, Christianity is the fulfilment of all that is good and holy within the world religions. The logic of my argument requires that it is unambiguously acknowledged that in the possibility of encountering God's judgement and hearing God's word, the church itself is fulfilled in its meeting with other religions. Without this meeting, it would be the poorer in being less attentive to God. It is fulfilled through the process of repentance and purification which may follow the hearing of God's word from other religions. It is fulfilled by growth in wisdom and insight into the plenitude of Christ's revelation whenever and wherever it hears God's word, which is always and everywhere the word of the triune God. It is fulfilled in so much as its true Catholicity is achieved only when the church is incarnate within every culture and language, being part of a transformed creation. Here the relationship between mission, inculturation and full catholicity comes into view, such that the very radical transformation of human nature through the incarnation requires a truly universal and truly catholic church for the full glory of the Lord to shine forth. Participation in the new creation is an invite to all nations and people. Fulfilment, historically, does not work in only one direction. In proportion to the church's obscuring this dual fulfilment, the church is unfaithful to © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

Revelation and revelations 179 God. Hence, the tension between mission and dialogue must actually be maintained rather than resolved, for mission could not exist without dialogue, and dialogue in depth is always a sharing: a confession of faith and a confession of vulnerability. The retention of the dialectical movement is an eschatological requirement, which reminds us that the pilgrim church is both seeking with other religions for a fuller sense of the truth through dialogue, while at the same time being the bearer of the Good News through mission. One cannot be had without the other. B. Inculturation I shall be briefer here, as there is inevitable overlap. Once again, the dialectical tension which informs our initial answer to the question of revelation informs the answer to the role and meaning of inculturation and its relation to the role and value of other religions. Firstly, following the initial 'no', preserving the insight that God is God one must be radically suspicious of all culture and all human attempts to express the truth of revelation. No single cultural representation or single propositional statement can ever be adequate to God, for nothing strictly speaking is adequate to God. Even at the heart of analogy in St. Thomas, the speaking of God is informed by the sense that nothing can be said of God properly except what he is not. 25 The ' n o ' , in this context, is a radical deprivileging of any particular cultural formulation of the Good News, while still paradoxically requiring its truthful preaching and teaching. This has important intra-Christian implications which I cannot now pursue, but in regard to our particular theme, it means that all religions (including the respective cultures they inherit and develop) are called into judgement by Christ. By this I mean that all culture and religion is called into question by divine revelation, such that inculturation can never mean the wholesale uncritical adoption of one religion or culture to express Christ. Inculturation is always also a moment of judgement upon a culture in its being utilized to express the truth of the gospel. This no is a warning against cultural and religious idolatry, both inside and outside of the church. Secondly, taking the 'yes' that follows this initial ' n o ' , there is the recognition that the cultures of other religions may indeed contain elements that demand their incorporation into a truly catholic and universal church. Hence, one may find meditational techniques and practices employed in achieving concentration and receptivity such that these could be part of the prayer and meditational life of the church. Similarly, one may find that the practice of non-violence towards all living beings requires the church to adopt such practices within that culture, both in affirming something which it may find of God within the other religion, while being sensitized to its own species prejudice which it may re-examine. And this re-examination of the implications of the doctrine of creation may also result from the different © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994.

