A Study of Pluralistic Inclusivism as Inter-Religious Theological Methodology
by
Manoj Zacharia
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Trinity College
and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College
© Copyright by Manoj Zacharia 2018
ii
A Study of Pluralistic Inclusivism as Inter-Religious Theological Methodology
Manoj Zacharia
Doctor of Philosophy in Theology
University of St. Michael’s College
2018
ABSTRACT
This thesis is an examination of pluralistic inclusivism, a theological method that has
been developed by Kalarickal Paulose Aleaz. Such an examination is necessitated by the in-
creased attention to a method called New Comparative Theology, developed by Francis X.
Clooney, which is receiving critical acclaim in North American and European theological con-
texts. This dissertation is an analysis of pluralistic inclusivism vis-à-vis new comparative theol-
ogy with the argument that pluralistic inclusivism is a constructively wider and context sensitive
approach to inter-religious dialogue. The analysis is affected with a postcolonial sensitivity and
use of political philosophers in the area of pluralism. Along with highlighting the similarities be-
tween pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology, this research argues that such simi-
larities end when the methodological presuppositions of both are analyzed. In other words, the
similarities between pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology are ostensible. While
Clooney focuses on internal transformation of one’s home tradition, Aleaz offers a theological
methodology that is centered on bridging religious differences through the development of a
communicative framework. In a context of religious strife and ambiguity, dialogue, or the devel-
opment of a communicative frame as set forth by pluralistic inclusivism, offers a solution
iii
towards achieving the common good. The achievement of the common good, a result of dia-
logue, is part and parcel of an Anglican theological method.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The undertaking of a doctoral program consists of a plethora of support from colleagues,
friends, and family. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to my thesis
director, Dr. Abrahim H. Khan at Trinity College, University of Toronto. Professor Khan’s keen
sense of detail, encouragement, intense intellectual rigour, good pedagogical methodology, hu-
mour, and unwavering support is the epitome of an exemplary thesis director. I also wish to
thank the other members of my thesis committee: (the late) Dr. Chelva Kanaganayakam (Depart-
ment of South Asian Studies in the University of Toronto); and Dr. Michael Stoeber (Regis Col-
lege, Toronto School of Theology). Chelva’s advice was an inspiration. Dr. Stoeber’s careful
reading of the proposal and this work has been formative.
I would also like to express my gratitude to the faculty of Divinity at the Trinity College,
staff of the University of Toronto library system, and the Toronto School of Theology for their
generous support during my doctoral program. Without the practical support, this project would
not have been possible.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the prayerful support that I received from my
spiritual communities of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, particularly the Metropoli-
tan, The Most Rev. Dr. Joseph Mar Thoma, The Anglican Church of Canada, and The Episcopal
Church. During my doctoral program, I was supported by the Mar Thoma communities in Ot-
tawa and Kingston, ON, and Montreal, QC, in Canada, and in Rochester, NY, as well as by The
Church of St. Paul’s and Resurrection, Wood-Ridge, NJ, and Christ Church Cathedral, Cincin-
nati, OH. The Rt. Rev. Thomas E. Breidenthal, D.Phil., bishop of the Diocese of Southern Ohio,
v
and the Very Rev. Gail E. Greenwell, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Cincinnati, supported
my endeavor through their moral encouragement and financial support.
Last, but certainly not least, I wish to acknowledge the love and support of my amazing
family. My parents, Mathew and Elizabeth Zacharia and John and Lally Thomas, instilled in me
a powerful model of Christianity, along with a strong work ethic. My wonderful children Abigail
and Johan (who were born after I began my doctoral program) provided a necessary and wel-
come balance to my life when this project threatened to become all-consuming. Finally, my
beautiful wife Joelle was the rock upon which this doctoral program was built. Her living em-
bodiment of grace was the inspiration for this work. It is to her and her unconditional love that I
dedicate this work.
vi
CONTENTS
Abstract …………………………………...……………………………………………… ii Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………. iv Contents …………………………………………………………………………………... vi CHAPTER 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 1 CHAPTER 2. Methodology ……………………………………………………………... 11
2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 11 2.2 Dialogue ………………………………………………………………………. 12 2.3 Roadmap ………………………………………………………………………. 14 2.4 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………….. 18
CHAPTER 3. The Emergence of Aleaz’s Pluralistic Inclusivism …………………….. 19
3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 19 3.2 Classical Indian Thought as Foundation ……………………………………… 20
3.2.1 Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta …………………………………………. 21 3.2.2 Neo-Vedanta Reading of Western Christianity ………...…………… 26
3.3 Indian Christian Theology …………………………………………………….. 31 3.3.1 The St. Thomas Tradition …………………………………………… 31 3.3.2 Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism ………………………...….. 35 3.3.3 Pluralistic Inclusivism as a Bridge ……….………………………… 43
3.4 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………….. 46 CHAPTER 4. The Emergence of Clooney’s New Comparative Theology …………… 49
4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 49 4.2 Toward the Development of New Comparative Theology …………………… 50
4.2.1 The Problem with Pluralism ………………………………………... 51 4.2.2 Crisis in the Academic Study of Religion …………...………………. 53
4.3 The Indian Legacy …………………………………………………………….. 56 4.4 Post Missiological Learning …………………………………………………... 62 4.5 Interreligious Learning ………………………………………………………... 63 4.6 Method and Logic …………………………………………………………….. 65
4.6.1 Coordination .…………………………..…………………………… 65 4.6.2 Superimposition ..……………………………………………………. 65 4.6.3 Comparative Conversation …...…………………………….………. 66 4.6.4 Comparative Tension …………………………………..…………… 66 4.6.5 Collage Visualization …………..…………………………………… 66
4.7 Posture of Openness …………………………………………………………... 68 4.8 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………….. 70
vii
CHAPTER 5. Pluralistic Inclusivism and New Comparative Theology in Conversation ……………………………………...……………………………
75
5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 75 5.2 Ostensible Similarity ………………………………………………………….. 76
5.2.1 Metaphysics and Pluralism as Concerns …………..……………….. 79 5.2.2 Movement Beyond Intra-Christian Dialogue: Towards Reformation of Theology …..…………………………………………
80
5.2.3 Subtle Vagueness ……………….…………………………………... 81 5.3 Relational Convergence and Multiple Religious Belonging ………………….. 82 5.4 Hermeneutics of Context and Hermeneutics of Particular Text ……………. 84 5.5 Theological Reformation and Reformation of Home Theology ……………… 86 5.6 Convergence and Divergence …………………………………………………. 88 5.7 Genealogy of Pluralistic Inclusivism …………………………………………. 90 5.8 Genealogy of New Comparative Theology …………………………………… 93 5.9 Communitarianism and Agonism as Analogues ……………………………… 99 5.10 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………… 105
CHAPTER 6. Pluralistic Inclusivism’s Telos and The Anglican Sensibility ………… 109
6.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 109 6.2 The Anglican Sensibility ……………………………………………………… 109 6.3 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………….. 117
Concluding Remarks …………………………………………………………………….. 119 Bibliography ……….…………………………………………………………………….. 121
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
New comparative theology! What are we to make of the grammatical modifier in an ex-
pression that has gained currency in the last decade or so? In short, is new comparative theology
“new”? This question, which guides this study, is critical in a context and an era that is witness-
ing a shift in cultural and demographic realities.
The current context in North America is witnessing a crisis in Christian theology precipi-
tated by the impact of global and cultural diversity. Sociologically, there is a tendency to refer to
this as the “browning of America.”1 Various denominational forms of Christianity, rooted in the
Western tradition, held much sway in North America. Yet, with the decrease in influence of
Christianity, partially predicted in the 1960s with the death of God theology,2 the number of
Hindu and Sikh temples, as well as Islamic mosques, has increased. Furthermore, commentators
on religious trends like Diana Butler Bass have alluded to the phenomenon of people being
“more spiritual” than religious; meaning, they claim either a hybrid identity or an identity apart
from traditional confessional Christian terms.3 At the same time, there is seemingly increased
suspicion and strife among religious groups and a deep lack of cooperation tearing at the fabric
of what was once the Christian west.
Which theological paradigms work best in this current climate is partially a function of
geographical and cultural context. Studies at a North American theological seminary
1 William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2015). 2 Thomas J.J. Altizer, ed. Towards a New Christianity: Readings in the Death of God (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967). 3 Diana Butler Bass, Christianity after Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening (New York: HarperOne, 2012).
2
predominantly consist of studies in Augustine, Aquinas, and perhaps reformation theology. Yet,
studies in Asia predominantly consist of the ecumenical and theological traditions of the third
world––what Western institutions call patristics and label contextual theology. Thus, upon an ini-
tial reading of Clooney’s work in new comparative theology, my initial reaction was quite
simply: how is this novel? In a country like India, the implications of communal difference and
pluralism, in recent history, came to the fore during communal tensions between Hindus and
Muslims fueled in Gujarat.4 It was only ten years prior to this that the Babri Masjid (Mosque of
Babur) was demolished by Hindu nationalists under the guise of the Ram Rath Yatra, a political-
religious movement. While India has seen its clashes between religions, it continues to be a func-
tioning democracy that has various religious expressions living in silos.5 In fact, a theological re-
source from a theologian by the name of Kalarickal Paulose Aleaz, an Indian Orthodox priest,
theologian, and professor at Bishop’s College, an Anglican seminary, in Kolkotta, India, has
been dealing with religious difference and pluralism in such a context of communal clashes.
My initial query led to wondering whether the methods of inter-religious engagement are
different for Aleaz and Clooney. Perhaps the differences, if any, are superficial. Aleaz’s theolog-
ical method grows out of the Indian soil as a need to revisit Christianity in light of the missionary
movement’s import of Western Christianity to India. Aleaz’s vocation is to engage in teaching
and communicating a deep faith that is incarnational and able to stand the test of survivability in
the midst of a cultural and religious milieu that is quite foreign to Christianity as understood in
the western civilization. Clooney’s work grows out of a pragmatic realization of the changing
4 Sinha Shreeya & Mark Suppes, "Timeline of the Riots in Modi's Gujarat," The New York Times (August 19, 2015), accessed May 20, 2017. 5 Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, "India," International Religious Freedom Report July-December 2010, accessed May 12, 2017.
3
demographics within North America and the consequences of a de-institutionalized Christianity
as well as draws from his experiences in India.
Aleaz and Clooney are thinkers who straddle the vocational lines of theologians working
from the perspective of their respective traditions and as academics working within a setting of
intellectual engagement that moves beyond their traditional confessional lines. Both approach the
study of classical Hinduism through hermeneutic engagement and call for a shift in Christian un-
derstanding based on insights from their engagement with classical Hinduism. Thus, initially, I
was perplexed and began to draw on critical post-colonial thought to ask particular questions of
Clooney. In particular, the impetus for my examination of Clooney came from a deep concern
over the perpetuation of Western academic hierarchies and what I perceived to be unacknowl-
edged intellectual resources that come from parts of the world that were previously suppressed
by European colonization, for this had been part of the legacy of the colonial mission experience
in India.
My research has at its foreground a question as to whether the perpetuation of academic
colonialism that continues to create hierarchies by privileging the geographic West as the genera-
tor of theologies and the geographic East as the mission field where theology is interpreted and
lived through Euro-centric lenses applies to a case where new comparative theology receives
more attention than pluralistic inclusivism. I am informed by a keen sensitivity to the possible
implication of academic imperialism wherein one could critically ask whether Clooney refer-
ences or acknowledges the richness of Indian Christian Theological tradition, beyond the Roman
Catholic mission legacy in India, that addresses inter-textual resources. Perhaps one reason why
critical attention to Indian Christian theologians has neither been given nor acknowledged is
what R.S. Sugirtharajah, a postcolonial theologian notes: “third world theologies have been
4
associated with being spiritual, esoteric, or non-rational. Such a posture reinforces the Orientalist
notion that knowledge production in the Academic East is inferior in contradistinction to the ra-
tional and philosophically substantive work of the Western academic.”6
Amidst the clamoring between communities over sacred spaces and the claim to whose
God is greater or in a context of hybridization, what is the vocation of theology? Pluralistic in-
clusivism and new comparative theology vastly expands this call from Thomas Aquinas, who
postulated that theology should be pronounced to be a science.7 Rooted in Aristotelian thought,
Aquinas holds to a particular way of understanding Truth by valid arguments derived from cul-
tural context.8 Theology, postulated in this way, is the highest science of all as it is highest of all
human wisdoms predicated upon the certitude of divine revelation understood through Holy
Scripture and attested by the canons of the church. To engage in theology is essentially a disci-
plined intellectual activity that leads to the knowledge of objective revelation through contempla-
tion.
Embedded within Aquinas’s framework is a certainty of Divine Revelation. The human
inability to derive knowledge from such revelation is a form of weakness and estrangement from
the Divine. While Aquinas’ mode of thinking is quite understandable within the context of the
church’s predominant political and theological presence in the world during his period, one need
not be theologically nor culturally astute to realize that the scientific revolution stemming from
the seventeenth century has led to a worldview that demystifies knowledge. This de-
6 R.S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Reconfigurations: An Alternative Way of Reading the Bible and Doing Theology (St. Louis: Christian Board of Publication, 2003), 13. 7 Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, vol. I, V vols., Summa Theologica (New York: Ben-ziger, 1948). 8 Aristotle, Metaphysics Beta, 1011.
5
mystification of the physical world derived from observable experimentation, and the value of
scientific validity revolves around the ability to repeat the results of such observation.
The scientific revolution impacted theology in various ways. Within Christian theology,
the inerrancy of the Christian canon and scripture has not only been questioned but seems to be a
result of the cultural and political domination of a Western or Eurocentric understanding of
Christianity, thereby relegating theological traditions of the non-Roman Catholic lineage as ei-
ther heretical or peripheral.9 This questioning about foundations relates to doubts about the exist-
ence of objective certainty and, in particular, its source in divine revelation. In this period of
time, theology, as will be argued for, has more to do with a contextually framed existence than
with any claim to objective certainty.
John Searle’s distinction between brute facts that exist independent of human existence
and institutional facts may be helpful here as I correlate these with the notion of conceptual
frames.10 At some level, the reality of Theos may be granted for those whose belief system con-
tains a conceptual frame that imbibes the cultural, linguistic, and social conditions that propagate
such a belief. Yet, all religions or systems of belief are not predicated upon a theistic conception
––namely streams of Buddhism or even the Nyayavada tradition of Hinduism. Conceptual
frameworks and agreed upon language help in the development and expression of ideas. By their
very nature, conceptual frames espouse wide-ranging beliefs about the nature of things because
of the brute fact of different historical and cultural development that lead to the development of
human capacities that are varied across cultures. Thus, all claims to certainty are just that––
9 In this dissertation, I refer to the notion of cultural, economic, and political imperialism that exerted itself through the establishment of various forms of hegemonies along these same spheres. When referring to anything pertaining to the West, I will often use the terms Western, North American, or Eurocentrism to refer to either the effects of im-perialism and the hegemony that results from such power. 10 John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality, Penguin Philosophy (London: Penguin, 1996).
6
claims that reflect a contextually derived interpretation and conveyance of truth as revealed
within the finitude of a particular human experience.
In an age of global religious diversity and ambiguity, how does one engage pluralism and
clashes from a Christian theological perspective? One way is for the referent theology to be un-
derstood as any framework that seeks to engage in the study and reflection of the Ultimate Real-
ity commonly referred to as God. In the words of Andrew Louth, theology is a deep reflection
and move towards the participation in the Divine Mystery.11 It is not intra-Christian dialogue but
an openness to deep Mystery and Truth. In this vein, Keith Ward’s suggestion that theology is a
pluralistic discipline is helpful.12 What Ward suggests in this claim is that people of differing be-
liefs can co-operate, argue, and converse in seeking Truth. Such a claim allows me to follow in
Ward’s lead and make a distinction within the genus of theology where one is confessional theol-
ogy and the other is comparative theology.
Confessional theology is the exploration of a given revelation by one or a community that
wholly accepts a particular revelation and engages in interpreting and living by it. Comparative
theology is an intellectual discipline that enquires into ideas of the ultimate value and goal of hu-
man life as they have been perceived and expressed in a variety of religious traditions. The com-
parative theological approach is concerned with meaning, truth, and the rationality of religious
beliefs rather than with the psychological, sociological, or historical elements of religious life
and institutions, as is the case with the discipline known as religious studies.13 However, when
reading Ward, I began to ask the question: can a theology be both confessional and comparative?
11 Andrew Louth, Discerning the Mystery (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 40. 12 Keith Ward, Religion and Revelation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 45. 13 Ibid.
7
Clooney’s proposal of “The New Comparative Theology”14 is one way through which confes-
sional theology can be both. This theology maps itself within a Christian confessional tradition
and argues for the re-examination of its doctrinal concepts through the lens of another tradition’s
scriptural and commentarial resources. Certainly this is a novel approach––or is it, perhaps, that
for which pluralistic inclusivism is calling.
It is this exploration of pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology that sets the
tenor and tone of my research. This project is an oeuvre based on epistemic humility. It is a
recognition that I am shaped by particular experiences yet with an openness to seek and under-
stand the Truth. My proposed paradigm utilizes gems of thought from Raimondo Panikkar and
Paulose Mar Gregorios whose works in the field of philosophical theology is seminal and in-
forms Aleaz. Panikkar’s starting point is the perspective of radical pluralism wherein all reality is
plural. In order for one to understand reality, a hermeneutical process grounded in a reflection on
the fact that the loci (topoi) of historically unrelated cultures make it problematic to understand
one tradition with the tools of another.15 Concepts only become intelligible if understood using
the hermeneutical contexts, tools, and range of meanings in a particular context. It is the praxis
or sitz im leben of a given situation that should enable the elucidation of any achievable human
goal. Dialogue provides the intermediary space for mutual criticism and fecundation.16 The rea-
son why the particular context is germane for Aleaz is because he adopts Panikkar’s analysis that
Western philosophical systems are based on a monistic or universalizing tendency that leads to
14 Heretofore, I may refer to The New Comparative Theology as comparative theology unless there is a discussion between the late eighteenth and nineteenth century variant of comparative theology (the original comparative) and Clooney’s new comparative theology. In those instances, I will clearly distinguish between the two. This discussion primarily occurs in chapters four and five. 15 R. Panikkar, Myth, Faith, and Hermeneutics. (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 8. 16 Ibid. 113
8
hierarchies thereby displacing any interpretation of truth that does not fit nicely into Western cat-
egories and reification.
Attentiveness to the particular and local contexts through dialogue prevents what Homi
K. Bhabha sees an endemic problem within academic tradition centered on privileging theory. In
contrast with such privileging, what Aleaz offers is a dialogical approach that is continuous and
changes according to the contours of each context. Contexts cannot be reified as they are perpet-
ually in flux. Bhabha’s methodological insight leads us to recognize that there can be no mono-
lithic construction of each context. Each context is shaped by different influences. Bhabha notes,
cultures are never unitary in themselves, nor simply dualistic in the relation of self to others.
Bhabha17 writes, “the pact of interpretation is never simply an act of communication between the
I and the You designated in the statement. The production of meaning requires that these two
places be mobilized in the passage through a Third Space, which represents both the general con-
ditions of language and the specific implication of the utterance in a performative and institu-
tional strategy of which it cannot ‘in itself’ be conscious.”18
The Third Space, for Bhabha, is not representable because its symbols of culture have no
primordial unity or fixity and can be interpreted in different ways based on one’s sociocultural
positionality.19 For a thinker like Aleaz, such a third space represents a transcendent center that,
by definition, is beyond human experiences. However, in order for there to be a third space that
transcends human experiences, it is imperative that he further develops a conception wherein
such experiences are not only conceivable but also at least partially intelligible from each contex-
tual position. Access to such a center would probably, in Aleaz’s estimation, represent some sort
17 H. K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London, Routledge, 2006), 52. 18 Ibid., 53. 19 H. K. Bhabha, “Cultural Diversity and Cultural Differences” The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths and H. Tiffin, eds. (New York: Routledge, 2006), 55-157. 157.
9
of means to achieve mutual intelligibility. What is essential in attempting to reach or achieve the
ideal of moving towards a third space or transcendent condition is recognizing that in human in-
teractions and throughout the construction of human history, there were those who were slighted,
marginalized, and subjugated. It is in privileging those who have been and continue to be side-
lined that a realization of justice within homeomorphic rights paradigms can be envisioned. Bha-
bha offers further insight on this by stating:
it is only when we understand that all cultural statements and systems are con-structed in this contradictory and ambivalent space (a construction based on the homeogenic construction of historical identity without regard to the plurality of voices) of enunciation, that we begin to understand why hierarchical claims to the inherent originality or “purity” of cultures are untenable, even before we re-sort to empirical historical instances that demonstrate their hybridity.20
For Aleaz, pluralistic inclusivism, as a dialogical method, serves as an intermediary or
liminal space that presents opportunities for conversation and engagement among particular
faiths in the context of diversity. This intermediary space is shaped by the transcendent center.
The dialogical space is needed as humans are fundamentally communicative beings with the ca-
pacity to analyze, ruminate, and transform based on new insights. In pluralistic inclusivism, there
seems to be a breakdown of a priori fixed cultural, political, and social positions in favor of what
Bhabha alludes to, hybrid positions, so as to enable substantive transformation through dialogue.
The reason for engaging in dialogue is to move away from the hegemony of Western theory
while offering that concepts be rooted in the life-world from which they are received and have
constructed their meaning.
The requirement for dialogical rootedness in adopting an epistemic position that is partic-
ularly critical of certainty favors an epistemology of openness that allows for multiple sources in
understanding the Truth. The sources are envisioned as insightful conversation that presupposes
20 Ibid.,157.
10
a fragmentary grasp on Truth, but when understood and put together through dialogical conver-
sation can be meaningful in conveying a more holistic vision of the Truth. For the purpose of this
research, dialogue is considered a virtue or a good in and of itself and is part of inter-religious
engagement that is particularly germane in our current environment of communal clashes and re-
ligious ambiguity.
Drawing the elements mentioned in this introduction together, and given the similarities
between Aleaz and Clooney, it could be that their methods are replications of each other or that
they have collaborated with each other in terms of methodology or possibly that they drew from
a common lineage of sources. Yet another plausible explanation is that the similarities between
Aleaz and Clooney are merely at the surface and that when examined from their methodological
presuppositions and goals they are different. This dissertation leans on the latter explanation and
uses the concept of ostensible similarity to evaluate both Aleaz and Clooney. Dialogue, in my
view, is a way of advocating for movement towards creating the common good. As such, it is
very much in line with traditional Anglican thought,21 which therefore can be methodologically
effective for the goal of religious pluralism. Aleaz works from a backdrop that challenges the
very epistemological foundation of Euro-centered Christianity by drawing from the Indian Chris-
tian tradition and classical Hinduism in developing a relevant methodology for inter-religious di-
alogue. This exercise has enabled me to closely examine and test what the resemblances are.
They are, as what I describe in chapter four, ostensibly similar. Consequently, what intrigues me
is which method allows for dialogue amidst clashes and confusion? This dissertation finds that
one of the methods allows for dialogue in an engaged, sustained, and profound way
21 What is meant by the “traditional Anglican Thought” will be developed and explained in the last chapter. It stems from creating the common good vis-à-vis Richard Hooker.
11
CHAPTER 2
Methodology
2.1 Introduction
The last chapter presented an overview of concerns that precipitate my specific research.
This chapter discusses methodological matters under the rubric of dialogue, roadmap, and re-
search orientation. Preliminary to their discussion, however, are some background remarks on
the two methodological starting points that would enhance appreciation of the content.
In a research context situated in the North American setting that is hospitable to a plurality of
methods, a concern is to highlight theological approaches that have hitherto received no, or at
best, minimal attention. I present Aleaz by also referring substantially to new comparative theol-
ogy as developed by Francis X. Clooney. What unfolds in the manner of the next few chapters is
an exercise of telling the specific stories of pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology
by highlighting areas of similitude and offering why they are different when closely analyzed.
Given the fact that this research is undertaken in a North American academic setting and the rise
of new comparative theology as a method of study within the American Academy of Religion, I
underscore the importance of developing an appreciation of methods that have received either no
or minimal attention by presenting one such method in the midst of a North American theologi-
cal setting.
This project demonstrates that there are similarities between pluralistic inclusivism and
new comparative theology and show that they diverge in terms of methodological starting points.
I label this similar but dissimilar notion ostensible similarity. The result of examining ostensible
similarities is seeing that there is a wide gap between pluralistic inclusivism and new
12
comparative theology. Among conceptual similarities are pluralistic inclusivism’s relational
convergences and new comparative theology’s multiple religious belongings, pluralistic inclusiv-
ism’s hermeneutics of context and new comparative theology’s hermeneutics of particular texts,
and, finally, pluralistic inclusivism’s transformation of faith and new comparative theology’s
reformation of home theology.
While there are close resemblances between the two, they also diverge in important ways.
I argue that pluralistic inclusivism places more emphasis on the differences between religions
that can be bridged by developing communicative (that is, interreligious dialogue) frameworks,
while new comparative theology emphasizes that cultures are so radically different from each
other that the only way interreligious engagement occurs is through transforming one’s own tra-
dition. The divergence in methodological emphases between the two is centered on engagement
with other religious traditions. My research notes that pluralistic inclusivism offers a theological
method that allows for interreligious dialogue based on mutual engagement over internal trans-
formation of faith; whereas, new comparative theology emphasizes internal transformation over
engagement. In a world of competing claims over many meta-concepts such as Truth and justice,
dialogue is valued as a fundamental virtue in engaging difference.
2.2 Dialogue
Dialogue creates what chapter one referred to as a third space. This space enables reli-
gions in dialogue to move into the possibility of deep engagement in, at the very least, the con-
templation of issues that constitute the common good. Christianity has been in negotiation and
dialogue with culture and philosophy since its inception. However, it is with the Christian mis-
sionary enterprise linked with the history of European colonialism that interreligious dialogue
13
developed substantially. Roger Haight’s words give this dissertation a working understanding of
dialogue:
the normative revelation of Jesus postulates that God’s grace is operative in other religions. One can thus say a priori that, insofar as other religions mediate God’s saving grace, they are in that measure true. It is thus the normativity of Jesus that mandates interreligious dialogue because other religions are real mediations of God’s grace, and thus fundamentally not in competition with God’s action in Jesus.22
I recognize the colonial and neocolonial influences that have shaped the contemporary
landscape of pluralistic religious interactions, which have come to the foreground, for the most
part, in the era of European colonial engagement in the two-thirds of the world.23 By holding dia-
logue to be the telos, I am arguing for a dialogue that critically evaluates the epistemic trajecto-
ries of each religion. Such an open, yet critical, epistemic space does not necessarily lead to syn-
cretism, although it does not discount syncretism as an emergent possibility.24 The dialogue that
undergirds the telos of pluralistic inclusivism is one that asserts itself as a viable and contextual
method that moves away from the construction of binaries between developed and developing
world theologies.25 Dialogue is rooted in the principle of a sustained political intervention against
hegemony and is about opening political and cultural spaces to build human community. It ques-
tions dominant frames of reference and legitimately seeks to bring together human communities,
as there is a recognition that without dialogue there is mutual incompleteness.26
22 Roger Haight, "Jesus and World Religions," Modern Theology 12, no. 3 (July 1996): 322. 23 Hyo-Dong Lee, "Interreligious Dialogue as a Politics of Recognition: A Postcolonial Reading of Hegel for Interre-ligious Solidarity," The Journal of Religion 85, no. 4 (2005):555-580. 24 Mignolo and Shiwy offer syncretism as a practice that subverts imperialistic translation/transculturation in their argument for border thinking. “Border thinking emerges as a place of epistemic and political confrontation with the neoliberal thinking of the state. At the same time, border thinking undoes the dichotomies that sustained the mod-ern/colonial world-system and its hegemonic epistemology.” Walter D. Mignolo and Freya Schiwy, "Transcultura-tion and the Colonial Difference. Double Translation," in Translation and Ethnography, ed. Tullia Maranhoo and Bernard Streck (Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 2003). Specifically, I am informed by pages 14–28. 25 Sugirtharajah,Op Cit.. 26 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).
14
2.3 Roadmap
From a methodological perspective, I offer a roadmap of the remaining three chapters
comprising this dissertation. The third chapter brings together the historical and theological
background leading to Aleaz’s formulation of pluralistic inclusivism. That chapter will begin by
tracing the history of Hindu-Christian interaction by touching on the evolution from exclusiv-
ism/inclusivism to pluralism. Pluralistic inclusivism is a methodological approach in the theol-
ogy of religions that has, at its foreground, the theological postures of “pluralism” and “inclusiv-
ism.”
Pluralistic inclusivism is an established theological method that recognizes theological
plurality as foundational and attempts to negotiate religious diversity (plurality) within the con-
text of a shared mutual engagement that moves beyond self-transformation. Aleaz fleshes out
what he means by pluralistic inclusivism in the following manner: “pluralistic inclusivism calls
each religious faith to include and relate to other faiths in such a way that the theological and
spiritual contents of one’s own faith are fulfilled in and through the contributions of other living
faiths.”27 Rendered another way, to be pluralistically inclusive means that each living faith be-
comes truly pluralistic when other faiths contribute to its conceptual content, and inclusive when
other faiths transform its theological content to witness in and through their contributions. As
mentioned in the introduction to this chapter and will be examined in the fifth chapter, there are
three facets that give us further insight into pluralistic inclusivism: 1) the relational convergence
of religion, 2) the importance of hermeneutical context, and 3) the recognition that the content of
faith can be transformed. I discuss the historical background of St. Thomas Christianity in India,
27 K. P. Aleaz, Pluralism Call for Pluralistic Inclusivism: An Indian Christian Experience (Calcutta: Bishop's Col-lege, 1998), 2.
15
the philosophical contributions of Sankara, Vivekananda, and Radhakrishnan in order to unpack
pluralistic inclusivism by highlighting its goals and methods.
The fourth chapter focuses on the development of new comparative theology particularly
by Clooney. New comparative theology is done for the sake of learning that allows for the per-
meation of new truths into existing traditions by attempting to study texts, rites, rituals, iconogra-
phy, and legends interreligiously for comparative purposes. The deviation from the theology of
religions approach, according to Clooney, lies in theology of religion being solely beholden to its
three traditional categories of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, which lead to developing
metatheories of religion rather than studying theology and incorporating such theological learn-
ing into reformulating one’s home tradition. Clooney posits new comparative theology as a mode
of interreligious learning that remains faithful to one’s home theology while using resources
from and adopting methods of the theology being compared.28
Thus, the goal of new comparative theology is to create concrete theological exchanges
about particular rites, issues, and symbols between religions while ensuring that the cultural and
linguistic constructions in one theological method do not hold rein over another religion’s theo-
logical method. As such, new comparative theology, while working within specific confessional
traditions, aims at examining these traditions in light of a comparative study of other traditions.
While new truths may not be arrived at, new comparative theology according to Clooney, aims
to learn from and dialogue with scholars from different faith backgrounds. Further, this mode of
evaluation is cautious about using preconceived categories and reducing other theologies to the
28 Francis X. Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders, Kindle E-Books ed. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010),10.
16
categories of Western Christianity.29 Clooney envisions multiple religious belonging and
hybridity.
At the same time, Clooney claims that he is an inclusivist and insists on salvation in
Christ alone and the true universality of salvation.30 He wants comparative theology to be faith-
ful to confessional theology and tradition while seeking fresh insights. The objective of new
comparative theology is to be open to and enriched by other traditions through incorporating val-
uable resources from other traditions while retaining one’s home identity through multiple reli-
gious belonging, hermeneutics of particular texts, and the reformation of home theology. I ex-
plore some of the history of Roman Catholic interaction with Hinduism. I focus on Clooney’s
new comparative theology as a theological method that attempts to formulate a viable interreli-
gious theology. The thrust of this interreligious theology is the recognition of cleavages between
faith systems and work towards interacting with other religious systems for the inward transfor-
mation of one’s home tradition.
The fifth chapter builds on its predecessors by systematically laying out the contours of
the difference and similarities of pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology in three
areas: relational convergence (pluralistic inclusivism) versus multiple religious belonging (new
comparative theology), the hermeneutics of context (pluralistic inclusivism) versus the herme-
neutics of the particular text (new comparative theology), and the development of theological
transformation (pluralistic inclusivism) versus the reformulation of one’s home tradition (new
comparative theology.) This chapter will illustrate the different methodological starting points of
both. In order to do this, I utilize the work of Robert Cummings Neville whose theology of sym-
bolic engagement offers substance to the concepts that are compared by ostensible similarity.
29 Ibid., 34. 30 Ibid., 195.
17
Pluralistic inclusivism understands that religions, though different, converge at the level of Ulti-
mate Reality.
The three areas identified above and methodological emphases are diagrammed below: Pluralistic Inclusivism New Comparative Theology Relational convergence of religions Multiple religious belonging Hermeneutics of context Hermeneutics of particular text Theological transformation Reformation of home tradition
By prioritizing social context and recognizing that the content of existing doctrinal para-
digms is based on philosophical contexts, pluralistic inclusivism aims at offering a reinterpreta-
tion of each faith system based on contextualized languages. Context consists of worldviews that
negotiate with each other in specific geographic and historical locales. The reality and bridging
of differences is generally untenable in new comparative theology. The implications of such a
stand for new comparative theology is that rather than offering a constructive bridge for engag-
ing other religions, religions ultimately transform when they incorporate other religious texts. As
a consequence, new comparative theology places more emphasis on internal transformation ra-
ther than interreligious engagement. Since pluralistic inclusivism places more emphasis on social
context than new comparative theology does, it is in a better position to travel on the communi-
cative bridge between religions. This is underscored by the work of Hugh Nicholson who argues
that comparative theology stands in line with political agonism that emphasizes difference. In
turn, I offer that if difference-agonism sets a way to view new comparative theology, pluralistic
inclusivism can be seen through the light of dialogue-communitarianism. To illustrate this, I re-
fer to the problem of communalism in India and use returning to a root metaphor from the work
of Dipankar Gupta as a way to think about the possibilities of communitarianism and a lived ap-
plication of pluralistic inclusivism.
18
The sixth and final chapter will draw attention to pluralistic inclusivism as a theological
methodology that has been lived in the multicultural Indian context. The focus is on contribution:
presenting pluralistic inclusivism as theological method for engaging in interreligious dialogue
compared with new comparative theology with its emphasis on inward transformation. There are
convergences of methodologies in terms of how the two theologies approach other religions. Yet
the difference is in their respective starting points. A concrete correlation that demonstrates the
nondual approach of pluralistic inclusivism will be offered by highlighting the potential for a
contemporary Anglican theology of religion.
2.4 Summary and Remarks
Altogether, the methodology proposed is largely one of comparative analysis. Its analytic
consideration includes the historical, philosophical, theological, and hermeneutical crossovers, as
evidenced by the roadmap presented for the next four chapters. Accordingly, it brings into focus
the similarities and differences in starting points of two theological approaches to other religions:
pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology relative to three areas characterized as
pairs: relational convergence and multiple religious belonging, the hermeneutics of context and
the hermeneutics of the particular text, and the development of theological transformation and
the reformulation of one’s home tradition. Discussions of them are shaped by the insights of con-
temporary theoretical thinkers such as post colonialist and cultural critic Homi K. Bhabha, soci-
ologist-public intellectual Dipankar Gupta, historian Dipesh Chakrabarty, and philosopher of re-
ligion Robert C. Neville. By that comparative strategy, the dissertation demonstrates similarities
and dissimilarities in starting points as well as the implications for engagement in interreligious
dialogue
19
CHAPTER 3
The Emergence of Aleaz’s Pluralistic Inclusivism
3.1 Introduction
Pluralistic inclusivism is a method that aims to be faithful to both Christian theology and
a cultural context shaped by classical Indian philosophy. This aim is accomplished through inter-
religious dialogue.31 This conversation occurs through a direct engagement with particular cul-
tural and geographical contexts with the intent to translate and situate Christian theology in those
areas. Such an engagement is informed by an interplay of Advaita Vedanta, Neo-Vedanta, and
St. Thomas Christianity. Aleaz undertakes this through an appropriation of Sankara as a philoso-
pher of Advaita Vedanta; Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan as proponents of Neo-Vedanta; and a
historical-contextual reading of pre-Roman Christianity from the perspective of a St. Thomas
Christian of Kerala, India. From such a reading, pluralistic inclusivism hones a tool kit to analyze
Euro-American Christianity and facilitate a movement from theology as the repository and
31 Aleaz’s work is rooted in a dialogue between the Syrian Orthodox tradition of Christianity and neo-Vedanta. In-dian Christian theology developed in response to India’s religious and cultural diversity, as well as to Indian nation-alism. Syrian Orthodox priests have written extensively on the interplay between the Eastern Christian notion of mysterion and philosophical currents in what is called “Eastern philosophy.” Examples of such scholars are K. M. George, Daniel Thomas, and Paulose Mar Gregorios. For additional references, see the following: K. M. George, Silent Roots: Orthodox Perspectives on Christian Spirituality, Risk Book Series (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1994); K. M. George, Interfacing Theology with Culture (Delhi: ISPCK, 2010); Daniel Thomas, The Fun-damentals of Indian Culture (Kottayam: Sophia Publications, 1990); Daniel Thomas, Towards a Peaceful Society (Montreal: Vanier College Press, 1990); Gregorios Paulos and World Council of Churches, Science and Our Future (Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1978); ibid.; Gregorios Paulos and K. M. George, Freedom, Love, Commu-nity: Festschrift in Honour of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios (Madras, India: Christian Literature Society, 1985); Paulos Mar Gregorios, The Human Presence: Ecological Spirituality and the Age of the Spirit (Amity: Amity House, 1987); Gregorios Paulos, ISPCK, and Orthodox Theological Seminary. Mar Gregorios Foundation, The Sec-ular Ideology: An Impotent Remedy for India's Communal Problem (Delhi: Published jointly for Mar Gregorios Foundation of the Orthodox Theological Seminary by Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1998); Gregorios Paulos, Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy, Studies in Neoplatonism 9 (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002).
20
•advocate of doctrine/dogma to a dynamic and lived experience. This chapter will highlight the
major philosophical and methodological influences of pluralistic inclusivism.
Aleaz’s use of Advaita Vedanta and neo-Vedanta sets the conceptual backdrop for plural-
istic inclusivism;32 however, the accuracy of such a reading of Vedanta and neo-Vedanta is de-
batable. That assessment is beyond the scope of my current research. My objective is to present
how he uses these schools of thought in developing his theological method, as it sets the stage for
my discussion of his concepts in light of new comparative theology. In establishing pluralistic
inclusivism as a confessional Christian theological method, as I will allude, Aleaz’s use of classi-
cal Indian theology, in enunciating Christian concepts, de-privileges Platonic and Aristotelian
philosophical influences that are prevalent in Western Christianity, as well as constructs a non-
dualistic form of Indian Christian theology.
3.2 Classical Indian Thought as Foundation
The Rig-Veda (1.164.46) understands that Sat (Truth or Being) is one; although, sages
call it by different names. As a Christian theologian, Aleaz is able to approach this conception of
Truth by grappling with human diversity and at the same time holding to the Oneness of the Ulti-
mate Reality through the concept of adhikarabedha. That latter concept underscores that diver-
sity is an expression of plurality as there are explicit differences in aptitude and competence
32 Aleaz privileges Vedanta and its reconceptualization in neo-Vedanta because he assumes that Advaita Vedanta is the culmination of human religious experience. K. P. Aleaz, The Role of Pramanas in Hindu Christian Epistemology (Calcutta: Punthi-Pustak, 1991); K. P. Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 1st ed. (Calcutta: Punthi-Pustak, 1993); K. P. Aleaz, The Gospel of Indian Culture, 1st ed. (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1994); K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion: Study, Experience, and Interaction, 1st ed. (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1995); K. P. Aleaz, Jesus in Neo-Vedanta: A Meeting of Hinduism and Christianity, World Religions Relationship Series 2 (Delhi: Kant Publications, 1995); K. P. Aleaz, Christian Thought through Advaita Vedanta, ISPCK Contex-tual Theological Education Series (Delhi: ISPCK, 1996); K. P. Aleaz, The Relevance of Relation in Sankara's Advaita Vedanta (Delhi: Kant Publications, 1996); K. P. Aleaz, An Indian Jesus from Sankara's Thought (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1997).
21
among human beings.33 Pluralistic inclusivism grapples with human diversity and advocates for
a non-dogmatic approach that is permeably able to hold to Ultimate Reality yet account for a va-
riety of approaches in relating to that Ultimate Reality. It allows for this because of its perspec-
tive that each and every understanding of reality is based on the social and cultural moorings of
the interpreter or interpreting community. Everyone’s religious experience is true as a reflection
of Truth based on their particular vantage point.34 From this standpoint, pluralistic inclusivism
stands ready to reinterpret and communicate theology from a contextual perspective, thereby
providing a constructive means with which a particular tradition can be in conversation with an-
other.
As a non-dual method that synthesizes pluralism and inclusivism, pluralistic inclusivism
contributes to envisioning Christianity from the Indian soil. In advocating for classical Indian
philosophy in the form of Vedanta as the lens through which to read and express Christianity in
India, Aleaz emphasizes the radical nature of particular religions as contextual enunciations of
faith. Such a reading entails receptivity in allowing contextual particularities to shape an expres-
sion of Christianity. It also highlights that Western Christian theology has been shaped by the
particular appropriation of Plato and Aristotle.
3.2.1 Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta
Aleaz’s recognition of Advaita Vedanta’s emergence as a philosophical springboard for
Hindu-Christian cross-cultural and interreligious dialogue is the core epistemological turn that
33 Although Aleaz draws primarily from, and privileges Advaita Vedanta, he does utilize the Jain philosophical con-cept of syadavada (all objects of the world are multiform [anekanta] and diversity of beliefs is part and parcel of the human condition). This is in contrast to ekanta-vada (believing that Reality can only be seen through the eyes of narrow dogmatism) in order to advocate for anekanta-vada (seeing the innumerable characteristics of reality). K. P. Aleaz, Christian Responses to Indian Philosophy (Kolkata: Punthi Pustak, 2005); K. P. Aleaz, For a Christian Phi-losophy from India, Cambridge Teape Lectures, 2005 (Tiruvalla: Christiya Sahithya Samithy, 2005). 34 The Sanskrit term used is naya.
22
shapes his theological proposal. Providing fuel for such a shift is an understanding that philoso-
phies are shaped by their particular geographic, cultural, and chronological contexts. Therefore,
some familiarity with the geographic, cultural, and chronological contexts of Sankara is im-
portant to appreciate the relevance of his teachings and the epistemological turn that becomes
crucial for Aleaz.