180 Gavin D'Costa doctrines of creation it encounters within other religions. The 'yes' here requires Catholic Christianity to be ready to say a generous 'yes' to all elements of culture (doctrine and practice) found within another religion. Thirdly, taking the 'no' that follows this 'yes', one must acknowledge that inculturation actually transforms these elements in the act of incorporation as Christ is their new explicit centre and entelechy such that the signification and meaning of symbols, practices and concepts are thereby transformed because of their incorporation into Christianity. The change of signification in a new paradigmatic context cannot be underestimated. 'Mass' means quite one thing in Newtonian physics, quite another within Einstein's physics, and quite another in Roman Catholicism!26 From the side of Christianity, this transformation is viewed positively and providentially, enriching and fulfilling the church, and signifying the church's acknowledgement of the positive values of much non-Christian culture. However, the 'no' reminds us that within the other religion this incorporation and inculturation can and often will be viewed negatively. Inculturation may be viewed as a new form of imperialism with the church robbing and plundering the spiritual riches of another religion. It may also be viewed as distorting, misrepresenting and even denying the elements within a religion that that religion regards as affirming. I have cited the examples of reading the Brahma Sütra in a christological fashion, and Nammälvar's Tiruvaymoli in a similar way, and this textual inculturation operates with similar principles to any other form of inculturation. These charges must be questioned. First, because the Spirit cannot be restrained and dictated to by human freedom so that human beings cannot claim to own or possess that which is true and good (be they Christians or Muslims). Second, inculturation usually proceeds with the growth of local churches and such readings of a religious tradition usually proceed from those who were adherents of that religion but have now become Christians while rightly refusing to entirely leave behind their previous culture and religion. Of course, it may also proceed from those who are deeply informed and sympathetic scholars of that religion, but are not and never were members of the religion. Hence, it may well be that inculturation uncovers positive and providential insights, connections and relationships within another religion with which none of its practising adherents would admit. But, in our dialectic, there is a final 'yes' reflecting God's unveiling and disclosing to other religions which follows the previous 'no', and this too informs our reflections on inculturation. This 'yes' is most concisely expressed in the passage from Evangelii Nuntiandi quoted earlier, which points out that evangelization sometimes means 'to bring the Good News into all areas of humanity, and through its impact to transform that humanity from within, making it new' (18). Hence, a positive appreciation of other religions is also central to mission, inculturation and dialogue. One might say that one of the providential purposes of other religions is to constantly keep the © Basü Blackwell Ltd 1994

Revelation and revelations 181

church sensitive to the fact that there is more to God than the church. The eschatological tension is a creative aspect of inculturation, for the church must always be open to thinking and living its truthfulness in different contexts. This final 'yes', belongs to the vision of a truly universal and catholic church which is fully inculturated so that no part of the created world is left out of the testimony of the transformation of creation achieved in the incarnation. This is the eschatological vision of the church, never thereby requiring or insisting that such an empirical reality be achieved. The latter is in the hands of God. The very retention of the dialectical movement is an eschatological require­ ment, which ensures that with its no there is a safeguard against uncritical assimilation, which is seen in forms of hasty inculturation. And at the same time, with its yes there is the safeguard against uncritical imperialism in enforcing European forms of Christianity upon the entire world.27 I hope to have shown that the a posteriori question regarding the role and value of other religions can only be answered by first seeking the meaning of revelation given to us in the church. Then, the only then, can one reflect on the a priori implications of this revelation in regard to the possibility of revelation outside the church. And by the light of this, being in a situation to joyfully and cautiously open ourselves to Other religions, while at the same time preaching the Good News and in so doing avoiding the smothering of Otherness and the closure of truth.

NOTES 1 This is the theme of K. Surin's extremely provocative and important piece, Ά Certain "Politics of Speech": "Religious Pluralism" in the Age of the MacDonald's hamburger', Modern Theology, 7:1 (1990), pp. 67-101; and is developed variously for example in K. Tanner, 'Respect for Other Religions: A Christian Antidote to Colonialist Discourse', Modern Theology, 9:1 (1993), pp. 1-18; J. Neusner, "Thinking About "The Other" in Religion: It is Necessary, but is it Possible', Modern Theology, 6:3 (1990), pp. 273-85; J. Lipner, 'Seeking Others in their Otherness', New Blackfriars, 74, 869 (1993), pp. 152-65. Perhaps one of the best studies of this problem, but not from a theological angle, is R. Young, White Mythologies. Writing History and the West, (London: Routledge, 1990). 2 See for example G. D'Costa, 'Taking Other Religions Seriously: Some Ironies in the Current Debate on a Christian Theology of Religions', The Thomist, 54:3 (1990), pp. 519-29; G. Loughlin, 'Prefacing Pluralism: John Hick and the Mastery of Religion', Modern Theology, 7:1 (1990), pp. 29-56; J. Apczyuski, 'John Hick's Theocentricism: Revolutionary or Implicitly Exclusivist?', Modern Theology, 8:1 (1992), pp. 39-52; P. Donovan, "The Intolerance of Religious Pluralism", Religious Studies, 29 (1993), pp. 217-229. 3 For example: K. Surin; also J. A. DiNoia, The Diversity of Religions. A Christian Perspective, (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992); S. Ogden, Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many?, (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1992); M. Barnes, Religions in Conversation (London: SPCK, 1989). 4 For example by an inclusivist against a pluralist (D'Costa), by a pluralist against inclusivists and exclusivists (J. Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths, (London: Macmillan, 1988)), pp. 120-32; and by an exclusivist against pluralists (H. Netland, Dissonant Voices. Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth, (Leicester: Apollos, 1991)). © BasÜ Blackwell Ltd 1994.