A Kerala born seventh century Brahmin, Sankara wrote commentaries on the Upani-
shads, Gita, and Sutras that have had a lasting impact on the exposition of Advaita Vedanta.35
The seventh and eighth century period was marked by religious revivalism in the form of flour-
ishing bhakti influence and the strong but waning influence of Jainism and Buddhism. The flour-
ishing of Purva Mimamsa and Sanskritization was a strong force to counter Buddhism.36 This
anti-Buddhist revivalism took the form of extraordinary extravagance that emphasized elaborate
ritual practices within the kingly courts that ultimately trickled down to the general population.37
This context allowed Sankara to enter into a sustained period of philosophical interpretation with
a special emphasis on its needs.38
Sankara aimed at expounding Advaita Vedanta, as a postulation on the nature of the at-
man-Brahman relationship, in order to critique the materialism of the courts. The practical
35 Sankara was born in Kaladi, Kerala, to a Namboodiri Brahmin lineage. He established monasteries throughout India. He was an ascetic who had come under the influence of Gaudapadiyakarika through the teacher Govinda. Gaupadiyakarika, influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, was a great exponent of Vedanta. Over three hundred philo-sophical works in the form of poetry, sayings, and commentaries are attributed to Sankara. Most of these works are not accepted as authentic Sankaran works. Hilary Rodrigues, Introducing Hinduism (New York: Routledge 2006), 250. P.G. Victor, Life and Teachings of Adi Sankaracaraya (New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, Ltd, 2002). As Sengaku Mayeda notes, today there are no extant materials from which to reconstruct his life with certainty. Thus, the exact date of Sankara’s life and work has been debated. The range from 509-477 BCE, as proposed by various monaster-ies founded by Sankara has been discredited. More acceptable is the 7th and 8th century of the common era time frame accorded by contemporary scholarship. Sengaku Mayeda, A Thousand Teachings: The Upadesashasri of San-kara (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1979), 2-11. 36 Karl H. Potter notes that Sankara referred to Kumarila, Bhartrhari, Dharmakirti, and Gaupada, all teachers who lived in the 5th, 6th, and 7th, centuries respectively. Victor; ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, vol. II (London: George, Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1922), 466.
23
implications of Sankara’s philosophy are the emphasis of monastic living over luxury in the con-
text of increased ritualistic practices. P. George Victor notes, “at this time, Sankara came and
sought to clean the Vedic philosophies of its obscurities and inconsistencies and thereby making
it both comprehensive and acceptable to the people at large.”39 This reformation was accom-
plished by Sankara through his teaching to samnyasins and village intellectuals.40 Eventually, the
Brahmins and feudal lords, who wanted to restore “orthodox” Brahmanical tradition, came under
the influence of Sankara’s philosophy.
Although Vedanta holds to the “three fold” canon of the Brahma Sutras, Upanishads, and
the Bhagavad Gita, it had experienced significant shifts from its formulation in the Brahma Su-
tras to Sankara’s exposition. Sankara’s impact on Advaita Vedanta was to mediate a Buddhist
type of apophaticism with theism. In a direct reaction to attempts at Buddhification, Sankara
adopts the position that atman is different from Brahman on the basis of his reading of Samkhya
and the Brahmaputra. This formulation makes use of the Upanishadic expression of Sat-Cit-
Ananda as qualities of Brahma. Sankara’s interpretation of Vedanta philosophy is what is termed
as Advaita Vedanta or radical nondualism.41
Implicit within Sankara is the notion that there is only one reality––Brahman. At the
same time, the individual atman appears to be Brahman. Maya or ignorance hinders conscious-
ness or realization of the two as metaphysically identical. That the atman, or one’s inner self, is
wholly identical with Brahman, or Ultimate Reality, is the starting point as well as goal of San-
kara’s philosophy. The path of realization, ultimately leads to liberation or moksa.42 Sankara
39 Victor, 37. 40 Mayeda, 12. 41 Ibid. 42 The only reality that exists, according to Sankara, is Brahman. Ramamurty elucidates upon this concept in the fol-lowing manner: the reality of the world and of the individual self are denied because by their very nature, they do not deserve the status of Reality, and also on the ground that they are not experienced or known in that form when Brahman is directly realized. A. Ramamurty, Advaita: A Conceptual Analysis (Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 1996), 6.
24
questions empirical attempts to categorize and understand Reality, as Reality is in the realm of
the ineffable and can only be realized through a metaphysical oneness between Brahman and at-
man. In other words, Reality comes to be only in the context of realizing one’s oneness with
Brahman.
According to Sankara, the individual atman appears to be different from Brahman only in
the sphere of the empirical, or vyavaharika. Yet, they are wholly identical from the standpoint of
the highest truth. Brahman as the objectively Real is not an object that can be known empiri-
cally.43 The movement from a pragmatic and limited understanding to a knowledge of Ultimate
Truth, or paramarthika, is enabled by a journey from ignorance44 to spiritual knowledge of one’s
identity with Brahman.45 The journey is remarkable. Through spiritual knowledge, the individual
soul46 perceives diversity and plurality at the phenomenological level but then realizes through
reflective knowledge47 that one’s true identity is in the non-duality of Brahman-Atman, or pure
consciousness.
Aleaz’s understanding of particular religions is based on Sankara’s metaphysical system.
Religions at the level of the vyavaharika are diverse and plural. Aleaz offers a method to work
within traditions to present areas of possible convergence by utilizing Sankara’s emphasis on
contemplation as the basis for his engagement between religions and by taking social and cul-
tural resources as part of the way he engages religions.
43 There are two forms of perspectival knowledge in Sankara’s system, vyavaharika and paramarthika. Vyavaharika, acquired through sensory knowledge, is the perspective through which pragmatic knowledge exists in matters per-taining to the world. As this perspective is limited, it cannot be used to arrive at certain or specific truth. Klaus K. Klostermaier, Hinduism: A Short Introduction (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006). 44 The Sanskrit term used is avidya. 45 The Sanskrit term used is vidya. 46 The Sanskrit term used is jiva-atman, reflecting the individual lived being in the world as it is perceived through senses. 47 The Sanskrit term jnana relays a deep contemplative knowledge.
25
The process of contemplation enables a deep evaluative analysis through reason48 and ex-
perience.49 Through deep listening,50 reasoning by constant reflection,51 and meditation,52 under-
standing at the level of paramarthika occurs and religions are able to meet in the recognition of
Ultimate Truth. In such a context, interreligious dialogue is the result of reason meeting with ex-
perience. The result of this process for religions is a non-dual relationship that is both plural and
inclusive, or pluralistic inclusivism.
The working premise of pluralistic inclusivism is that the only acceptable statement about
God/the Ground of Being/Ultimate Reality/ Brahman is its existence. Other than the fact of this
existence, Brahman can only be known through the negative or the neti-neti approach, which
states that Brahman is not “x” or Brahman is not “y.” Language and the attribution of “qualities”
limit the ineffable and transcendent nature of Brahman as, ultimately, Brahman is nirguna, which
means beyond empirical attributes.53
Bhakti as a devotional focus on a particular image of Brahman has a powerful tradition in
India. As a pragmatist, Sankara understood that the via negativa could not affect the possibility
of the human’s imagination of Brahman as the concept of nirguna Brahman as the Ultimate Re-
ality is beyond linguistic and empirical construction; thus, the relaying of the gunas, the attrib-
utes or qualities, of Brahman/Isvara as Sat-Cit-Ananda. Sankara offers that maya is the creative
power that depicts images of Brahman as Isvara as the saguna or representation of Brahman. Is-
vara is the representation Brahman at the level of bhakti. Through Sankara’s system, how does
Aleaz understand God in Christian terms?
48 Yukti. 49 Anubhava. 50 Sruti. 51 Manana. 52 Niddihyassana. 53 Rodrigues, 251.
26
Aleaz sees a parallel in the theological resource offered by the St Thomas Christian tradi-
tion of India. Accordingly, the nigurana to saguna reference has for its parallel or correlate the
apophatic to cataphatic approaches to God, associated with the notion of mystagogy found in the
St. Thomas Syrian tradition––the indescribability of God on one hand and the ascription of char-
acteristic descriptors on the other. Whether there is a methodological correlation between these
distinctly Vedantic and Christian concepts is debatable, Aleaz is working within this rationale in
utilizing Sankara as a philosophical foundation for his work.
3.2.2 Neo-Vedanta Reading of Western Christianity
Aleaz in line with Wendy Doniger contends that the problem with a strict Sankaran
teaching is the denigration of historical reality, as the concept of maya as illusion looms large in
Sankara.54 Ahistoricism is specifically addressed through his use of neo-Vedanta as a conversa-
tion partner with Christianity. Neo-Vedanta re-imagines Advaita Vedanta by attending to the sig-
nificance of history and human life by delving into the concept of maya.
Maya conveys that everything other than Brahman-Atman is name and form of Brahman.
In this reconceptualization, the world is not, according to a narrow reading of Sankara, illusion.
The aim of history is to achieve perfection. Humans, in this historical process, are interrelated
and are in the process of becoming. In Neo-Vedanta, becoming is the ultimate realization that the
individual soul is part of the universal Atman, and that, thus, there is an ethical code to love one’s
neighbor as oneself.55 Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan, as representative thinkers of neo-
54 Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An Alternative History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); Wendy Doniger, On Hinduism (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). 55 Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 7, 9 vols. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991), 112. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, "The Ethics of Vedanta," International Journal of Ethics 24, no. 2 (1914), http://dx.doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/2376505.
27
Vedanta, provide the basis for Aleaz’s use of it as a philosophical influence in the development
of his theological method. Pluralistic Inclusivism uses Neo-Vedanta as a bridge builder to under-
score the importance of history and human life in both Christianity and Indian philosophy, as
well as its critique of a Eurocentric philosophical paradigm.56
For Vivekananda, there is very little difference between the pure religion of Christianity
and Advaita Vedanta.57 Vivekananda launches a critique of Christianity focused on the manner
in which European colonial missions represented Christianity. Their representation of Christ was
inadequate because it was forged in institutions that added doctrinal layers justifying religious
hierarchy through the denigration of local and aboriginal knowledge and beliefs. By correlating
three major steps of Vedanta philosophy—dvaita, vishisthadvaita, and advaita—he draws paral-
lels between various religious streams. European Christianity is related to dvaita (dualism),
whereas the vishitadvaita (qualified dualism) of Ramanuja is related to the bhakti (devotional)
tradition of Saivites and Vaisnavites in Hinduism. The vishistadvaita stage is further up the Ve-
dantic scale where the one supreme God is recognized in different groups.58 The correlation re-
sults in different perceptions of God. For European dualists, God is conceived as different deities
and thus different religions have different gods. The result of European dualism and its assertion
of having the one and only way to the true God are tribalism and arguments over the superiority
of “their” God or particular point of view.
Yet, with the emergence of monotheism another possibility exists. If there is a recogni-
tion of immanence in nature, it becomes possible to radically read Christianity as a non-dualistic
56 Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda. 57 Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3, 9 vols. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991), 6; ibid., 146-48. 58 Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 5, 9 vols. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991), 81-82. ibid., 240-53.
28
realization between Jesus the immanent Christ and the Father in heaven as the “Father and I (as
an individual) are one.”59 The existential gap between the “Father” and “I” is bridged. This also
symbolizes the merging of heaven and earth.60 This non-dual understanding that can incorporate
such an evolution comes only with the realization of a system that is able to move towards unity
yet respect diversity of thought. European Christianity, as it was spread by missionaries through-
out the colonized world, did not have the capacity to move towards an Advaitic monotheism be-
cause it operated at the level of a dualistic philosophy steeped in a colonial apparatus that divided
the “saved” from the “heathen.” Thus, Vivekananda notes, that with the single exception of its
charitable organizations, European Christianity was not in line with the teachings of the Gos-
pel.61
Radhakrishnan, another influence on Aleaz’s reading of Indian philosophy, argues that
renunciation is the basis of Christian faith. However, this has become distorted because the
Christian church’s history shows the gradual adaptation of a materialistic mindset linked with the
Western conception of modernity and capitalism.62 Jesus’s teaching was predominantly other-
worldly as the transformation of time from chronos to kairos implies. Not only has there been an
adaptation of a Western spirit based on accumulation, Radhakrishnan emphasizes that Christian-
ity is dogmatic rather than being a “way of life.”
Radhakrishnan understands Jesus as a figure who challenged Judaism. According to him,
Jesus was possibly influenced by various religious streams of thinking in the world. He writes:
Jesus enlarges and transforms the Jewish conceptions in the light of His own personal ex-perience. He was helped considerably by His religious environment, which included
59 Vivekananda offers a commentary on this statement by Jesus from the Gospel of John 10:30. 60 Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 1, 9 vols. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991), 323; Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. 61 Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, 533. 62 Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Eastern Religion and Western Thought, 2nd ed. (London: Humphrey, Milford, 1940), 271.
29
Indian influences, as the tenets of the Essenes and the Book of Enoch show. In His teach-ing of the Kingdom of God, life approximates to Hindu and Buddhist thought. Though His teaching is historically continuous with Judaism, it did not develop from it in its es-sentials. The two tendencies, the Jewish and the mystic, were not perfectly reconciled in Jesus’ mind and the tension has continued in Christian development.63
From the original myth of Jesus, Christian tradition began to be gradually formed by a
variety of sources including Palestinian morality and monotheism, Greco-Roman philosophy and
art, Roman notions of order, as well as Eastern mysticism and the East’s gift for worship.64 In its
current form, however, Christianity is decidedly a Western religion. Radhakrishnan notes that the
Western Christian shift towards the Jewish emphasis on the historical and the Christian doctrine
of incarnation are difficult to reconcile with the absolute and non-historical character of the God-
head.65 This shift entailed moving towards a very exclusive conception of religion rather than
truly taking on Jesus’s approach of universalism and acceptance. Radhakrishnan believes that In-
dian religions can play a significant role in the revival of Christianity by reminding it of Jesus’s
primary identity as a mystic, thereby enabling experience rather than dogma to shape the content
of its faith.
The logical culmination of privileging classical Indian philosophy in conversation with a
non-Western form of Christian interpretation is a movement from fixed doctrine to contempla-
tive experience. That movement is the context in which theological methodology is developed. It
has led to Vivekananda’s assertion that differences between religions are one of expression and
not of substance. Accordingly, in terms of application, religion emerges neither from doctrine
nor dogma but from a direct experience of God. Different religions reflect the variety of
63 Ibid., 176. 64 Ibid., 334-35. 65 Ibid., 9, 140.
30
humankind in doctrine, mythology, and ritual.66 The logical end of this for Vivekananda is that
the ultimate end of religious experience is a gradual progression toward an Advaitic vision of life
rooted in Oneness.
Aleaz draws from Vivekananda in recognizing that Christianity has different forms.67
These forms are created by the philosophical presuppositions and the context through which
Christianity is practiced. If religious language is a contextual reflection on God, theology cannot
produce codified universal doctrine. Rather, theology, at its core, is contextual and proximate.
Growing out of a discussion of Vivekananda and the Eastern stream of Christianity, Aleaz argues
that religions cannot create valid universal doctrine. Religions can only converse in the language
of contextual experience that allows for diversity of faith practices and expressions as avenues
for communicating universal goodness rooted in the Oneness of God.
Aleaz utilizes the resources of Advaita and Neo Vedanta and the theological resources of
Christianity in offering a constructive theology. One fruit of his pluralistic inclusivism is his
book Jesus in Neo-Vedanta: A Meeting of Hinduism and Christianity. The central objective of
the text is the presentation of “Jesulogy” or the result of a Christology reconfigured from the per-
spective of neo-Vedanta. Aleaz is able to pursue such a Christological experiment on the basis of
the tradition of St. Thomas Christianity, his interpretation of neo-Vedanta, and a theological tra-
dition influenced by the apophaticism of the East.
66 Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 6, 9 vols. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991), 84. 67 Religions evolved from a common stock and each religion is good in its corporal and spiritual aspects so long as it is kept free from dogma and fossilization. Vivekananda explains differences between religions with the analogy of a chameleon. As a chameleon changes colors in different situations to fit its context—religions change based on cul-tural context. Religion is the progressive realization of the Spirit and not belief in any particular doctrine. Viveka-nanda notes that Christ and Buddha were the names of a state to be attained; Jesus and Gautama were the persons to manifest it. The unity that Vivekananda asserts does not stymie differences. He writes, the reformation of the world does not depend upon all seeing God through your eyes. Our fundamental idea is that your doctrine cannot be mine, nor mine yours.
31
3.3 Indian Christian Theology
Indian Christian theology encompasses numerous theologies that come from the reflec-
tions of Christians in India. Much of it consists of indigenous Christians challenging the hegem-
ony of Euro-centric imposition of categories of faith. Aleaz is one such person, whose insights
are sparked by St. Thomas Christianity and has influenced these theological trajectories that have
critiqued the colonial missiological debates over Christianity’s relationship with other religions.
The categories of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism developed in reaction to the Western
Christian theological postures to the other.68
3.3.1 The St. Thomas Tradition
While the numerical growth and spread of Christianity in India was a result of Western
colonial missions, the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala predate this by more than a millennium.69
The St. Thomas Christian tradition adopted various local, cultural-religious perspectives and
practices that shaped their community but were considered heretical by Roman Catholicism.
Aleaz understands, given historical precedent, the potential for a culturally engaged Christianity
steeped in the soil of India that is not a vestige of Euro-centric philosophical and theological de-
bates.70
Aleaz picks up his particular stream of analysis through theologians in the Indian Ortho-
dox or St. Thomas tradition like Paulos Mar Gregorios. According to scholars in this vein, the
Latin tradition forcibly sought to exclude Byzantine heritage from Christianity in the name of
68 Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983). 69 This community is also known as the Mar Thoma Community, Malankara Syrian Community, or Syrian Chris-tians of India. 70 K. P. Aleaz, "Indian Contribution to a Spirituality of Pluralism," CTC Bulletin (2016), accessed January 27, 2017. http://cca.org.hk/home/ctc/ctc06-01/ctc06-01k.htm.
32
unifying Christian practices in Europe.71 The argument is that the early Byzantine empire, an
amalgam of Europe, Asia, and Africa was quite cosmopolitan promoting various cultures. The
Eastern Orthodox Christianity that flourished was ridden with conflicts over the particular nature
of Christ. The Latin Church generally held to the Christological identity of the co-existence of
both the human and divine nature in Christ, while the Asian-African streams held onto a united
nature of Christ.72 The ascendancy of the Latin Church as the dominant power within Christian-
ity, a result of Second Council of Ephesus (449 AD), meant the alienation of the Coptic, Syriac
Orthodox, and Armenian churches. This particular reading of church history is a dominant narra-
tive within the Indian Orthodox tradition, and it points to an openness to theological diversity
and cultural receptivity within the Asian and African streams of Christianities that was sup-
pressed by the universalizing aspirations of the Latin stream of Christianity.
Paulos Mar Gregorios, among other scholars in the Indian Orthodox tradition, have cri-
tiqued the dominant narratives established by the western church. The narratives seek to center
Christianity around the themes of sin, grace, damnation, and salvation and the church as the man-
ager and arbitrator of truth and grace and master architect of the City of God. By the time of
Pope Gregory I (540-504 CE), the themes were more prevalent than the fundamental notions of:
1) The Triune God who creates, sustains, refines, and brings the creation to fulfillment; 2) the
71 Paulos Mar Gregorios, A Light Too Bright: The Enlightenment Today, SUNY Series in Religious Studies (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992). 72 The potential for the theological dispute to split the empire was immense. The result of this was the condemnation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, by Emperor Theodosius. Behind the theological divide was a deeply cultural and political divide. The Bishop of Rome, Leo, saw the pluralism as a bane on the universal authority of the church particularly as the Asian and African Christians seemed opposed to the notion of Roman papal supremacy. Yet, Theodosius influenced by the Asian branch of Christianity, empowered the Egyptian Patriarch Dioscorus to convene the Second Council of Ephesus. The aim of the Asian-African alliance was to curb the burgeoning alliance of the Latin-Hellenist faction. With imperial support, Dioscorus excommunicated Flavian, the Latin-Hellenist Arch-bishop of Constantinople, and prevented the reading of Leo of Rome’s memorandum for the council. Yet, with the untimely death of Emperor Theodosius, and the assumption of power by Empress Pulcheria, an ally of Leo, a com-plete reversal of Second Council of Ephesus ensued ensuring the dominance of the Latin church.
33
historical incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity in order to redeem and perfect the alien-
ated creation; and 3) the continuing work of the third Person of the Trinity to give form, unity,
wisdom, power, goodness, and creatives in freedom to that created order. The consequence of the
Euro-centric framework to the detriment of the breadth of tradition is a confined and exclusiv-
istic understanding of Christian faith.73 Gregorios engages the various streams of classical Indian
philosophy in an attempt to provide alternative lenses through which to see the Christian narra-
tive.
During the Portuguese colonialization, there was an overt attempt instituted by the Ro-
man Catholic Archbishop Aleixo de Menezes to bring the indigenous Christians into the Roman
Catholic fold. The indigenous community received apostolic succession, historically, from the
Babylonian or Nestorian See and utilized Syriac as their liturgical language. They did not see the
Bishop of Rome as their Pope and did not cede to the traditions of the European-Roman Catholic
heritage. Menezes writes, “I propose to purify all the Churches from the heresy and errors, which
they hold, giving them the pure doctrine of the Catholic faith, taking from them all heretical
books that they possess. They will be instructed to extinguish little by little the Syriac language,
which is not natural as it is the language through which all that heresy flows. A good administra-
tor ought to replace Syriac with Latin.”74
In order to effect these changes, Menezes convened a Synod of priests and prominent lay
people in Diamper that brought together leaders of the St. Thomas community. His objective was
to compel Syrian Christians to repudiate their traditions for the sake of being placed under the
ecclesiastical purview of the Bishop of Rome.
73 Ibid., 77. 74 For a substantive translation of the decrees that resulted from the Synod, I refer you to James Hough’s historical text. Archdale A. King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1947), 449-50.
34
What Menezes did was: 1) Purge the ancient liturgical books of the community. They uti-
lized the Nestorian liturgies of Addai and Mari, which were decidedly anti-Chalcedonian and ori-
ented to Mary as the Christotokos rather than the Theotokos; 2) Describe various practices of
serving with Hindu rajas and use of astrology as pagan; 3) Exert supreme obedience to the
Bishop of Rome as the universal pastor and true Vicar of Christ; 4) Forced the community to em-
brace Council of Trent and; 5) Order the inquisition of those not submitting to the decisions of
the Synod.75
Although the community’s faith practices were basically liberated through the Dutch and
British incursions on the Portuguese and through various acts of colonial disobedience,76 it even-
tually split into two distinct communities. One ceded to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The
second re-engaged with the ancient tradition but through the Antiochene See. The Roman Catho-
lic legacy in Kerala leaves within the Indian Orthodox tradition not only a deep suspicion of Eu-
ropean Christianity but also a resistance to its hegemonic influence of defining itself as the sole
repository of the Christian tradition.77 The significance of this history is to point out how the
transmitted tradition of non-Roman Catholic Syrian priests received theological formation and
perspective.
The tradition is twofold: challenge the epistemological perspective of the Western Chris-
tian thought and cultural-philosophical mindset; and engage in realizing the historical fact of in-
fluence. That is the St. Thomas tradition in India, while claiming the Lordship of Christ, was
75 James Hough, The History of Christianity in India from the Commencement of the Christian Era, vol. II (London: Seeley, Burnside and Seeley. Hatchard & Sons. Nisbet & Company, 1845), 513-683. 76 In terms of their colonial disruption, there are two incidents that I offer. One is an overt letter to the Roman Curia decrying the execution of Bishop Ahathalla who was allegedly martyred by the Society of Jesus on his way to exer-cise episcopal oversight of the St. Thomas Christians in 1650 and the 1653 Crooked Cross (Coonen Kurishu) Oath that brought together 20,000 Syrian Christians who vowed never to cede to the Bishop of Rome. 77 T.V. Philip, East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia (Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1998).
35
influenced by non-European cultural factors that included customs and practices of Hinduism.
When Aleaz speaks of pluralistic inclusivism, his conversation can be construed as an extension
of the lived tradition of the St. Thomas community’s religious experience.
3.3.2 Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism Pluralistic inclusivism derives from the Christian colonial/missiological taxonomy of
postures towards other religions. Exclusivism holds that revelation through the historical Jesus is
the sole criterion through which all other religions are evaluated. For thinkers like Paul David
Devanandan who hold to exclusivism, truth and revelation are exclusively found in the corpus of
the Christian scripture, and the marked difference between classical Hinduism and Christianity
makes it difficult for any significant engagement between the two. Devanandan argues that there
must be a clear demarcation between Hindu and Christian theologies.78
In inclusivism, the Indian context possesses many enlightening resources for Christian
theology. These resources become appropriated into existing Christian theological paradigms in
order to be relevant tools through which Christianity can be understood. In a Christian inclusivist
understanding, Christianity stands as the penultimate system of faith and, as such, may be able to
absorb elements it deems worthy to inculcate and incorporate. Thus, Christianity’s core theologi-
cal premises are not changed; rather, its premises and theology are expressed in the language of
its context. Indologist and theologian Pierre Johanns is one example of a Christian inclusivist. He
argues that it is impossible to derive Christian theology from Sankara or from any other Indian
78 In fact, he argues that there is a deep chasm between classical Advaitic philosophy and the need for an emerging contextually based Indian anthropology. Devanandan argues that Advaita Vedanta must be rejected as it fails to pro-vide an anthropological conception that is interested in justice. Devanandan, along with Surjit Singh, argues that the Christian conception of historical linearity especially embodied in the historical figure of Christ as a servant and rev-olutionary counters Sankara’s over reliance on, what they call, an ahistorical, apersonal and atemporal metaphysics. Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda.
36
philosophy. Instead, a movement from Vedanta to true philosophy (i.e., Thomas Aquinas), then
from true philosophy (with God’s grace) to Catholic theology is the way to correlate Sankara and
Christian theology. This79 method quite explicitly reinterprets Christian theology from a reflec-
tive examination of Vedanta. Yet, Christianity is the lens through which all other religions are
examined and interpreted. Inclusivism, understood in this way, holds together the universal
salvific will of God and salvation through God in Christ alone.
The notion of pluralism that Aleaz works with is not the same as that of John Hick and
North-American – European scholarship. Aleaz’s notion derives from a Christian interpretation
of Indian philosophy vis a vis Brahmapandav Upadhyaya and Raimondo Panikkar. Upadhhyaya
is a major influence on Aleaz in understanding that the conceptual content of Indian Christian
theology must be based on Vedanta. It accepts the path of religious multiplicity and refuses to
subsume various religious traditions under the array of Christianity. Aleaz relays the following
from Upadhyaya, “we must fall back upon the Vedantic method in formulating the Catholic reli-
gion to our countrymen. In fact, the Vedanta must be made to do the same service to the Catholic
faith in India as was done by the Greek philosophy in Europe.”80 Aleaz taking his cue from
Upadhyaya uses Vedanta and Christianity in postulating a Christian theological perspective that
moves from dogmatism to contemplation. Such a perspective is also in line with Raimondo Pan-
ikkar who more fully explores theological method. With this in mind, I take this opportunity to
compare and contrast Hick and Panikkar as representatives of two variants of pluralism; and, in
the ensuing section, I offer pluralistic inclusivism as a bridge. Briefly, John Hick’s pluralistic hy-
pothesis is shaped by Kantian dualism in understanding “Reality” while Raimondo Panikkar is in
79 Aleaz, Christian Thought through Advaita Vedanta, 114. 80 K. P. Aleaz, Pluralism Call for Pluralistic Inclusivism: An Indian Christian Experience (Calcutta: Bishop's College, 1998).
37
line with an Advaitic approach to “Reality” as being non-dualistically shaped by cosmos-human-
ity-divinity.
John Hick’s argument for a “Copernican Revolution” in dealing with religious diversity
is based on his postulation of the Pluralistic Hypothesis that “the great post-Axial faiths consti-
tute different ways of experiencing, conceiving, and living in relation to an ultimate divine Real-
ity which transcends all our varied versions of it.”81 The rationale behind understanding faiths as
contextual interpretations of universal phenomenon is Hick’s observation that all authentic reli-
gions advocate a move from self-centeredness to “Reality-centeredness.” Authentic religions are
categorized by good “moral fruits” that they put forward. Reality is trans-categorical and differ-
ent contexts understand the trans-categorical differently. Rather than using the term “God,” Hick
chooses to use the term “Real” as this term has trans-historical parallels in all authentic theistic
and non-theistic traditions. The perception of God as personal or non-personal is, as alluded to
above, contingent on “contextual categories.” Hick writes: “conceiving and experiencing the
Real as either personal or non-personal is similar to perceiving light as either waves or particles.
Our way of perceiving depends on the elements we bring to perceiving. Perception of the Real is
limited because religious language is partial. The Real is, according to Hick, the ultimate ground
or source of all as each is a phenomenal manifestation of the Real.82
If each system of belief is a manifestation of the Real, Hick accounts for religions, in
their institutional forms, as systems that conceive and advocate for salvation. Religions, as “al-
ternative soteriological spaces within which men and women can find salvation, liberation, or
find ultimate fulfillment,” function to enable the transformation from self-centeredness to Reality
81 John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion : Human Responses to the Transcendent, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 235-36. 82 Ibid., 15.
38
centeredness and the ultimate test of a “religion” is its moral and spiritual fruits.83 He writes,
“civilizations in which these faiths have been expressed, although very different, have been more
or less on part with Christendom as regards their moral and spiritual fruits.”84 Implicit in this un-
derstanding of religion is the conception that the conception of “salvation,” “moksa,” and “en-
lightenment,” are similar as they function within the guise of religions to effectuate the transfor-
mation from self-centeredness to “Reality Centeredness.”
Hick incorporates a historical-critical method of approaching texts in general but particu-
larly applies this method to Christian biblical texts. Based on the results of the historical-method
approach, Hick argues that institutional Christianity has transformed “Jesus from an eschatologi-
cal prophet” to the belief in Jesus as the “Son of God.” Hick posits that the Christian must un-
derstand Christ from the perspective of “metaphor” which gives the Christian believer a disposi-
tional attitude towards understanding who Christ is. This dispositional attitude desires to leave
behind “doctrines” as formulated by Nicea and Constantinople as mere documents relevant for
their particular time and space.85 The role of faith is as a religious disposition and is engaged
through “cognitive freedom.” As “cognitive freedom,” Hick believes “faith is a distinctively reli-
gious mode of experiencing the world and one’s life in it.”86 Hick’s Pluralistic Hypothesis has
certainly been comprehensive in affirming the universality of religious experience as well as ex-
plaining the particularity of religious-tradition bound faith as context sensitive.
Raimondo Panikkar offers a model of “Intra-religious Dialogue.” The basis of this dia-
logue is his reflection of pluralism as a myth. Pluralism is a myth insofar as it accounts for the
83 Ibid., 180. 84 Ibid. 85 John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions : The Rainbow of Faiths, 1st American ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 83-102. 86 John Hick, Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 154.
39
existence of distinct and separate theories or experiences of faith. If “Reality” is expressed in
plurality, pluralism is pluralism only from the perspective of objective or Universal Reality.
Rooted in Advaita, Panikkar suggests that there is no duality between the self (atman) and God
(Brahman – Sat-Cit-Ananda), and Reality is cosmo-theos-andric existing non-dualistic. The sub-
ject’s awareness of both diversity and unity leads to the recognition that Truth is not universal-
absolute but plural. Thus, Truth is incommensurable and not reducible to a monolithic under-
standing. In other words, Realty is constituted by the mutual indwelling or perichoresis of God-
Cosmos-Man. God, Trinitarian in Nature, can be understood through the Advaitic Interpretation
of Sat (Truth), Cit (Consciousness), and Ananda (Bliss) mutually indwelling with one another.
His theory of “Intra-religious Dialogue” understands that there is only one ultimate or ineffable
reality that is God-Brahman and that the authentic religious experience enables the human to re-
alize “aham Brahasmi” (I am Brahman.) Intra-religious Dialogue is “intra-religious” because it
presupposes that the other is an extension of one’s self and that there is no dualism between the
subject and the object. Intra-religious dialogue accommodates plurality because reality is plural.
For Panikkar, the mystical-contemplative approach sets the tone for the Hindu-Christian
encounter. Contemplation is a means of overcoming spatial-temporal categories. Overcoming
these categories enables one to engage in an existential contact of other people/religions. In other
words, the religious experience is fundamentally an existential experience rather than an experi-
ence seeped in religious doctrine and faith. However, Panikkar advocates that we must be faith-
ful to one’s truth as understood through the guise of homeo-morphic or context based equiva-
lents/reflections of the Real. Commitment to one’s truth is, for Panikkar, loyalty and fidelity to
one’s community and is part of dharma or moral duty.87 Salvation or liberation, which are
87 Raimundo Panikkar and Harry J. Cargas, Invisible Harmony : Essays on Contemplation and Responsibility (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 37.
40
incidentally used interchangeably by Panikkar, occurs through transcending the dualism between
subject and object. While we must be faithful to our dharma, as mentioned above, salvation oc-
curs through contemplation. The contemplative can reside in more than one religious experience
because the contemplative overcomes being tied down to an objective or absolute standpoint.88
Panikkar underscores this analysis claiming that “pure objectivity” belongs to the myth of sci-
ence and has not place in the encounter of religions and culture.89
Religions are paths and our most urgent duty would be not to interfere with others, nor to
convert them or even to borrow from them, but to deepen our own respective traditions so that
we may meet at the end, and in the depths of our own traditions.90 At the same time, the meeting
place of religion is beyond institutions – it is at the existential level because religions have a ten-
dency to be colonial, imperial, and universalistic in their attempt to ground faith in institution.
Reality is ultimately trans-historical.91 Panikkar uses a hermeneutical methodology known as
“dia-topical” hermeneutics which understand truth as related in texts or words to be context
based. As such, Panikkar takes seriously the historical Jesus but negates the word “Christology”
preferring the use of the word “Christophany” meaning the historical Jesus of Nazareth is one
among the possibility of many manifestations of individuals who had the Christ experience of
being one with the Father.92 Raimondo Panikkar offers a perspective of what Paul Knitter calls
radical pluralism.93 Panikkar works from the basis of the contemplative-mystical existential
88 Raimundo Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 23. 89 Panikkar and Cargas, 37. 90 Ibid., viii. 91 For added detail, please refer to Raimundo Panikkar, Worship and Secular Man : An Essay on the Liturgical Nature of Man, Considering Secularization as a Major Phenomenon of Our Time and Worship as an Apparent Fact of All Times. A Study Towards an Integral Anthropology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1973). 92 For more information, there are two sources that I suggest in their entirety: Raimon Panikkar, Christophany : The Fullness of Man, Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2004). Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism : Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, Rev. and enl. ed. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1981). 93 Paul F. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2002), 125-34.
41
realization of reality as ultimately Cosmic-God-Man residing mutually in each other. This exis-
tential reality occurs only through the realization of Brahman and the ‘I’ are one. Thus, plural-
ism, which sees differences as different from the perspective of a transcendent is mythological
because differences are part and parcel of Reality’s plurality for Panikkar.
From the summary above, the similitudes between Hick and Panikkar revolve around
their acknowledge of religious diversities; debunking of hierarchies among religions; religions as
context based as religious language is partial; and, the use of hermeneutics as a means to reflect
upon Jesus of Nazareth. Nevertheless, their understanding of pluralism differs among. First and
most importantly, the fundamental difference between Hick and Panikkar lay in their differing
understanding of what constitutes “Reality.” For Panikkar, Reality is fundamentally constituted
by the co-existence and mutual indwelling of the transcendent and immanent. There is no bifur-
cation between noumena and phenomena as there is inherent in Hick. Panikkar’s understanding
of Reality is influenced by Advaita’s principle of non-dualism. An understading of reality can
only occur through the interplay of knowledge-faith-love in the total realization of the non-dual-
ity between human and human and human and Brahman. Hick, on the other hand, pre-supposes
that there is one transcendental “Reality” and that the phenomenal (earthly) understanding is par-
tial. While “immanence” constitutes reality along with transcendence for Panikkar, Hick implies
that immanence is only a partial reflection of Reality which is wholly constituted by transcend-
ence. Second, the fundamental methods of accounting for and approaching religious diversity
differ between Hick and Panikkar. For Hick, diversity is a manifestation of a common universal
experience. Panikkar argues that “universal” experiences are to be understood as inherently plu-
ral and diverse. In other words, Hick is beholden to an approach that argues for a universal-ab-
solute standpoint, while Panikkar is influenced by an ontological understanding that reflects
42
upon plurality within the “absolute standpoint.” Third, Hick’s hypothesis rests upon the notion
that a singular universal noumena accounts for varied interpretations embodied in differing reli-
gious-tradition based systems (phenomena.) In engaging the possibility of dialogue, Hick presup-
poses that agreement can be found in affirming that all religions are centered on “Reality” and
offer salvation or liberation through advocating the transformation of man from being self-cen-
tered to centered on “Reality.” Hick attempts to lessen the differences. Panikkar, on the other
hand, attempts to celebrate the fact of diversity and does not want to reduce the diversity of faith-
tradition systems. Rather than attempting to lessen the boundaries, ultimately, Panikkar encour-
ages a method that attempts to incorporate and imbibe other systems or beliefs in order to move
towards a realization of non-duality. Panikkar advocates allegiance to one’s traditions and does
not seek to reduce incommensurability arguing that plurality is part and parcel of reality.
The implications for this difference are vast. I draw on two implications. Hick, in claim-
ing that there is only one universal experience that is filtered through different contexts, reduces
the particularities of religions and traditions. In fact, by glossing over particularities Hick re-
duces the vitality and existence of deep and rich religious traditions. Aleaz, rooted in the inter-
play of Advaita philosophy and Christian theological approaches, takes on Panikkar’s that Real-
ity is fundamentally rooted in Oneness and that universal experience is not “universal.” The con-
cept of maya, via Sankara and the Neo-Vedantins mentioned in the previous sections, account for
differences in the interpretation. The methodological reason why Panikkar is able to do this is be-
cause he does not reduce “Reality” to a universal category. Panikkar acknowledges the diversity
of reality. While Hick’s aim is to reduce strike down the barriers between religions, Panikkar’s
aim is to celebrate the differences while acknowledging that all religions have partial or fragmen-
tary knowledge of the Absolute. Hick’s theology of religions is not distinctively Christian. By
43
desiring to strike down the barriers between religions, Hick is not beholden to Christian theologi-
cal belief. Hick’s objective is to move from a confessional to a “religious” interpretation of plu-
rality of forms. Aleaz like Panikkar is rooted in Christian Theology. While they acknowledge
the partiality of each and every religious tradition, they are Christian theologians (versus Hick
who is more of a philosopher of religion) who use the insights of Advaita Vedanta to make clear
Christian concepts. The methodological difference is that they use Sankara to clarify concepts
like the Trinity and can appropriate “ahamabrahamsmi” with the patristic concept of “theosis,”
while Hick would regard these nuances as non-essential. Aleaz, in the vein of Panikkar, attempts
for a more synthetic understanding and positioning of religions to celebrate their differences yet
come towards a more enlightened understanding of their similarities while Hick’s methods
would consider such cross-religious (mutual fecundation) efforts to be useless in light of all reli-
gions being a variant of Reality.
3.3.3 Pluralistic Inclusivism as Bridge
Pluralistic Inclusivism is movement from doctrinal dogmatism to contemplation as a
meeting point in religious engagement and is underscored by a realization that each religion and
tradition must be taken on its own merits. Rather than cross-appropriating religious systems in a
way that reduces the meaning and intent of scripture, a deep hermeneutical engagement that
takes scriptural-commentarial meaning as a foundational resource in analysis becomes neces-
sary.94 In other words, Aleaz desires a movement away from a superficial conflation of concepts
to correlate a Christian understanding of God with Brahman in favor of a systematic scriptural-
commentarial engagement between philosophical or theological texts. This model moves away
94 Aleaz, Christian Thought through Advaita Vedanta, 91.
44
from dogma and represents a method of thought that recognizes the multiplicity and diversity of
religions. It privileges none while retaining the capacity of traditions to inclusively inform the
conceptual content of another tradition.
The model is decidedly a reaction against exclusivism and appropriates both pluralism
and inclusivism. According to Aleaz, pluralistic inclusivism is pluralistic in terms of acknowl-
edging and celebrating religious “many-ness” and inclusive in terms of needing to use the reli-
gious and philosophical schema of particular contexts in expounding upon one’s home theology.
Aleaz uses pluralistic inclusivism in a non-dualist fashion that draws on pluralism’s acceptance
of religious many-ness and inclusivism’s ability to incorporate the theological perspective of
other religions in order to elucidate and communicate theological truths of one’s home religion.
Aleaz draws from Raimondo Panikkar’s commitment of intersecting Christian orthodoxy
with an openness towards a constructive theological method based on interreligious engagement.
Panikkar’s Christian influence draws from the well of a deep mystical tradition that flourished, at
times, in the patristic era. He believes that the meeting place between religions is at the existen-
tial level where religions must engage in a profound “onti-intentional” understanding or in un-
derstanding God as the “Absolute.”95 For Panikkar, the approach to the “Absolute” entails di-
vesting oneself of any preconceived conceptions of God and imbibing the apophatic tradition as
practiced in Christianity. Panikkar reminds one that the occidental tradition of apophatism, of en-
lightened non-knowing or the “cloud of unknowing,” is more than two and a half thousand years
old. And, in that connection the person who is truly in connection with God in this life is united
to God.96 The apophatic process for Panikkar is properly true contemplation. It negates pre-
95 R. Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. (London: Longman and Todd, 1964), 25. 96 R. Panikkar, A Dwelling Place for Wisdom. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1993), 11.
45
conceptions and doctrinal limitations a practitioner imposes on God, and connects one with God
through love.97 Here lies a major Christian nuance for Panikkar. Mental constructs, language,
and institutional codification of beliefs through doctrines are seen as impediments to connected-
ness with God. Aleaz, as Panikkar affirms, underscores the hidden and apophatic nature of God
that the believer cannot name “God.” As the nature of the divine mystery is not objectifiable, the
Trinity can be experienced as Sat-Cit-Ananda. However, foundational to such a recognition of
Trinity as Truth, Consciousness, and Bliss is the experience of love.
Pluralistic inclusivism is constructively situated against exclusivism, utilizing conjointly
the tools of inclusivism and pluralism. Its overarching background is St. Thomas Christianity,
apophaticism, and a critique of the Western analytic tradition. Gregorios offers a critique of the
analytic tradition that seems to have dominated the European tradition and argues that the logical
impact of the suppression of alternative understandings of history, found in the rich and diverse
traditions of the East, has led to the attempt to objectify scientific-rationalism as the sole determi-
nant of reality.