182 Gavin D'Costa 5 For example, from the vantage point of a global ethic see Hans Kung, Global Responsibility In Search of a New World Ethic, (London SCM, 1991) From the universal practice of liberation see Paul Knitter, No Other Name7, (London SCM, 1985), 'Towards a Liberation Theology of Religions', m J Hick & Ρ Knitter (eds ), The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, (London SCM, 1987), pp 178-200 From the aspect of personal faith and historical consciousness see W C Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, (London Sheldon, 1978 (2nd ed )), and Towards a World Theology, (London Macmillan, 1980) From postulating a universal sotenocentnc principle operative in all traditions see John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion, (London Macmillan, 1988) These starting points find their modern genesis m Schleiermacher, where m On Religion, (London Harper & Row, 1965) and The Christian Faith, (Edinburgh Τ & Τ Clark, 1928), he begins with the general concept of religion and then wants to try and show that Christianity is the true and best example of religion in comparison to others I shall be suggesting that one must start from within the tradition, or else implicitly smuggle in questionable notions of tradition - free criteria See my 'Whose Objectivity7 Which Neutrality? - The Doomed Quest for a Neutral Vantage Point from which to Judge Religions', Religious Studies, 29 (1993), pp 79-95 6 See Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), 1965 For a good back­ ground survey see Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation, (New York Doubleday, 1983) I must also acknowledge the not unqualified influence of Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, (Edin­ burgh Τ & Τ Clark), 1 1, eh 2, 1 2, Sect 17, 4 3 ι, sect 69 7 Vatican II documents affirm this trmitanan nature clearly as well as the relationship of the kingdom to the church see Lumen Gentium Aloys Gnlmeier notes in his commentary 'the ecclesiology of Vatican II is pneumatological, just as it is chnstocentnc and ultimately theocentric' m ed Herbert Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol 1, (London Burns & Oates, 1967), ρ 142 8 Again, see the writers cited m the note 1 above with the exception of Kung See my treatment of this difficulty in the work of the Catholic writer, Paul Knitter 'The Reign of God and a Trinitarian Ecclesiology An Analysis of Sotenocentncism', m Paul Mojzes & Leonard Swidler (eds ), Christian Mission and Interreligwus Dialogue, (New York Edwin Mellen, 1990), pp 51-61 9 See the extremely persuasive criticisms of the danger m Rahner's additional vice versa Τ F Torrance, 'Towards an Ecumenical Consensus of the Trinity', Theologische Zeitschrift, (1975), pp 337-50 10 The former (mythical) is central to Hick's epistemology in An Interpretation of Religion, pp 241-51, and the latter (iconic) to Κ Ward, A Vision to Pursue, (London SCM, 1991) Myth is also central to Gordon Kaufmann, 'Religious Diversity, Historical Consciousness, and Christian Theology', m Hick & Knitter (eds ), The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, (New York Orbis, 1987), pp 3-15 I do not mean 'constuct' m the sense employed by J Milbank in Theology and Social Theory, (Oxford Blackwell, 1991), Pt IV 11 Κ Rahner, Theological Investigations, Vol 1, (London Darton, Longman & Todd, 1965), ρ 49, my emphasis in bold Rahner goes on to argue that what is contained 'virtually' (p 59) in Christ, both logically and 'through the luminous power of the Spirit' (p 53), 'can and must still be called "Revelation" ' (p 59), rather than inferred human propositions With this I am in agreement, although Rahner tends to focus too strongly on the propositional aspect of revelation m this early essay, rather than on the primary personal and relational aspect of revelation which more forcefully supports his argument for the development of dogma See also E Schillebeeckx's helpful and less propositionally oriented discussion of the question in Revelation and Theology, Vol 1, (London Sheed & Ward, 1967), pp 13-20 Denzinger 2020 is reiterated in Dei Verbum paras 2,4 12 See for example Hick, ibid, chs 19-20, Knitter, No Other Name, ch 10, and Κ Ward, A Vision to Pursue For the many factors that effect the development of dogma see the careful study of the axiom "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" in F Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church7, (London Geoffrey Chapman, 1992) 13 See Nostra Aetate, and commentaries/excursus m ed H Vorgrimler, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol 3, (London Burns & Oates, 1968), pp 1-155 14 I have addressed the question of Chnstology being intrinsically anti-Jewish in 'One Covenant or Many Covenants 7 Towards a Theology of Christian-Jewish Relations', Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 27, 3 (1990), pp 441-52 © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994