As a Christian theologian, Aleaz is able to draw from the lineage of other Christian theo-
logians like Panikkar and Gregorios who argue for a non-European understanding of Christian
orthodoxy and posit that the history of Christian theological understanding has always been im-
plicitly contextual. Aleaz, as with any other Indians within the St. Thomas tradition, must be un-
derstood in terms of how a significant portion of that community continues to theologically posi-
tion itself against a hegemonic form of Roman Christianity.
97 R. Panikkar, Invisible Harmony: Essays on Contemplation and Responsibility. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), 11.
46
3.4 Summary and Remarks In highlighting the major influences of pluralistic inclusivism, this chapter has put for-
ward and developed three central ideas: 1) the use of classical Indian thought over Greek philos-
ophy; 2) the move towards a non-dualistic Indian Christian Theology; and 3) the fruits of labor
through the construction of pluralistic inclusivism as a constructive theological method. They as-
sist in understanding the context and philosophical nuances of pluralistic inclusivism, so as to
discern its similarities to and differences from the new comparative theology. Crisply put, Aleaz
proposes a constructive approach privileging philosophical resources grounded in an Eastern
Christian theological understanding rooted in the St Thomas tradition and the Indian philosophi-
cal context over Greek philosophy. To be clear about its treatment, the chapter is not about
Aleaz’s reading of Sankara and neo-Vedanta nor the privileging of those streams of Indian
thought. Rather, it looks at how Aleaz reads these traditions for his methodological engagement
in pluralistic inclusivism.
From Sankara, Aleaz extracts the notion of the fundamental unity of God and recognizes
that that historical context leads to ignorance about God. Next, through an analysis of Viveka-
nanda and Radhakrishnan, Aleaz critically examines Western Christianity’s imposition of uni-
versalism as well as recognizing the importance of historicity as a concept that Christian theol-
ogy grapples with. In the critique of the Western Christian approach, he utilizes both the tools of
an Indian reading of Western Christianity through a St. Thomas Christian lens and the traditions
of classical Hinduism. Additionally, by advancing a non-dualistic approach to the construction of
theology, Aleaz offers an alternative approach within Indian Christian theology: pluralistic inclu-
sivism as a theological stance or method within Indian Christian theology. Aleaz perceives it as a
critical position that is a shortcoming in taking pluralism and inclusivism as positions to be
47
shortcomings of both the positions understood separately. According to him, these shortcomings
revolve around practical matters. For instance, he believes that pluralism does not offer a robust
solution to the uniqueness and role of Christians in witnessing about their tradition. At the same
time, inclusivism is not inclusive insofar it establishes hierarchies of thought.
Traditional inclusivism does not accept the inclusion of other religious theological in-
sights in transforming Christianity. Aleaz argues that inclusivism fails to allow other faiths to
contribute to the conceptual content of the meaning of Christ.98 In contrast, pluralistic inclusiv-
ism recognizes the diverse religious resources of the world as common property available to all
systems of belief. It advocates drawing from diverse theological and religious resources. Plural-
istic inclusivism accomplishes this task by taking the hermeneutical context of India as a source
of authority in the interpretation of scripture and tradition. While the word hermeneutics is used
predominantly in literary theory and reflection, Aleaz appropriates hermeneutics as a textual-se-
miotic device for his theological project. By doing so, he takes into account the religious and
philosophical worldviews of India as a source for the interpretation or reading of theological par-
adigms. Thus, he is able to absorb the conceptual content of various faiths as hermeneutical
lenses for reading, engaging, and reflecting on one’s theology.
Lastly, Aleaz proposes the constructive theological method as being non-dualistic insofar
as it is sensitive to the pluralism of India’s religious context and inclusive in terms of being able
to utilize this diversity in advancing a Christianity that can be understood in such a context. Plu-
ralistic inclusivism as a theological model is an appropriation of classical Indian thought and
Christianity. Rather than working as a model rooted in a missiological reaction to other religions,
as exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism do, pluralistic inclusivism is rooted in a tradition of
98 Ibid., 5.
48
understanding reality as not an “either/or” but a “both/and.” Aleaz, in my estimation, accom-
plishes this by using a pluralism that is rooted in the Vedantic perspective of Oneness. Pluralistic
inclusivism is a via media approach that uses the grammar of recognition and celebration of plu-
ralistic reality and the emphases of particular religions, while at the same time working within
the mystical tradition of Christianity to offer a decidedly contextual understanding of Jesus the
Christ.
49
CHAPTER 4 The Emergence of Clooney’s New Comparative Theology
4.1 Introduction
New comparative theology has gained a lot of ground in contemporary scholarly circles
and emerges as a method that is distinct from the theology of religions approach. New compara-
tive theologians suggest that it functions as a method within systematic theology in an interreli-
gious and comparative manner.99 Its adoption is a commitment to studying different religious
texts, traditions, and rites in comparison with the goal of arriving at Truth. As such, it is commit-
ted to some form of truth as revealed and understood in one’s home religion. The stress is on
“some form of truth,” and for its leading practitioner, Francis Clooney, truth is understood
through the person and nature of Christ and depends on the home tradition’s theological, ecclesi-
astical, and methodological embeddedness. The objective of this chapter will be to highlight the
theological background and influences that have shaped Francis X. Clooney’s new comparative
theology for the purpose of comparison with that of pluralistic inclusivism.
Clooney, understanding new comparative theology as a mode of interreligious learning
that remains faithful to one’s home theology, uses resources from and adopts methods of the
other theological tradition with which he is in dialogue.100 The goal is to create concrete theolog-
ical exchanges about particular rites, issues, and symbols between religions while ensuring that
the cultural and linguistic constructions in one theological method do not hold rein over another
99 The work of James L. Fredericks substantiates this notion. Fredericks writes “Comparative Theology is the branch of systematic theology which seeks to interpret the Christian tradition conscientiously in conversation with the texts and symbols of non-Christian religions.” J. L. Fredericks, “A Universal Religious Experience? Comparative Theol-ogy as an Alternative to Theology of Religions.” Horizons, 22, no. 1 (1995): 67–87. 100 This chapter will unpack various sources from Clooney in making this argument.
50
religion’s theological method. As such, it aims at examining these traditions in light of a compra-
tive study with another tradition to learn from and dialogue with scholars from different faith
backgrounds. This mode of evaluation aims at caution in using preconceived categories and re-
ducing other theologies to the categories of Western Christianity. As Clooney envisions it, new
comparative theology culminates in multiple religious belonging and perhaps even hybridity. At
the same time, he claims that he is an inclusivist and insists on salvation in Christ alone and on
the true universality of salvation.101 He wants comparative theology to be faithful to confessional
theology and tradition while seeking fresh insights from other traditions with which that theology
is in dialogue. Clooney’s approach has evolved out of his own experience as a Roman Catholic
missionary in India and as a North American academic.102 His method has also important ante-
cedents.
4.2 Towards the Development of New Comparative Theology
A background to Clooney’s work is the three-fold typology of exclusivism, inclusivism,
and pluralism as the framework of responses of Christianity to other religions; the work of John
Hick as the representative of the pluralist school of thought; and what is described as the crisis in
the academic study of religion approach. Fundamentally, Clooney’s approach is a reaction
101 Ibid., 195. 102 As stated in the introduction to my project, this dissertation primarily tells the story of pluralistic inclusivism. This narrative occurs in light of the rise of new comparative theology. In chapter three, I offered pluralistic inclusiv-ism as an Indian Christian constructive theological methodology that holds pluralism and inclusivism together non-dualistically. In chapter five, I discuss the ostensible similarities between the two methods but also the differences in terms of their goals and underlying core commitments.
51
against the tendency to universalize religious experience. Such a tendency is a criticism leveled
against the work of Wilfred Cantwell Smith103 and John Hick.104
Clooney argues for a post-comparative theology of religion that straddles a deeply en-
gaged reading of texts that inform and reform one’s home tradition while holding to the claim
that salvation occurs through Christ alone and is yet universally available.105 Particularly, he lik-
ens this post-comparative approach to inclusivism. By doing this, he critiques the typology of
Race by appropriating it as a textual based category for incorporating the religious truths rather
than a soteriologically based category. Such an inclusivism is similar to the tension that Advaita
presents in holding to the simple and universally available truth of Brahman.106
4.2.1 The Problem with Pluralism
Hick and the pluralists work from a universalist approach that is shaped by the frame-
work of normative Christianity rooted in Kantian apriorism.107 This is the affirmation of a uni-
versality of religious experience. He posits that the great post-Axial faiths constitute different
ways of experiencing, conceiving, and living in relation to an ultimate divine Reality that
103 Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion (London: SPCK, 1978); Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Faith and Belief (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979); Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Towards a World The-ology: Faith and the Comparative History of Religion, Library of Philosophy and Religion (London: Macmillan, 1981). 104 John Hick et al., Hermeneutics, Religious Pluralism, and Truth: Lectures, The James Montgomery Hester Semi-nar, (Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University, 1989); John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rain-bow of Faiths, 1st American ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995); John Hick, An Interpreta-tion of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005); John Hick, Who or What Is God? And Other Investigations (New York: Seabury Books, 2009); John Hick, Between Faith and Doubt: Dialogues on Religion and Reason (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). 105 Francis X. Clooney, Theology after Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology, SUNY Series, toward a Comparative Philosophy of Religions (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), 194-96. 106 Ibid. 107 Clooney makes an argument for a particular understanding of tradition through textual study in all of his work. Much of the theological critique against the pluralist approach derives from Clooney. Substantive voice is lent by Francis X. Clooney, The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2010).
52
transcends all our varied versions of it.108 All faiths are therefore contextualized interpretations
of a Universal Reality. His theological method incorporates historical criticism and the commen-
tarial tradition emerging from the theological approach of Rudolph Bultmann. Christians must
understand Christ from the perspective of metaphor that imparts a dispositional attitude towards
understanding Christ. This critical dispositional attitude leaves behind doctrines as mere state-
ments relevant for their particular time and place.109 Faith is not holding steadfast to doctrines
but a religious disposition that is engaged through cognitive freedom. As such, faith is a distinc-
tively religious mode of experiencing the world and one’s life in it, and is context sensitive.110
Furthermore, Hick’s reliance on the Kantian noumenal-phenomenal distinction, on historical crit-
icism as a way of understanding the particularities of faiths, especially the Christian doctrine of
Christ’s uniqueness and incarnation, and on the role of faith as a distinctively religious mode of
being have molded the tradition of religious pluralism.
By emphasizing the particularity of engagement, the new comparative approach proposes
an analysis of traditions alongside each other. In further contrast with Hick’s pluralism, the basis
of Clooney’s inclusivism is his ecclesial-institutional fidelity to Roman Catholicism, which
grounds salvation through the historical Christ. Clooney makes the case that such typologies
make universal claims about religious positioning and are incomplete because they do not take
the comparative readings of particular texts into account. He acknowledges the diversity of reli-
gious truths and argues that this diversity can only be engaged from one’s own commitment to
Truth received through one’s home tradition.
108 Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent. 235–36. 109 Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. 110 Hick, Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion. 154.
53
As a practitioner of the comparative textual method, Clooney uses a Roman Catholic
Christian theological lens in conversation with specific streams of Hinduism. Given this method-
ological raison d'etre, Clooney sets out to work with particularities rather than universal prem-
ises. The particularities are made known through texts in order to find God in all things and wel-
coming wisdom where it exists with the aim to know God better. Texts from another tradition are
selected, specifically ones that have the possibility to lead to a broader reflection of one’s own
tradition, through a process that involves a commitment to know truth, and through a sustained
reading for areas of convergence and divergence. This approach contrasts with the traditional
pluralistic perspective for its particular attention to text rather than a generalized meta-philosoph-
ical approach that the latter method adopts.
4.2.2 Crisis in the Academic Study of Religion
The discipline of academic religious studies attempts to position itself as a scientific and
value neutral approach to the study of religions and religious phenomena. One goal for this disci-
pline is objectivity/neutrality as it seeks to bifurcate theological commitments from its method.
Postmodernism has been a tool used in the critical analysis of religious studies for its pretense of
objectivity and universalizing tendencies. Wrought by the postmodern critique, the crisis in the
study of religion has been brought to the fore by two opposite camps. On the one hand, scholars
like Talal Asad argue that the study of religion evolved within the normative presumptions of
Western Enlightenment liberalism that bifurcated religion from the political apparatus when no
such division exists in many parts of the world.111 The academic study of religion is based on En-
lightenment foundations that do not account for cultural and tradition-centered differences that
111 Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).
54
occur in different parts of the world. On the other hand, scholars in the vein of Donald Wiebe ar-
gue that the academic study of religion has fallen away from its naturalistic roots in explaining
the causes of religious phenomenon to become dangerously like theology in attempting to inter-
pret religious phenomena.112
Locklin and Nicholson suggest that there is a third camp apart from Asad and Wiebe.
They see an embedding of the scholar in a home tradition as crucial, as a declared preconception
that invites heightening scrutiny and wider accountability. In “The Return of Comparative Theol-
ogy,” they argue that new comparative theology offers a constructive response to the dilemma of
unacknowledged normative commitments in the category of religion113 as it acknowledges the
postmodern critique of objectivity. They offer comparative theology as an alternative to the aca-
demic study of religion that addresses the current crisis in the academy brought on by post-
modernity. Yet, they do not offer a substantive explanation as to how comparative theology re-
mains less imperialistic than the academic study of religion. As the method of comparative theol-
ogy is more confessional in nature, it does not even seek to address Wiebe’s critique of religious
studies.
Theologies are shaped by tradition, culture, and institutional commitments and works
within certain presuppositions that are shaped by culture, context, and linguistic frameworks.
The framework that Nicholson and Locklin offer blends theology as a commitment to a confes-
sional home tradition with the academic study of literature, tradition, rites, and culture in order to
112 Donald Wiebe, The Politics of Religious Studies (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000). 113 Reid B. Locklin and Hugh Nicholson, "The Return of Comparative Theology," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78, no. 2 (2010).
55
learn from another religious tradition.114 Thus, difference plays a seminal role in their evaluation
of comparative theology.
Comparative theology makes no claim of normative foundations nor does it claim a nor-
mative telos. Difference is a celebration of subjectivity through the lens of one’s home theologi-
cal lens. Clooney’s project is to explore particular differences among traditions studied alongside
of each other through textual exploration and engagement, and utilizes terms such as liminality
and hybridity that derive from works on post-colonialism by the likes of Spivak115 and Bha-
bha.116 This sort of postcolonial turn has also drawn in fellow new comparative theologians like
Susan Abraham. Susan Abraham, focusing on the use of post-colonial methods in comparative
theology, argues that engaging in comparative work necessitates taking into account cultural
practices. Exemplifying a move that Clooney makes, utilizing this understanding, she appropri-
ates Bhabha’s notion of hybridity in arguing that confessional boundaries must become permea-
ble rather than dissolved. A self-described Catholic-Hindu scholar taking a note from Karl
Rahner, she recognizes that many Hindus have remained anonymous Christians and raises this as
the standard of permeable, yet existing, boundaries.117 Clooney imbibes the notion of the blurring
of boundary lines that ultimately leads to an emergent hybridity and multiple religious belonging.
The comparative engagement for Clooney is the blurring of the lines; yet, not necessarily
the elimination of the lines. New comparative theologians like Clooney acknowledge the
114 In terms of accountability, one wonders whether new comparative theology is truly and objectively undertaken for the mere enrichment of a particular tradition. Will its new discoveries find ready acceptance institutionally by others in the home tradition or a particular theologian working within and for a confessional theology? It is this question that Nicholson’s work contributes greatly to an understanding of comparative theology as a method. 115 Ramachandra Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies (New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1988); Rosalind C. Morris and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010). 116 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 2004). 117 Susan Abraham, "Postcolonial Approaches to Hindu-Christian Studies," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, no. 21 (2008), 14.
56
blurring of lines and the possibility of moving towards particular understandings of Truth in
comparative study through a critical analysis of meta-narratives and with eyes for deconstruction
so that gems of truth can inform one’s home tradition into living a more holistic Truth.118
Clooney’s inclusivism and multiple religious belonging has to be seen in light of his vocational
commitment as a Roman Catholic theologian and as someone of Euro-American descent influ-
enced by the classical Indian tradition. This necessitates an exploration of the Roman Catholic
mission legacy in India.
4.3 The Indian Legacy
The Roman Catholic legacy in India begins with Francis Xavier and his encounter with
the St. Thomas Christians of India. Questioned by him, they replied that they were Christians,
ignorant of Portuguese. He goes on to note they the know nothing of the precepts and mysteries
“of our holy religion.”119 Xavier’s viewed the indigenous Christian community as heretics as
they did not subscribe nor accede either to the Bishop of Rome nor to the imperial Portuguese
power. It discounted the particular and embedded Christian knowledge and faith practiced by the
indigenous community. These details were somewhat described in the previous chapter alluding
to Aleaz’s method. More important is Xavier’s understanding of the non-Christian community.
He makes a remark about Brahmins, “we have in these parts a class of men among the pagans
who are called Brahmins. They keep up the worship of the gods, and the superstitious rites of re-
ligion, frequenting the temples and taking care of the idols. They are as perverse and wicked a
set as can be found.”120
118 F. X. Clooney, Theology after Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993); Clooney, Comparative Theology, 176. 119 M.K. Kuriakose, ed. History of Christianity in India (Delhi: ISPCK, 1999), 27. 120 Ibid., 30.
57
Xavier’s attitude speaks of the nexus between religion, colonialism and its complicity in
racial construction, as well as the demonization of another, although related, religious commu-
nity. It is a mark of exclusivism, a stance carried over to the work of another Jesuit missionary,
Robert DeNobili, in the South Indian city of Maduri. His missionary method was to engage in
inculturation for which he learned classical Sanskrit and Tamil, adopted the lifestyle and dressing
style of a Brahmin sanyasi, and interacted with Brahmins in order to overtly convert them. Alt-
hough he faced significant opposition from his missionary co-laborers, he received support from
two successive Bishops of Rome, Paul V and Gregory XV. The motivation behind such an incul-
turation is questionable. He desires that the Brahmins receive him as their master. In extending
the colonial and religious exclusivistic projects to subjugate the other, he remarks that the law he
is preaching is that of the true God.121 He taught Roman Catholicism through linguistic transla-
tion and appropriation of Brahmin rites. While he engaged and allowed for Brahmin converts to
use their sacred thread, dress mannerism, and the recognition of caste distinction, this was
merely a missiological tool wherein there was no receptivity to allowing classical Brahman un-
derstanding to inform his perspective on Christian theology.122 In receiving sanction from the
Roman Curia, he was to enforce the replacement of pagan prayers and mantras with Catholic
prayers; translate the use of the Brahmanical sacred thread to the honor of the Trinity; and guard
121 Ibid., 48-50. 122 Clooney attempts to redeem the legacy of DeNobili by suggesting the following: “DeNobili’s writings and con-versations offer the tantalizing prospect of a real meeting of the minds, a conversation in which people of different religious traditions reason together and manage to discuss matters of great religious weight and importance in a way that could alter what the participants believed and how they live. But de Nobili was also willing to argue specifically for the Christian God and against Hindu gods.” Francis X. Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 6. Missing from Clooney’s account is the fact of imperial-colonial power that offered DeNobili the security and license from which to propagate this notion assertively. For the most part, Roman Catholic and Jesuit theologians and historians in India seem to redeem DeNobili’s attempts as an exercise in inculturation; yet, a post-colonial critical lens that sees DeNobili’s project as an extension of a colonial project, particularly in line with the previous section’s quota-tions from Francis Xavier is needed.
58
new converts from superstitions of any kind as they should not mix in superstitious practices,
ceremonies, or sacrifices, lest their subsequent fault and sin be worse than the first.123
There was an evolution in the philosophical and interreligious dialogical engagement be-
tween Roman Catholic Christianity and Advaita Vedanta through the work of Jules Monchanin,
who adopted the name Swami Paramarubyananda; Henri La Saux or Swami Abishiktananda; and
Bede Griffiths also known as Swami Dayananda. Oblates within the Benedictine monastic tradi-
tion of Roman Catholicism, they donned the title of Indian monastics living in the context of
community and served as the inspiration for the Christian Ashram movement. Their movement
was called Santhivanam. They incorporated textual and discursive engagement with Vedantins
and were committed to the lived application of a life centered on contemplation and detached
from true luxuries of the West. Their grounding was a deep search for truth. Abhishiktananda
writes, “We have to descend into the ultimate depths to recognize that there is no common de-
nominator at the level of namarupa (name and form). So we should accept namarupa of the most
varied kinds…. We should penetrate the depth of each other’s mystery…. Take off from each of
them as from a springboard, towards the bottomless ocean.”124
Abishiktananda was grounded in the fact that symbols are rooted in Christ and centered
their theology around the Christian Eucharist. He notes, “it was surely fitting that a Christian also
should come and worship in these high places, that he should come there to fulfill all signs,
myths, and images, and enable the vast sacrament of the cosmos to pass from the sign to its real-
ity in Christ, in (and through) the Eucharist.” Eucharist is the central Christian theological sacra-
ment that approximates the realization of the Advaitic experience of selflessness whose love is
123 Lisbon Inquisition, “Romanaee Sedis Antistites” by Pope Gregory XV, The Jesuits in Malabar Volume II (Ar-magh: Archbishop of Armagh, 1623). 124 James Stuart, Swami Abhishiktananda: His Life Told through His Letters (Delhi: ISPCK, 1995), 284.
59
realized through the sacramental presence. There is no separateness between God as Father and
Jesus as Son.125 Advaita offers conceptual clarity as it points towards a deeper and more funda-
mental reality. For Abishiktananda, the Vedantic notion of Oneness and the paradox of non-dual-
ity will help Christians gain a better understanding of the absolute claim upon him involved in
his baptism into Christ’s death and of the greater demands made by the Spirit within him.126
Dayananda supplements Abhishiktananda’s work through engagement of Roman Catho-
lic doctrine with Advaita with Christian theology by recourse to Aquinas, Origen, and Dionysius
the Areopagite. Dayananda points to the Advaitic experience of Christ through the utilization of
early Christian logos theology and argues for an understanding of Trinity as Sat Cit Ananda or
saccidananda.127 Noting the impact the Santhivanam dialogical engagement, Regunta Yesu-
ratham writes, “dialogue will tend finally not so much to the aggregation of one single individual
to the Christian fold as to the assumption of all Hindu spiritual riches into the treasure of the
church. (It enables) moving forward from intellectual discussion into a personal encounter.”128
Their seminal work and experiences moved the Roman Catholic approach in India from
exclusivism to inclusivism and sets the basis for Jacques Dupuis’ inclusive pluralism. Dupuis’
“inclusivist pluralism” is a theology of religions model that involves induction rather than deduc-
tion. The inductive method starts from the contemporary reality of time and space and engages in
reflection on theological tradition while the deductive method offers that the dogma is universal
125 Abhishiktananda, "The Advaitic Dilemma," in Swami Abishiktananda: Essential Writings, ed. Shirley du Boulay (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 2006), 77. Abhishiktananda, "What Is a Christian?" in Swami Abishiktananda: Essential Writings, ed. Shirley du Boulay (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2006), 152. 126 Abhishiktananda, "The Advaitic Dilemma," in Swami Abishiktananda: Essential Writings, 61. 127 While there are many texts of substance authored by Bede Griffiths, I highly suggest the following work as it of-fers a nice summary of the intersection of thought as well as his method: Bede Griffiths, Vedanta & Christian Faith (Los Angeles: Dawn Horse Press, 1973). I also referred to this concept in the previous chapter linking it with Rai-mondo Panikkar. Further allusions to this concept will be made throughout this dissertation. 128 Regunta Yesurathnam, A Christian Dialogical Theology: The Contribution of Swami Abhishiktananda (Delhi: Punthi Pustak, 2006),34..
60
and is handed down as tradition. He approaches other religions by carefully engaging and clari-
fying the notion of mystery. This clarification is centered on the Christian logos theological tra-
dition and holds to the fore concerns of human liberation.129 A Christian theology of religion will
have a global perspective and can be enriched by others.130 Dupuis is advocating for dialogical
openness rooted in tradition. This method, under the inclusive camp, takes into account the theo-
logical context.
Any reading of a Roman Catholic interaction with Classical Hinduism would be incom-
plete without considering the legacy of Raimondo Panikkar. Aspects of his work were introduced
in chapters one and three. Clooney’s method is distinct from Panikkar’s as the former uses a tex-
tual model of engagement while the latter a much more broader philosophical approach. For in-
stance, Panikkar offers reconceptualization of doctrine that moves beyond the delineation be-
tween pluralism and inclusivism. One such example is his interpretation of the doctrine of the
Trinity. Like Abishiktananda, he uses an analogy from the language of Advaita Vedanta where
God, Trinitarian in nature, can be understood as Sat (Truth), Cit (Consciousness), and Ananda
(Bliss) mutually indwelling with each other. The correlation occurs on a broader philosophical
level without the point-by-point and text-by-text comparative analysis of Clooney. That is,
Clooney privileges text, while Panikkar works with existential experience as a form of engage-
ment. Clooney seems more grounded in the absorption of truth to enrich the truth from which he
works, while Panikkar is more open to a radical reinterpretation of orthodoxy.
129 Jacques Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002). 130 Jacques Dupuis, Towards a Christian Theology of Religion (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001). Clooney offers a sub-stantive critique of Dupuis. He argues that “Dupuis’s treatment and conclusions are so sketchy as to preclude any fruitful theological conversation with Hindu theologians. However generous Dupuis’s Christian theological judg-ments may be, in practice, he extends the usual dynamic that has characterized Christian reflection on religions: apriori reflection, which treats numerous religions in the same way and attends to details only in a fragmentary fash-ion.” Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, 23.
61
Clooney’s new comparative theology and Panikkar’s radical pluralism demonstrate two
different ways of reading Advaita Vedanta in conversation with Christianity.131 However, Pan-
ikkar, while acknowledging the partiality of each and every religious tradition, can be understood
as a Christian theologian who uses the insights of Advaita Vedanta to not only clarify, but move
beyond, Christian categories. Such a radical movement from Christianity is not implicit within
Clooney.132
Clooney’s inclusivism must be seen in light of the evolution of the Roman Catholic en-
gagement in India. The trajectory has been from missiological exclusivism to inclusivism where
there is a deep respect for the culture and tradition being engaged. While the initial engagement
through Xavier and DeNobili was set in the context of imperialism where the church was the col-
onizer, the subsequent approach has desired a more dialogical approach. Clooney stands in the
lineage of the latter, yet makes his mark in a different way as will be demonstrated in this chap-
ter. While Monchanin, LaSaux, Griffiths, Dupuis, and to a larger extent Panikkar, work more in
terms of the philosophical approaches of Advaita Vedanta and Roman Catholic Christianity,
Clooney grounds his method in a cross-textual approach that moves beyond Vedanta and also en-
gages the other traditions within Hinduism. Unlike Panikkar who moves towards a post-Christian
approach, Clooney grounds his theology within confessional Roman Catholic Christianity. This
131 Another example of the difference between the two is in the doctrine of Christ. Panikkar takes seriously the his-torical Jesus but discards the word “Christology,” preferring to use “Christophany,” meaning the historical Jesus of Nazareth is one of many possible manifestations of individuals who have the Christ experience of being one with the Father. 132 Clooney offers insight into his reading of Panikkar. He writes: “Panikkar aims at mutually inhabiting two tradi-tions with an openness to a (syncretistic) blurring of boundaries as to be able to see from the inside the sense in which each is true.… Panikkar’s decision to entangle his Christian faith and theology inside the Hinduism that he inhabits demonstrates a version of the intense, engaged learning that in my view is essential to comparative theol-ogy. His preferred mutual inhabitation seems to me a worthy goal, the price of the engaged model of comparative theological practice. Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders, 48-49. Yet, Clooney does not seem to be able to fully grasp that Panikkar totally re-maps Christian theological constructs in his radical reading of the classical tradition.
62
approach, rooted in inclusivism, stands in the lineage of Roman Catholic engagement and yet, is
novel. New comparative theology hopes to demonstrate how to refine theological developments
and exposition by incorporating theological concepts from other religions. The process of incor-
porating such theological concepts occurs through textual study and research within the tradi-
tions of the religions being studied.
4.4 Post-Missiological Learning
While the categories of pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism are Western Christian
theological postures towards other religions, Clooney envisions new comparative theology as a
method whose principles can serve any religious tradition. This is to contrast itself with the his-
tory of Christian theological interaction with the religious other. Colonialism allowed the possi-
bility of interreligious learning, yet Christian theological interaction usually re-inscribed the dy-
namics of power. The meeting of colonial forms of Christianity133 and indigenous religions was,
for the most part, an exercise in debasing native forms of knowledge and native religions with
the claim that such systems were inferior to Western knowledge and colonial forms of Christian-
ity. While theological interactions as a systematic engagement of Christianity with other reli-
gions were imbued with exertion of power, there were at the same time instances where the pur-
suit of Truth permitted a missionary to explore other religions in depth. Thus, in the era of colo-
nialism, while there was a definite assertion of Western forms of knowledge as true knowledge,
an openness to explore truth in other religions also existed. Their openness was still marked by
missiological imperatives to translate Christian forms of knowledge into indigenous cultural
133 Colonial forms of Christianity here connotes the fact that western colonial powers discounted extant forms of Christianity that existed in the colonies. For instance, Syriac Christianity, which flourished in southern India, was discounted as non-Christian by the Portuguese.
63
patterns and languages. The rest of this chapter highlights Clooney’s attempt to formulate new
comparative theology as an interreligious theology so that in the next chapter I can compare and
contrast Aleaz and Clooney in a fruitful way.
4.5 Interreligious Learning
Clooney develops his method on the basis of Anselm’s definition of theology as faith
seeking understanding.134 Therein theology as a method of study differs from comparative reli-
gion as an objective, scientific study of religious phenomenon. Rather than moving to a de-par-
ticularized theocentric center, Clooney suggests that each tradition ground itself in the particular-
ity of its own tradition and learn the nuances and essences through deep engagement with textual
and extra-textual (commentarial) reading.135 He writes:
It is not a question of how certain texts make sense to certain communities.... [It is] not about how ‘their’ texts are like or unlike other texts.... [It is] not reduction to information136 … A careful textual reading of religious texts entails an appreci-ation of interreligious concerns based on transcendence, revelation, truth, and sal-vation.137
For Clooney, these notions are not components to be studied and analyzed piecemeal.
Rather, they constitute vital pieces of reflection that necessitate deep and profound
study.
New comparative theology’s engaged interreligious reading is undertaken through an in-
tentional and sustained method, in order to articulate a viable understanding of the other.138 Such
134 Fides quaerens intellectum. 135 Francis X. Clooney, "Reading the World in Christ: From Comparison to Inclusivism," in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religion, ed. Gavin D'Costa (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992); Francis X. Clooney, Seeing through Texts: Doing Theology among the Srivaisnavas of South India, SUNY Series, toward a Comparative Philosophy of Religions (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996). 136 Ibid.,2. 137 Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, 8-10. 138 Clooney, The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, 192-94.
64
a reading is attentive to history, textual context, and commentarial reflection. Reading in this
manner moves the comparative theologian away from judgment into critical engagement of texts,
and by doing this the theologian is able to re-imagine his home theology in light of new insights
received through the comparative exercise. Clooney describes this movement through the follow-
ing, “[New comparative theology] is not a theology that chooses from among the ideas of the
Advaita and Christian traditions, but is one in which a Christian theologian begins to think again
the entire range of problems and possibilities in the (Christian) theological tradition, after a seri-
ous engagement with the Advaitic text.”139
The re-imagination of theological categories constitutes a major process and is perhaps
the primary task of new comparative theology. It necessitates the development of a theological
grammar through proficiency in one’s own theological tradition, as well as the theology of the
particular tradition being compared.140 Once that is developed, Clooney suggests using a strate-
gic approach to texts: patient and prolonged reading and re-reading of texts being compared,
finding similarities between the texts, and discovering differences between them.141 Clooney’s
insight into discovering differences allows for interesting discussion. The re-imagination of one’s
tradition’s theology is about living into theology’s primary vocation of faith seeking Truth. Un-
derstanding differences between texts of one’s own religious tradition and those of other tradi-
tions occurs, according to Clooney, by placing the texts being compared in their specific contexts
and by deep engagement with the larger historical and literary projects that encompass both. The
comparative theologian is then called to make a series of sound judgments about what matters in
139 Clooney, Theology after Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology, 153. 140 Ibid., 161. 141 Ibid., 167-70.
65
the engagement. From there, the practitioner of comparative theology discerns further questions
in order to be able to achieve a truthful comparison.
4.6 Method and Logic
The tasks of reading, finding similarities, and discovering differences are the elemental
steps in new comparative theology. Clooney, in light of his studies in Advaita Vedanta, expands
on them by refining these steps as coordination, superimposition, comparative conversation,
comparative tension, and collage visualization.
4.6.1 Coordination
Coordination entails a close re-reading of the texts that are being compared by taking into
account comparable terms and parallel modes of operation. The texts that are being compared are
not to be conflated and reduced into a single body of information.142 The rationale behind the
strategy of coordination is to maintain the integrity of the texts being analyzed, rather than read-
ing for the purpose of appropriation.
4.6.2 Superimposition
The process of superimposing one text on another entails imposing one reality—idea-per-
son-thing-word—on another for the purpose of an enhanced meditation on the latter.143 Rather
than seeking to re-interpret particular texts based on the conceptual schema of another text, this
posture calls for texts to be read from within their own particular conceptual matrix.
142 Ibid, 168. 143 Ibid., 170.
66
4.6.3 Comparative Conversation
The principle behind comparative conversation is a willingness to share what is rich in
one’s particular tradition, as well as being able to receive and learn from another tradition. Such
a give-and-take is part of an imaginative process whose eventual goal is personal transformation.
Clooney offers insight into this notion, “one comes to the comparison with something to contrib-
ute, while yet remaining vulnerable to the implication of what one might hear.... The conversa-
tions between the text instigate a desire to know, which comprehensively transforms those who
dare to read.”144
4.6.4 Comparative Tension
The notion of comparative tension is understood by drawing attention to the act of re-sig-
nification. Comparing texts can result in a deep and analytical dialogue. The dialogue comes to
fruition through creating a movement that engages in outreach and extension of textual meaning
through comparison or it can be a creation of new meaning by juxtaposition and synthesis.145 In
other words, texts are sources and sites of comparative reflection.
4.6.5 Collage Visualization
The fulcrum of the five-part textual movement is collage visualization. The collage con-
tains pieces of texts that have interacted with each other. The texts are placed together through
their selection and combination. When these texts are placed together, they each seem to de-sta-
bilize the meaning of the other and are able to be read quite differently. Clooney states that the
project of reading texts together will inevitability lead to textual incommensurability. When
144 Ibid. 145 Ibid., 173.
67
textual incomparability occurs, Clooney suggests highlighting the uniqueness of the text and re-
reading each text for areas where wider comparative engagement can occur. If incommensurabil-
ity leads to incomparability, a question about the validity of truth claims must be evaluated.
Truth claims are an acknowledgement of the embodied and textured nature of the claims. These
textual-truth claims provide a foundation for progress towards arriving at theological truths in a
comparative context.146
Clooney’s mode of interreligious textual analysis entails a deep and systematic reading of
the broader historical, cultural, philosophical, and linguistic underpinnings of the traditions being
studied. It is from the broader underpinnings and context of traditions that particular phenomena
are selected for engagement. These traditions are read together with sensitivity to both faith and
reason. Religious traditions pass on worldviews or perspectives on how to see and understand the
world. The context of diversity precipitates questioning the validity and worth of exclusively
holding onto certain traditions, which in turn allows us to open ourselves to the contemporary
context of diversity. Such diversity makes holding onto exclusive truths impossible. Clooney
suggests we read carefully back and forth, sensitive to the literary possibilities and not just ideas.
This practice accentuates the problem of particular, passionate engagements. We learn and re-
member multiple commitments, while learning our way beyond the dichotomy of too much and
too little religious belonging.147 This leads to critical examination wherein questioning becomes
an opportunity towards understanding Truth. Clooney writes, “Critical questioning unsettles the
learning that traditions have passed down, and raises doubts about whether any particular wis-
dom is really absolutely superior to other ways of living spiritually and well. Religious diversity,
146 Ibid., 193. 147 Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions, xi.
68
thoughtfully understood, raises awkward questions that can make an exclusive choice seem al-
most impossible.”148
The quandary that arises in the context of such openness is the possibility of sliding into
religious relativism. Clooney avoids this by being grounded in a particular tradition but receiving
insight through deep and engaged study of other religions in small manageable ways.149 The
small manageable ways are to focus on particular textual pieces and phenomena in conversation
with each other. This grounding allows Clooney to navigate between receiving insight from in-
tellectual openness in the context of diversity and using these insights as resources to understand
one’s own tradition better.
4.7 Posture of Openness Clooney suggests that the best way to live in a diverse, pluralistic situation is through an
intentional focus on comparative reading and being receptive to materials that enrich one’s reli-
gious practice. Reflectively, he describes comparative theology as a posture or an attitudinal dis-
position. This posture deserves some attention. Clooney suggests:
Comparative theology is a manner of learning that takes seriously diversity and tradition, openness and truth, allowing neither to decide the meaning of our reli-gious situation without recourse to the other. Countering a cultural tendency to retreat into private spirituality or a defensive assertion of truth, this comparative theology is hopeful about the value of learning. Indeed, at the core of comparative theology is the theological confidence that we can respect diversity and tradition, that we can study traditions in their particularity and receive truth in this way in order to know God better.150
148 Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders, 5. 149 Francis X. Clooney, Beyond Compare: St. Francis De Sales and Sri Vedanta Desika on Loving Surrender to God (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2008), 3. 150 Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders, 24.
69
Learning with openness is what is seen as the telos of new comparative theology. Such an
openness involves combining a tradition-rooted theological concern with the actual study of an-
other tradition for the sake of appropriating new theological insights. This goal differs from ana-
lyzing religions and its phenomena. Interreligious dialogue is not the intended outcome of new
comparative theology.151 Rather, ongoing reflection on theological assertions based on the reality
of the other religions being studied is the explicit rationale for new comparative theology. If the-
ology uses language in attempting to grapple with an apophatic reality, new comparative theol-
ogy aims at consistently refining or approximating truth claims through new insights. Similarly,
Clooney’s words on the role of the comparative theologian are explicit in this regard: “The com-
parative theologian must do more than listen to others explain their faith; she must be willing to
study their traditions deeply alongside her own, taking both to heart. In the process, she will
begin to theologize as it were from both sides of the table, reflecting personally on old and new
truths in an interior dialogue.”152
New comparative theology becomes a constructive approach by establishing a broad re-
source base from which pluralism and diversity can be engaged, thereby setting the stage for in-
terreligious learning. Such an approach is aimed at building capacity for theologians in a context
of diversity and pluralism.153 Christian theologians are trained in their discipline to draw on re-
sources from within their own tradition. These resources are primarily Western historical and
151 Ibid., 6. 152 Clooney, The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, 11. 153 The premise of new comparative theology is that it is actually new. There is a historical evolution in this method-ology. Clooney, in a similar manner to Stanley J. Samartha, alludes to the fact that the first instance of comparative theology was St. Paul’s encounter in the Areopagus, as recorded in the Acts 17. This genealogy traces the develop-ment of early Christian thinking as an interaction between a deep-seated belief in the uniqueness of Christ with Greek philosophy, with “pagan” thought, and eventually with other religions such as Islam. The contemporary ver-sion of comparative theology, however, begins with the western missionary endeavor and moves through the com-parative study of religion. These methods were informed by the theological motive of conversion to Christianity. (Clooney, The New Comparative Theology, chapter 2.)
70
systematic theology. The constructive approach, for which Clooney is arguing, is a space beyond
the tradition of the discipline by expanding the resources from which theology can draw by spe-
cifically pointing towards resources from other traditions. The attempt of comparative theology
is to unseat rigidity in theological reflection. In the face of expanded theological resources, theo-
logical certainty is sublimated. Such a dethroning of theological certainty leads one to understand
that comparative theology is primarily concerned with theological reflection that crosses reli-
gious borders. This allows one to venture into the territory of other religions, stimulating conver-
sations across religious boundaries.
4.8 Summary and Remarks
There are four ways in which this chapter unfolded Clooney’s method of new compara-
tive theology. First, Clooney works within the typology of inclusivism in order to enrich one’s
home theology. The specifics of this enrichment are through conversation and the movement to-
wards a deep and particular theological analysis of concepts and phenomena. Clooney chooses to
differentiate his inclusive textual approach from a pluralism that germinated in a Eurocentric uni-
versalist perspective as found in the work of Hick. Notably, commitment to the perspective of
one’s home tradition is foundational to the work of the comparative theologian. Clooney’s devel-
opment of new comparative theology is in reaction to the Western Christian taxonomy of reac-
tions to other religions and is a theological position rooted in the Roman Catholic interaction
with Hinduism in India. These points are important to note as Aleaz’s pluralistic inclusivism and
Clooney’s new comparative theology will be compared in the following chapter. Pluralistic in-
clusivism, a methodology rooted in the context of neo-Vedantin philosophy, and new compara-
tive theology, a methodology rooted in deep engagement with textuality in the context of
71
religious plurality, converge on the issues of inherent respect for diversity and the derivative uti-
lization of it while being distinctly within the purview of Christian theology.
Second, new comparative theology positions itself apart from the theology of religion and
the academic study of religion approaches on the basis of claiming a particular theological
grounding from and through which other religions are studied. One drawback of Clooney vis-à-
vis Locklin and Nicholson mentioned previously in this chapter is not having or suggesting a
method for the development of shared linguistic-methodological structure from which to make
comparative theology truly comparative. From their perspective, an irreducible fact is that we
will all view the “other” from the normative presuppositions that guide our inquiry. Yet the lim-
its of these normative presuppositions are defined by the communities to which comparative the-
ologians belong. The problem with this is that comparative theologians are theologians. Theolo-
gians work within a particular confessional tradition and the framework of an ecclesiastical insti-
tutional setting. This problematic is alluded to in the next chapter.