Revelation and revelations 183 15 This is precisely the option taken by reform feminists within the church such as R Ruether who are obliged to draw from the 'original' revelation that has become obscured See R Ruether, New Woman New Earth, (New York Seabury, Crossroads, 1975), pp 65-66 16 See R Panikkar's exegesis of Brahma Sütra, 1 1 u in the first edition of The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, (London Darton Longman & Todd, 1964) 17 Nostra Aetate, 3,4 18 See for example R Panikkar, The Silence of God The Answer of the Buddha, (New York, Orbis, 1989), D Tracy, Dialogue with the Other The Interrehgwus Dialogue, (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1990), ch 4 19 For a good study of the three mam Vedäntic options (Sankara, Rämänuja and Madhva) see E Lott, Vedäntic Approaches to God, (London Macmillan, 1980) For examples of Roman Catholic appropriations and interaction with Sankara see Swami Abhishiktananda, HinduChnstian Meeting Point, (Bangalore CISRS, 1969), J Monchanin, In Quest of the Absolute, (Oxford Mowbray, 1977), and in the popular works of Bede Griffiths And for a more recent interest in Rämänuja, see J Lipner, The Face of Truth A Study of Meaning and Metaphysics in the Vedäntic Theology of Rämänuja, (London Macmillan, 1986) 20 SeeC Schwobel's extremely penetrating comments on this point 'Particularity, Universality, and the Religions', in ed G D'Costa, Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, (New York Orbis, 1990), pp 30-46 21 Found for example m the recent works of Knitter See footnote 4, and following Cardinal Tomko's criticism of Knitter, it is interesting to see John Paul II proposing a similar criticism in Redemptons Missio, 17-18, criticising theocentncism which ignores Chnstocentricism and ecclesiocentricism 22 One should not confuse respect for other religions with affirming the truth of their beliefs See the incisive criticism of John Hick on this count by Ρ Griffiths and D Lewis, 'On Grading Religions, Seeking Truth, and Being Nice to People', Religious Studies, 19,1 (1983), pp 75-80 For an interesting criticism of 'Christian Mission and the Western Guilt Complex' see L Sanneh, in Christian Century, 8 April (1987), pp 330-34, and Β Stanley's careful defence of Protestant missionary work in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as not being ultimately aligned with British imperialism The Bible and the Flag, (Leicester Apollos, 1990), esp ch 1 23 See Clooney's brilliant essay, 'Reading the World in Christ From Companson to Inclusivism', m G D'Costa (ed ), Christianity Uniqueness Reconsidered, pp 63-80, and his more sustained interaction with Advaita Vedänta from the same perspective in Theology after Vedänta An Experiment in Comparative Theology, (New York State University of New York Press, 1993) 24 See the debate behind Nostra Aetate regarding the Jews as reported by Oestncher, op cit, and at its sharpest (and most polemic) in R Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, (New York Seabury, 1974), and the responses to Ruether in ed A Τ Davies, Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, (New York Pauhst Press, 1979), and my article in note 10 For the more neglected aspect of anti-Muslim theological traditions see primarily E Said, Orientalism, (London Pantheon Books, 1978), W Montgomery Watt, Muslim-Christian Encounters Perceptions and Misperceptwns, (London Routledge, 1991), Ν Daniels, Islam and the West The Making of an Image, (Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press, 1960, and R Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, (Cambridge, Mass Harvard University Press, 1962) 25 See David Burrell, Analogy and Philosophical Language, (New Haven Yale University Press, 1973) Hick misinterprets Aquinas in Hick, ibid, ρ 239 26 See my 'Elephants, Ropes and a Christian Theology of Religions', Theology, 88, 724 (1985), pp 259-68 27 See Robert Schreiter Constructing Local Theologies, (London SCM, 1985) He raises import­ ant issues although too briefly See also eds C Cornille & V Neckebrouck, A Universal Faith7 Peoples, Cultures, Religion, and the Christ, (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1992) I am grateful to Dr Gerard Loughhn, Rev Graham Ward, Fr Michael Barnes, and Fr Chris­ topher Seville for some very helpful comments on a draft version of this article - as well as to those who asked so many searching questions when this paper was read in different forms at the Society for the Study of Theology, Cardiff, 1993, and the Bristol Theological Society, Bristol, 1993 © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1994

^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.