The third unfolding entailed relaying Clooney as a comparative theologian converses
with both classical Hinduism and Roman Catholicism. The particularly of this conversation is
that it paints a deep textual engagement that focuses on particularity rather than on general meta-
physical postures. The strokes are, for instance, different from his predecessors and other think-
ers like Raimondo Panikkar who engage classical Hinduism and Roman Catholicism. Clooney
advances new comparative theology as a method of interreligious learning. Yet this interreligious
learning is only relevant in the context of pluralism and the willingness to acknowledge the va-
lidity of textual and commentarial sources of other religions. The use of textual and commentar-
ial sources outside of one’s own tradition in order to elucidate one’s own theology is at the very
heart of the blurring boundaries. Yet, the blurring of boundaries is meant to clarify one’s home
72
tradition in the pursuit of Truth. If interreligious theology, as new comparative theology aims to
be, is taken seriously, the possibility arises wherein the meaning of “Christ” and the meaning of
“salvation” are revised in light of new learning. The end of such a reconceptualization of Christ
and salvation may be a learning that is radically different from that promulgated by institutional
Christianity. The possibility of such a reconceptualization is what Aleaz speaks about in plural-
istic inclusivism. New comparative theology, as developed by Clooney, does not seem to purport
this.
Fourth, Clooney’s method is an interreligious textual method. Clooney’s textual method
as highlighted in the first and the current chapter is based on multiple religious belonging. In
other words, the thrust to read, study, and compare particular chosen texts springs from a deci-
sion that grows out of being at home in multiple religious traditions. Multiple religious belonging
is what leads to the adoption of certain texts to enrich one’s home theological tradition upon crit-
ical and commentarial analysis. Clooney’s approach leaves many questions unanswered. Schol-
ars like Homi Bhabha note that multiple religious belonging or hybridity has its roots in colonial-
ization where cultural identities became mixed.154 Hybridities, as Leela Gandhi has argued, can
be the result of power asymmetries as it is a process about more than mixing.155 It has its roots in
a colonial past where what was deemed useful was absorbed into the dominant culture. Thus it is
utilitarian and is about adoption and adaptation rather than a true mutual understanding. In the
use of texts from various geographies and cultures, Clooney seemingly employs a narrative
154 Bhabha. 155 Admittedly, there are a variety of arguments in this regard. Gyan Prakash argues that hybridity is the implosion of identities/dispersal of cultural wholeness into liminality and indecidability. The celebration of hybridity leads to cultural syncretism, mutuality, and pluralism and it undoes the dominance that is entailed in established norms. It is also counter-hegemonic. Yet, as power differentials are not referred to by Clooney, hybridity as a counter-hege-monic strategy does not apply in Clooney’s variant of new comparative theology particularly as the “new text” is used to amplify or clarify interpretation and the reading of one’s home theology. In other words, there is no mutual-ity in reading. Gyan Prakash, Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).
73
strategy that undermines dominant readings of texts in favor of a more permeable reading be-
cause texts are understood as mutually informing each other rather than reflecting a fixed posi-
tion. The root of this work is found in Edward Said’s critique of Eurocentric discourses that seek
to represent the “other,” in this case, various Hindu textual sources.156
Clooney may fall into the trap of homogenization. In adopting a textual approach for the
purpose of enriching one’s home theology, the question that needs to be raised is whether the
very texts that are analyzed have actually essentialized differences. While taking commentary
analysis seriously, Clooney does not raise the issue of power differentials that have the capacity
of taking on the mantle of representing and speaking for the other.157 Power differentials that re-
volve around the very adoption of texts for comparative study are not addressed either. Essen-
tially, the very selection of texts apart from their culture and life-world is a form of utilitarian-
ism. Texts are selected or evaluated on the basis of whether they are similar to concepts within
one’s home tradition. Moreover, in Clooney’s work, there is a lack of discussion about avoiding
a wholesale homogenization of texts into a totalizing framework.158
If narratives, by their nature, are dialogic in terms of an ever-evolving conversation be-
tween contexts, Clooney’s textual approach instrumentalizes narratives as scripts that provide
material for a tradition to either adopt or reject. This reduces the text/narrative as its value is de-
termined by what it can do to reform one’s home theology.159 It translates texts in a de-material-
ized way without a telos other than an internal conversation. Inter-religious dialogue, when un-
dertaken with the conditions described in the first chapter, not only provides a means to check
156 Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: First Vintage Books, 1994); Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1978). 157 Morris and Spivak. 158 Again, the work of R.S. Sugirtharajah on the coloniality of textual homogenization and reification is insightful. R.S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Reconfigurations: An Alternative Way of Reading the Bible and Doing Theology (St. Louis: Christian Board of Publication, 2003). 159 Chakrabarty, 113.
74
hegemonic or culturally imperialistic readings of tradition, but also promotes a way so that the
common good can be pursued.
75
CHAPTER 5
Pluralistic Inclusivism and New Comparative Theology in Conversation
5.1 Introduction
The previous chapters highlighted the theological contexts of Aleaz’s pluralistic inclusiv-
ism and Clooney’s new comparative theology. Both of these methodologies are inspired by
Advaita Vedanta, work within a confessional theological tradition while looking to engage with
another tradition, and offer a means of dealing with religious diversity. Pluralistic inclusivism, a
theology of religions approach, is grounded in the interaction of Advaita Vedanta and Christian-
ity with an aim to reform faith language in order to move differing religious communities toward
commonality. New comparative theology underscores that religions are different; yet, they can
learn and be enriched through the textual study of other faiths that leads to the reformation of
one’s home tradition.160
Aleaz’s relational convergence of religion, hermeneutics of context, and theological
reformation seems similar to Clooney’s multiple religious belonging, hermeneutics of particular
text, and theological reformation. The objective is to show that their seeming similarity masks a
deep difference relying on Robert Cummings Neville and Hugh Nicholson. To discuss ostensible
similarity, I employ a framework inspired by Neville thereby assisting in my demonstra-
tion prima facie resemblances between concepts. The causes for the differences are shown to in-
clude the following two: 1) their methodological genealogies and the context in which they both
evolved and 2) their application. Nicholson’s substantive analysis of new comparative theology
is used for a correlation of pluralistic inclusivism with new comparative theology. While
160 Hugh Nicholson, "The Reunification of Theology and Comparison in the New Comparative Theology," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 77, no. 3 (2009).
76
pluralistic inclusivism’s intention is a movement toward interreligious dialogue, new compara-
tive theology moves differently: its interest is in multiple religious belonging and its aim is the
celebration of difference. Nicholson’s studies on the origins of comparative indicate that new
comparative theology is in the vein of agonism’s emphasis on difference. In its focus on dialogi-
cal movement towards oneness, pluralistic inclusivism is similar to the principles of communitar-
ianism developed by Alisdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor. Altogether, the difference intimated
above between these two approaches is what we now proceed to unpack below.
5.2 Ostensible Similarity
Ostensible similarity as a comparative tool understands theology to be a journey into the
Ultimate. In comparing theological methods, it uses as springboards: metaphysics; sociological-
cultural pluralism; movement beyond intra-Christian dialogue; and reformation. Neville’s theol-
ogy of symbolic engagement reconstructs the value of metaphysics as the ground for any com-
parative analysis. I have previously alluded to the Western Christian tendency to define theology
as an intra-Christian analysis of doctrine.161 Neville, by contrast, underscores that an emphasis on
metaphysics allows for the explanation of how concepts in different religions relate to each
other.162
This metaphysical approach that emphasizes Truth as the ultimate value of theology is
different from Lindbeck’s experiential-expressivism. Neville asserts that the ultimate value of
theology lies in seeking Truth and that theology must move away from identity politics that is a
consequence of Lindbeck’s experiential-expressivism or a theology that focuses on interpreting
161 Robert Cummings Neville, On the Scope and Truth of Theology: Theology as Symbolic Engagement (New York: T&T Clark, 2006). 162 Ibid., 142-66.
77
Truth based on aposterori rites and grammar.163 The consequence of a grammarian-based ap-
proach that grounds theology in moral or community practice, as is the case with Lindbeck, leads
Neville to recover theology as a metaphysical practice. Such a metaphysical turn values theory
over certainty. The move from metaphysics to morality reduces the deeper reality or foundations
not only of Christianity but also of theology in general.164
Theology reconstructed on the basis of particular religious systems, results in affirming,
and asserting a particular religious identity. Consequently, there is a shift in the understanding of
theology from a faith seeking understanding to a mode of study that engages in intra-Christian
doctrinal occurred. Put another way, theology reconstructed on the basis of particular religious-
moral systems is reduced to defining and affirming a particular religious identity rather than
pointing towards ultimate Truth.
Neville’s sentiments give us a glimpse of this logic: I think of classic Christian liberalism as the attempt to modernize Biblical culture without serious hermeneutics, to reject foundationalist metaphysics as Kant said, without the pragmatic alternative of metaphysics as non-foundational hypothesis, to reject supernaturalism without semiotics that allows us to recover the classical symbols of the Bible and Christian traditions, and to redefine Christianity in moral terms that will simply not bear the weight of religious life and belief. It was liberalism that led to the situation where it is odd to seek for profound truth in the-ology, and in reaction stimulated the Christian identity theologies that seem to be asserting truth but in ultimately arbitrary ways.165
Symbols, though human inventions, connect us to reality and ultimacy and have a range
of possible meanings. Understanding the truth of symbols involves locating their historical and
social context and reflecting upon their range of meanings in one’s specific context. Theological
163 George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Post-Liberal Age (Philadelphia: West-minister Press, 1984). 164 Neville, 154-55. 165 Robert Cummings Neville, Realism in Religion: A Pragmatist's Perspective (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2010), 27.
78
engagement, understood in this way, is a movement toward a/the Higher Truth that is understood
within specific or particular historical, geographic, and cultural contexts. The pursuit of this
Higher Truth through metaphysics is balanced with an understanding that interprets these Higher
Truths within particular contexts.
Neville’s method of engagement makes three very precise moves. The first is the devel-
opment of categories that are specific about what aspects will be compared. The second is look-
ing at the range of semiotic interpretation within each tradition in relation to each other. This
move offers sites of phenomenological analysis: intrinsic representation where categories speak
on their own terms; perspectival representation wherein one analyzes how the represented phe-
nomena is seen from the other tradition; theoretical representation wherein conceptual structures
are analyzed; practical representation where the practical consequences of religious life are un-
derstood; and singularity wherein one analyzes the particular non-translatable phenomena in
each tradition being studied. The third means of comparative engagement is the actual side-by-
side analysis of the traditions being studied.166 Comparative engagement rests on the affirmation
that theology is metaphysical and symbolic engagement. It is sensitive to the fact that theories
and theological categories are provisional. There is an adoption of the fact that comparisons are
often vague. This sensitivity makes attempts at theological engagement that is faithful to the lan-
guage and philosophical worldview of the original or, in Clooney’s term, home tradition as well
as those who represent their respective religions in dialogue.
The language that Neville proposes is always referential and can be true or false relative
to the specific context in which it is being used.167 This is where interfaith dialogue engages in
the discovery of Truth. It offers the corrective of biases and the development of a constructive
166 Neville, 105-09. 167 Ibid., 133.
79
means to engage language and theological paradigms. Neville reminds us that the categories be-
ing compared must be vague enough so that an analysis of similarities and difference can actu-
ally take place.168
I use the phrase “ostensible similarity” to posit that Aleaz’s and Clooney’s theologies are
prima facie similar yet radically different. It allows for understanding similarities and differences
in their epistemological grounding and theological objectives. They will be analyzed on the basis
of what the end results or goals of their respective methods are. First, I evaluate the shared fea-
tures that make the condition of comparison possible. Second, I highlight the specifics of each
author’s methodological approach developed in the last two chapters. The final piece of this
comparison will be to discuss the applicability of each approach to interreligious engagement. I
posit that there are four segments that hold together the ostensible similarity of Aleaz and
Clooney: 1) metaphysics and pluralism as a foundational concern; 2) movement beyond intra-
Christian dialogue; 3) movement to reform theology; and 4) vagueness in understanding differ-
ences.
5.2.1 Metaphysics and Pluralism as Concerns
A theological method is, as Raimondo Panikkar states, a pilgrimage towards the Infi-
nite.169 The Infinite is analogous with Ultimate Concern (Neville),170 the Ground of Being (Til-
lich),171 or Brahman (Advaita Vedanta). Metaphysics refers to the overarching paradigm beyond,
but not necessarily exclusive of, perceived empirical realities. This approach understands the
168 Ibid., 106. 169 Raimundo Panikkar, The Rhythm of Being: The Gifford Lectures (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010), 12. 170 Robert Cummings Neville, Ultimates: Philosophical Theology, vol. 1 (Albany, NY: State University of New York, 2013). 171 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951-1963).
80
existence of “Mystery,” which transcends the physical while not seeking to reduce theology to a
discussion that reifies and essentializes dogma into doctrinal identity statements.
In a method that takes pluralism seriously, radical differences between cultures are a
given. And, to reduce such radical differences for the sake of uniformity is hegemonic. Con-
trastingly, in a theological approach that does not reduce difference, human perspectives are
based on socio-historical frames of reference. Moreover, there is an explicit understanding that
statements and perspectives are proximate and provisional based on such frames of reference.
Both Aleaz and Clooney are grounded in theology that moves beyond sociological and cultural
frames and points towards transcendence. Pointing towards transcendence allows us to see cul-
tural and religious plurality as both a lived reality and a moral good. Even with their methodo-
logical differences, sociological and cultural pluralism set the context from which Aleaz and
Clooney work. Particularly, they are influenced by study, reflection, and application of the inter-
section between their readings of Advaita Vedanta and their respective confessional traditions.
5.2.2 Movement beyond Intra-Christian Dialogue: Towards Reformation of Theology
The introduction of this thesis as well as this chapter alluded to theology as a discipline in
North America and Europe that has become a reduction to intra-Christian dialogue.172 Neville
intimates that such a reductionism has consequently led to the correlation of contemporary theol-
ogy with identity politics. Moving away from this reductionism, a project that understands the
roots of theology as an exploratory endeavor, is necessary to engage in a comparison of theologi-
cal methods. By the very nature and objective of their work, Aleaz and Clooney attempt to move
beyond the intra-Christian theological dimension and engage with theology as the systematic
172 Ward, 3-23.
81
study of God utilizing various religious and faith traditions through the use of texts from various
traditions.
Theological statements are proximate and contingent based on the particular context and
framework in which it is crafted. Neville renders the notion of proximity in the terms of sym-
bolic engagement and interpretation.173 Chapters three and four have already attended to Aleaz
and Clooney and their consistent attentiveness to the theological and philosophical contexts and
interpretive ranges between their use of respective streams in Christianity and classical Hindu-
ism.
5.2.3 Subtle Vagueness
The similarities between Aleaz and Clooney in general revolve around their metaphysical
grounding and desire to move theology from intra-Christian dialogue to the pursuit of Truth and
the reformation of theology. Yet, the similarities are subtle and vague. A close analysis of this
subtle-vagueness can lead to an understanding of differences. One specific difference is that
Aleaz works in more macro-terms, while Clooney is grounded in a particular or micro textual ap-
proach in the study of religious traditions. Their differing theological presuppositions and goals
stand as possible reasons for this gap.
In order to put into light ostensible similarities, I examine three conceptual steps within
Aleaz and Clooney. The first step exemplifies religious diversity. Aleaz calls it religious conver-
gence; Clooney calls it multiple religious belonging. The second step is interpretation, which is
understood to be hermeneutics of context by one and hermeneutics of texts by the other. The
173 Neville, 42-45.
82
third step is about the aims of each that allude to their goals of reforming or reframing one’s own
tradition. The three steps are illustrated by what follows.
5.3 Relational Convergence and Multiple Religious Belonging
Shaped by Vedanta that understands diversity to be the contextual appearance of the One
underlying Reality, Aleaz draws from a philosophical tool set in which the Paramartha, the Ulti-
mate, is One Reality that has many different expressions—Vyvahartha.174 Thus understood, reli-
gions are, at the level of phenomena, sociological systems that evolve according to contextual
grammar in order to explain the metaphysical or supernatural.175 All truths, religions, or concep-
tual schemes are names, forms, effects, and reflections of Brahman. One such instance of this
form is the historical Jesus.
Using the tools of Neo-Vedanta, he understands Jesus to be an example of the integration
of Brahman and Atman or the realization of Atman as Brahman. Jesus represents the convergence
of Brahman and Atman. Similarly, religions, though different at the phenomenal level, converge
at the noumenal level or Ultimate Reality.176 Thus, particular religions are understood to be ex-
pressions of the One Ultimate Reality that take on various shapes based on context. The move
that he makes is important because it distinguishes the sociology-history-cultural embeddedness
of religion from the essence of religion. Pluralism is the implicit understanding of the Oneness of
the Transcendent or making the claim of a fundamentally universal religious experience while
upholding the realty that such Oneness is understood differently across cultural-geographic-and
cultural lines.
174 Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 8. 175 Aleaz, Jesus in Neo-Vedanta: A Meeting of Hinduism and Christianity, 177-78. 176 Ibid.
83
Similarly, new comparative theologians, in addressing the underlying phenomena of reli-
gious diversity, speak of multiple religious belonging.177 A source of inspiration for multiple reli-
gious belonging is the work of postcolonial theorists. Clooney translates Homi K. Bhabha’s no-
tion that those in the diaspora are constantly negotiating between the values and norms of their
former homes and those of their current and settled homeland to understand a rootedness in one’s
settled religion while negotiating in the realm of another religious tradition.178 The implication of
this for religions is the adoption of identities that are fluid in order to negotiate between cultures
and norms. Such an adoption of fluid identities of multiple religions belonging is what theologi-
ans refer to as hybridity.
Hybridity implies a new transcultural form that arises from cross-cultural exchanges. It
can be social, political, linguistic, religious, etc. It is not necessarily a peaceful mixture, for it can
be contentious and disruptive in its experiences.179 Clooney seems to draw on hybridity with the
effect of engaging in new comparative theology as the recognition that the theologian is actually
part of a liminal religious community where there is a decrease in fixed (religious-doctrinal)
boundaries.180 The recognition of liminality occurs when the theologian-scholar practices deep
contemplation. Such contemplation is the attentive reading of traditions being compared. The
cross-fertilization of traditions, according to Clooney, leads to a new hybridity wherein simple
loyalties (to a particular tradition) become more difficult after we have engaged in a tradition.
However, one consequence of hybridity in the theoretical definition mentioned above is peaceful
mixture. New comparative theology celebrates the liminality of religious boundaries; yet, does
177 Devakala Premawardhana, "The Unremarkable Hybrid: Aloysius Pieris and the Redundancy of Multiple Reli-gious Belonging," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 46, no. 76-90 (2011). 178 Gregory C. Higgins, Wrestling with the Questions: An Introduction to Contemporary Theologies (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009). 179 “Key Terms in Post-Colonial Theory,” accessed April 26, 2017, http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/postcold.htm. 180 Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders, 13.
84
not describe nor truly foresee the erosion of such boundaries. The erosion of such boundaries
would ultimately be the total elimination of parochial or partisan religious identities.181
Both Aleaz and Clooney address and value religious diversity at the phenomenal level.
They also seek to engage religious diversity through tools of theology. While Aleaz underlines
diversity as phenomenological expressions of fundamental Oneness or rootedness at the noume-
nal level, Clooney takes a textual approach that seeks to highlight the particular diversity of reli-
gious traditions and through this particularization claims that individual theologians can achieve
the goal of multiple religious belonging as a means to grapple with religious diversity.
5.4 Hermeneutics of Context and Hermeneutics of Particular Texts
No interpretation can really occur without cross-fertilization and the philosophical en-
gagement of traditions. The way a particular phenomenon is perceived is a function of the philo-
sophical schema and context of the interpreter.
A second facet of pluralistic inclusivism is the decisive role that geographical and social-
cultural lenses play in deciphering the context of interpretation, as well as the transmission of
theological truth. The emphasis on hermeneutical context shapes how one sees and reads other
religious traditions. Aleaz considers one’s faith, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical tradition as shaping
how theologians engage in the interpretative process.182 For Aleaz, the faith-doctrinal-ecclesiasti-
cal tradition of the St. Thomas tradition interplays with Advaita Vedanta. Aleaz acknowledges
his indebtedness to the writing of Sankara to explain who Jesus is rather than reinterpreting San-
kara’s thoughts to explain Jesus.183 Such an incorporation of Sankara in reflecting on Christology
181 Ibid., 138. 182 Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 148. 183 Aleaz, The Relevance of Relation in Sankara's Advaita Vedanta, 90.
85
is a way of doing theology that moves beyond the traditional Western Christian mold of depend-
ing on Christian scripture and/or tradition. It is also an implicit recognition of theology that is al-
ways within a specific cultural context. Indian Christian theological methods (e.g., Dalit theolo-
gies, womanist theologies, Eco theologies, interreligious theologies, etc.) recognize that cultural
contexts have a formative impact on the way faith is expressed and lived.184 Western Christian
thinkers have inherited a cultural and philosophical context stemming from the classical Greek
tradition and its varied appropriation in the Roman Catholic streams of thought. Reason, under-
stood in Eurocentric terms, has a referent to apriori universal categories. For Indian Christian
theologians, however, reason is particularly shaped by cultural context. That enables Aleaz to
utilize Sankara in understanding who Jesus is, along with scripture and tradition.
Clooney and other comparative theologians closely read text to include research and anal-
ysis into the historical, cultural, and social background of the material being studied. Reflection
entails contemplating the meaning of the particular text and correlating this contemplation with a
text in one’s home tradition.185 The overarching goal of new comparative theology is one of rep-
resentation and internal transformation in how one interprets and engages one’s home theol-
ogy.186
To pull this material together, pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology
move beyond the traditional sources of Christian theology. They do so through the use of non-
Christian sources and their interpretative tradition to inform the scholar engaged in interreligious
theology. The emphasis for Aleaz is the hermeneutics of philosophical context while Clooney is
184 Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion: Study, Experience, and Interaction, 171. 185 The traditional theology of religions approach does not require engagement with particular texts for comparison but seeks to bridge “textual” differences and parallels through the fact that religions are socio-historical-cultural re-flections of transcendence. 186 Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders, 73.
86
engaged in interpretative analysis of particular texts. At the same time, both recognize their
grounding in their own home theology. Even with their ostensible similarity, pluralistic inclusiv-
ism focuses on social constructed reason as informed and engaged in context for dialogical pur-
poses, while new comparative theology approaches critical study through the individual eyes of
the scholar engaged in theological comparison.187
5.5 Theological Reformation and Reformation of Home Theology
The third similarity between Aleaz and Clooney is their desire for their home theology to
be transformed as a result of interreligious engagement. Advaita Vedanta and Christianity are
equally authentic, true and ultimate. Aleaz unpacks the Christian faith of his birth using the
framework of the Vedanta as a move towards theological reformation. By doing this, the essence
of Aleaz’s work comes to the fore. He writes, “to be pluralistically inclusive means that, on the
one hand, each living faith becomes pluralistic when other faiths contribute to its conceptual con-
tent, and, on the other, they become inclusive when faith is transformed through the contribu-
tions of other living faiths.”188 Pluralistic Inclusivism allows Christians to incorporate Advaitic
insights thereby making Christology more pluralistic and at the same time recognizing that
Advaitic insights can contribute to traditional understandings of Christology.
The culmination of new comparative theology is the internal transformation of one’s
home theology. Clooney believes that traditional interreligious dialogue is reductive as it is pred-
icated on fixed religious stances and boundaries.189 According to Clooney, the reductive nature
187 K.P. Aleaz, The Quest for Contextual Spirituality (Thiruvalla: Christiya Sahithya Samithy, 2007), 36; Clooney, Seeing through Texts: Doing Theology among the Srivaisnavas of South India. 188 K. P. Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham Papers and Other Essays, 1st ed. (Calcutta: Moumita Publishers & Distributors, 1998), 1. 189 Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders, 8.
87
of dialogue amounts to the categorization of religious traditions that disables mutual enrichment.
The goal of new comparative theology is the recognition that other faith traditions can assist in
clarifying or adding conceptual content to doctrinal claims and elucidate layers of philosophical
presuppositions that have rigidly fixed doctrinal content. From this recognition and elucidation,
the comparative theologian can present new learning that disabuses us of false ideas about the
other.190
New comparative theology offers a process of rethinking every theological tenet as it en-
ables one to move from gleaning mere information about a particular religious tradition to being
inspired and transformed by that tradition. Understood in another recognizable way, one’s home
tradition can have multiple locations and that it can and should change in light of the profound
truths found in other traditions. The overarching goal is one of representation and internal trans-
formation in how one interprets and engages in one’s home theology.
Although pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology speak of re-form as ensu-
ing from their methods, they are different approaches in the transformation of theological per-
spectives, for their presuppositions and goals are different. On one hand, pluralistic inclusivism
has its root in a dialogical approach and advocates dialogue as a theological enterprise. On the
other hand new comparative theology ends with the transformation of one’s home theology.191
The development of the latter as an interreligious theology does not seem to address relationships
beyond textual engagement between religions. This distinction is important and sets the context
for the final chapter to answer the question posed in chapter one that asked which method allows
for dialogical engagement.
190 Ibid., 138. 191 Aleaz, Jesus in Neo-Vedanta: A Meeting of Hinduism and Christianity, 192-200; Clooney, Comparative Theol-ogy: Deep Learning across Religious Borders; Clooney, The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation.
88
5.6 Convergence and Divergence
Aleaz understands the possibility for religious convergence as rooted in an a priori under-
standing that all religions are rooted in the Ultimate; yet, religions are distinct because of contex-
tual realities.192 Clooney does not begin with the reality of apriori oneness, nor does he describe
the end result of new comparative theology to be the elimination of difference that leads to the
convergence of religions. Both address the erosion of religious boundaries; yet the two are fun-
damentally different.
Our two theologians value hermeneutics as there is consensus about interpreting texts
based on context. While Clooney uses a localized approach in interpreting texts, Aleaz use a
meta-hermeneutical approach where general context rather than particularities are used to enrich
interpretation and dialogical engagement.193 Both address the impact of textual and dialogical en-
gagement in the reformulation of theology. Clooney writes about the reformation of one’s home
theology while Aleaz writes of transformation of faith.194 While there is no substantive or essen-
tial difference between the two beyond the terminology they use, a divergence in the methodo-
logical sources they use is evident. Aleaz is influenced by classical Indian philosophy that under-
scores the underlying unity of religions. Clooney, on the other hand, vis-à-vis the use of a post-
structural turn, adopts a stance of difference. Aleaz sees Advaita’s oneness as metanarrative;
Clooney decries against metanarratives and emphasizes the particularity of narratives.
Aleaz’s and Clooney’s methods, while using similar phrases and contours, are different.
Pluralistic inclusivism is a methodological response within Indian Christian theology and has as
its foreground the Christian interaction with Hinduism in colonial India. The concerns of
192 Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, 201-05. 193 Aleaz, Christian Thought through Advaita Vedanta, 92. Clooney, Theology after Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology, 4. 194 Aleaz, Christian Responses to Indian Philosophy, 45.
89
pluralistic inclusivism flow from the context of Indian Christianity and the need for religious har-
mony within the political, religious, and cultural diversity of India, as Christianity is a minority
religion. Transforming faith traditions occurs through dialogue and engaging in praxis. This
praxis is a result of interreligious conversation.
New comparative theology is a methodological response to religious pluralism within the
context of North America and has, as its foreground, the need for theological rethinking of con-
cepts in light of pluralistic realities. The relevance for dialogue in the North American context, or
to the context of the new comparative theology born in the academic circles of North America, is
important because faith/religion/systems of belief are in question! Further, given the browning of
America and the sociological and cultural realities of cultural migration, such a dialogue needs to
be expanded to reflect interreligious harmony. New comparative theology is about reforming
faith/tradition to become relevant in the postmodern age, and with pluralism as the new reality, it
is a means to translate particular traditions in a spiritual but not religious context.
The differences between the two have a direct implication on interreligious engagement
through dialogue. Dialogue based on convergence means that there is an implicit possibility of
moving towards common themes and entails the search for and excavation of general areas that
bring religions together. According to the transformation model of Clooney, textual engagement
involves enrichment and appropriation of various themes from religions in consonance with, or
with the ability to enrich, one’s home theology. Rather than moving towards dialogue on com-
mon themes, there is an emphasis on enriching individual religious identity in Clooney’s method.
It is on the divergence of dialogue toward oneness for Aleaz and textual engagement for the en-
richment of one’s home theological tradition for Clooney that I use Nicholson’s analysis. Such
an analysis correlates agonism with new comparative theology, thereby offering that
90
communitarianism can similarly be correlated with pluralistic inclusivism. My attempt will be to
offer similitudes between pluralistic inclusivism and communitarian pluralism, pointing towards
a possibility of the applied telos or end of interreligious dialogue. To engage the concepts of the
two methods that are ostensibly similar, I offer a genealogy through which each concept can be
understood.
5.7 Genealogy of Pluralistic Inclusivism
This section highlights the impact that different genealogies of pluralistic inclusivism and
new comparative theology have in terms of their respective starting points that lead to the devel-
opment of different goals.
Pluralistic inclusivism developed in the context of Asian theologies. Asian theologies de-
veloped as decidedly Christian theological reflections that took into account the distinctiveness
of Asian culture, the economic and social impact of colonialism, and the reality that Christianity
is not privileged as a system of religious belief in Asia. Thus, for Asian theologies, context and
theological models informed by liberation theologies contributed in shaping theological method-
ology. Asian theologies attempt to interpret Christianity in light of their particular contexts.
While they may be informed by what is called systematic theology in the Christian West, theol-
ogy is much more localized, and the systematic nature of theology is effected by more contextual
expressions of theology that includes a deep reflection of theology based on the distinct cultural
contexts in which it exists.
The particular context of pluralistic inclusivism as a method within the economy of Asian
theologies is that it is rooted in Indian Christian theology. Indian Christian theologies have arisen
as an indigenous attempt to deal with the religious multiplicity of India. The history trajectory on
91
Indian Christian Theology was shaped in three streams. The first or St. Thomas Christianity was
an interactive cultural engagement between culture and Christianity. It was described in detail in
chapter three.
The second stream was the urban, educated, upper-caste Hindus. West Bengal happened
to be a center for some of those reforms where Western colonial ideas began to interact with
Hinduism.195 Aleaz’s work stands in the direct lineage of Indian Christian theology. Robin Boyd,
in his seminal An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, suggests that the Indian context is
inherently non-dogmatic. The non-dogmatic nature of Hinduism lends itself to critically describe
Christianity as an authoritarian religion. While Jesus is accepted as a great religious teacher and
inspiring leader, perhaps even an incarnation of God, the creeds, confessions, and doctrinal state-
ments of the organized, institutional church are felt to be alien to the Indian religious and cultural
tradition, and in fact, to represent a somewhat low form of human religious development.196
Aleaz draws on classical Indian philosophy as a background for his theology. Deep listening,
embedded experience, critical thinking, and analogical thinking—are tools that Aleaz uses from
the Indian classical tradition.197 The intersectionality between classical Hinduism and Western
Christianity led to movements like the Brahmo Samaj and influenced such luminaries as
Rabindranath Tagore.
The third stream was that of predominantly illiterate lower-caste Indians who saw Chris-
tianity as a means of being liberated from the overarching caste structure. Making Christianity
indigenous and relevant became a significant concern of Indian Christians because Christianity
195 Robin Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology (Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2009), 18-39. 196 Boyd, 3. 197 This is rooted in Aleaz’s understanding of sruti, anubhava, and yukti. Aleaz, For a Christian Philosophy from India, 17-19.
92
was seen as an extension of Western socioeconomic colonialism.198 As an extension of imperial-
ism, it was also seen as foreign. If Christianity were to ever make an impact in India, it needed to
be understood and expressed in indigenous terms. The movement to indigenize Christianity was
a movement to engage in a deep dialogue between Christianity and dominant Hindu traditions
that focused on political theology and used the theme of “nation building” to understand Christi-
anity.
Aleaz critically appraises the reality that systematic theology formulated in the Christian
West cannot be authentically Indian. For this he relies on Vedantic rather than Greek thought.
Further, Aleaz understands telos of interreligious dialogue to be mutual recognition and the in-
digenization of a colonial religion with the possibility of interreligious understanding engage-
ment. 199 The colonial project brought Western Christian missionaries to interact with the local
population. 200 They ran the gamut from exclusivists to inclusivists in their engagement with the
theological and religious other. Yet, as a result of conversion Indian Christians began to reflect
and communicate theologically.
An emerging sense of anti-colonialism and the rise of Indian nationalism commingled
with their theological reflections. Hence theological and nationalist luminaries like Chakkarai
and Chenchiah201 utilized predominantly Brahmanic versions of Hinduism as conversation
198 M. M. Thomas, Religion and the Revolt of the Oppressed (Delhi: ISPCK, 1981); M. M. Thomas, Ideological Quest within Christian Commitment, 1939-1954, Indian Christian Thought Series No. 16 (Madras: Published for the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore, by the Christian Literary Society, 1983). 199 Aleaz, Theology of Religions: Birmingham Papers and Other Essays, 4. 200 Aleaz, Christian Thought through Advaita Vedanta, 40. 201 Robin Boyd’s text, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology as previously cited, explains much of Vengal Chakkarai and Pandipeddi Chenchiah’s theological perspective. They were influenced by the Christo Samaj move-ment of K.C. Banerjee in Calcutta. As part of the “Madras Re-thinking Group,” they sought to translate or in-digenize Western Christian theological concepts in interaction with classical Hindu thought. Their major contribu-tion came in the form of articles in journals like The Pilgrim and their work called Rethinking Christianity in India.
93
partners. Simultaneously, there was a group of Christian theologians led by P. D. Devanandan202
and M. M. Thomas that wanted a complete and liberative break from Hinduism. The third chap-
ter highlighted the influence of Upadhyaya on Aleaz’s appropriation of Vedanta. Upadhyaya’s
pluralism also came from a lineage of theological reflection predominantly based out of West
Bengal, which was a locus of Hindu-Christian engagement and interaction. They took nation
building as the predominant lens through which to reflect on theology.203
Pluralistic inclusivism as an indigenous theological method is a continuation of this na-
tion-building project. For it desires to make understandable that a foreign religion can become
adaptable for an Indian context of citizenship. Nevertheless, pluralistic inclusivism as a theologi-
cal methodology is concerned with the intersection between Christianity and Hinduism and uti-
lizes particular streams within both traditions in order to have such a conversation. The telos of
this is the reformation of faith or at least a substantive reworking of faith within the lived context
of India. Dialogue is aimed at creating religious harmony so that religions can enable people to
live with each other peacefully.204
5.8 Genealogy of New Comparative Theology
Hugh Nicholson and Reid Locklin have offered analysis that correlates new comparative
theology with trends in post-colonial theory and agonistic pluralism. Clooney’s use of difference
202 Paul David Devanandan, Nalini Devanandan, and M. M. Thomas, Preparation for Dialogue; A Collection of Es-says on Hinduism and Christianity in New India, Devanandan Memorial Volume, (Bangalore: Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, 1964); Paul David Devanandan, M. M. Thomas, and Committee for Literature on Social Concerns (Bangalore), Human Person, Society and State, Social Concerns Series (Bangalore: Committee for Literature on Social Concerns, 1957). 203 In the evolution of Indian Christian theologies, a searing criticism, coming from Dalit and subaltern theologies that much of the Indian Christian theological corpus was decidedly casteist in orientation, began to spread. Plural-istic inclusivism is rightly subjected to this criticism. Steeped in a perspective shaped by Syrian Orthodox Christian-ity and Advaita Vedanta, Aleaz develops pluralistic inclusivism. Both theological positions are those expressed by theologians who are relatively privileged in terms of social position. 204 Aleaz, The Relevance of Relation in Sankara's Advaita Vedanta, 92.
94
stands in line with the critics of theocentric pluralism. His criticism alleges that Hick and plural-
ists in his vein, through their method, essentialize and reify religions.205 This problem is rooted in
liberal theology’s attempt to combat the Enlightenment’s attempt to bar religious experience
from politics and culture. Nicholson alludes to this as an attempt to de-politicize religion.206 Lib-
eral theologians, namely those who found inspiration in Schleiermacher,207 sought to find a uni-
tary experience of religion whereby particular claims to religious access would be undercut.
Nineteenth-century comparative theology played an important part in the development of
new comparative theology. This progenitor was influenced by political developments as the
Christian West was confronting the “other” in its colonies. Religions were categorized as either
universal or national. One manifestation of such a systematization was the grouping of a variety
of local religions and systems of belief under the umbrella of Hinduism. This was not a far jump
to classifying it as a national religion compared to universal religions such as Christianity, Bud-
dhism, and Islam,208 for Hinduism was perceived as lacking the capacity to move beyond na-
tional-cultural boundaries. This perception augmented impetus to develop from comparative the-
ology what we know as comparative religion. It was intended to take a different trajectory by
disassociating itself from the explicit theological objectives of its parent. Simultaneously,
205 Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders, 6-13. 206 Hugh Nicholson, Comparative Theology and the Problem of Religious Rivalry, Reflection and Theory in the Study of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 207 Among his vast works, I principally refer to Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultures De-spisers, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Schleierma-cher argues for religion that is in the mode of feeling or holistic coherence. Rather than engage the European En-lightenment’s critique that discounts metaphysical knowledge as reality and reduces religion to morality, Schleier-macher argues for the impact of feeling in linking inner consciousness with the need for universal coherence. In his essay, “On the Social Element,” he argues that the true church will recognize such a feeling that leads all to be in universal brotherhood without establishing distinctions. One insightful essay for me is the introductory essay in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds., A Map of Twentieth Century Theology: Readings from Karl Barth to Radical Pluralism (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995), ix-11. 208 A good insight into this taxonomy is the work of Jonathan Z. Smith. Specifically, I refer to the chapters entitled “A Matter of Class: Taxonomies of Religions,” “Religion, Religions, Religious,” and “Differential Equations: On Constructing the Other” in Jonathan Z. Smith, Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion (Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 2004).
95
mission strategy began to evolve in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that eventually led
to the threefold missionary posture towards religious difference that we know as exclusivism, in-
clusivism, and pluralism.
This grouping reifies Hinduism thereby subjugating the diversity of the various schools
or aspects of this tradition.209 The notion of pluralism in Christian theology presumed that all
particularities are subsumed by the Real or through the lens of theo-centricity.210 This pluralism
is indelibly linked with the theology of religions approach. The theology of religions perspective
grew out of liberal universalism and thus is belabored by two significant problems. One is that it
tends to universalize religious experience and seeks a unitive experience that was primarily de-
fined by liberal Christian Protestantism, according to Nicholson. The other, is that it tends to ho-
mogenize and generalize the religious other. This is not unlike the nineteenth-century compara-
tive theological approach that grouped a variety of traditions under the umbrella of Hinduism.
Clooney differentiates himself from the theology of religions approach by focusing on
textual studies. He builds on George Lindbeck’s211 cultural-linguistic theory of religion that em-
phasized the role of beliefs, institutions, and practices of a particular community in shaping the
way its members experienced and understood the world. The departure from liberal theology is
based on weighing the effects of an a priori sense of religion that develops into a worldview as
religious practices shape world-views and experiences. By way of Lindbeck, religious practices
shape worldview and religious experiences, whereas in the theology of religions approach reli-
gious experiences are a priori. The consequence of this is that religions are seen to be molded
aposterori through the interplay of linguistic and cultural experiences for the new comparativists.
209 Wendy Doniger in The Hindus: An Alternative History offers a substantive analysis on the subject. 210 Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent. 211 See for reference footnote 151 on Lindbeck.
96
Lindbeck’s main thrust, which Clooney adopts, is to counter secular discourse that displaces reli-
gion as a metanarrative.212
Where Lindbeck and Clooney diverge is on the matter of the incommensurability of reli-
gious traditions. Lindbeck argues that Christianity, for example, is untranslatable. Clooney ar-
gues for a deeper Christian engagement that does not preclude translatability.213 The history of
Christianity also discounts Lindbeck’s arguments. Whether it be the variations of Christianity in
different parts of the world or the very debates over Christian meaning and interpretive methods
during the ecumenical councils of its nascent history, Christianity has been affected by the pro-
cess of social interaction and has become translated differently in varying contexts. Clooney rec-
ognizes Lindbeck’s primary weakness and moves towards an intertextual method that disassoci-
ates itself from the hegemony of Western Christian theology. The first step in this is recognizing
the religious resources outside of the classics of Christian faith and philosophy.
David Tracy’s work on the recognition of non-Western religious texts as classics pro-
vides a strong foundation for Clooney in this regard.214 Such a recognition that directly counters
the privileged status of Western academic resources and classics as the only valid source of
knowledge and insight lends itself to an intertextuality that is amenable to interreligious engage-
ment. This move to counter what Dipesh Chakrabarty refers to as the problem of asymmetric ig-
norance wherein non-western academics, because of the perceived validity of Western thought,
are forced to utilize and privilege Western academic resources to survive in academia is what
212 Clooney, Theology after Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology, 10. 213 Hugh Nicholson, "The Political Nature of Doctrine: A Critique of Lindbeck in Light of Recent Scholarship," The Heythrop Journal 48, no. 6 (2007). 214 I recommend the introductory essay by James L. Fredericks in Clooney, The New Comparative Theology: Inter-religious Insights from the Next Generation, along with David Tracy and John B. Cobb, Talking About God: Doing Theology in the Context of Modern Pluralism (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), 42-43; David Tracy, On Naming the Present: Reflections on God, Hermeneutics, and Church, Concilium Series (Maryknoll, NY; London, England: Orbis Books; SCM Press, 1994); Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Reli-gious Borders.
97
Clooney does through interreligious reading.215 An extension of Chakarabarty’s critique is that
Western academics feel no compulsion to refer to non-Western academic resources, as they are
not, for the most part, considered seminal academic resources that deserve recognition.216
Nicholson cites Kathryn Tanner’s substantive analysis of culture as a methodological in-
fluence on Clooney particularly as she posits that Christian identity is constituted by its relation-
ality.217 In other words, what constitutes Christianity changes as it encounters cultural norms.
The recognition that non-Christian/non-Western works can serve as sources of valid knowledge
and that Christian identity is contingent-relational allows Clooney to engage in an intertextual
study that is interreligious by nature. Nicholson notes, if the older comparative theology sought
to de-problematize Christian commitment through various metonymical rhetorical strategies, the
new comparative theology generally uses comparison to unsettle any complexity prevailing in
theological assumptions.218 When Clooney speaks of the transformation of one’s home tradition,
he draws on Tanner’s notion of relationality and the evolution of the identity of one’s home tra-
dition. Clooney envisions the effect of new comparative theology to be an evolution of one’s
home tradition through the enrichment of insights from other traditions.
Whether it is pluralistic inclusivism or new comparative theology, paths are determined
by the context in which they operate. An example of this is when pluralistic inclusivism, as a the-
ological solution to the minority status of Christianity in India, mediates between culture and the-
ological truth in a contextually sensitive manner. There is a deep tradition of Christian theologi-
cal interaction with Indian cultural elements and cross-appropriation among various traditions.
215 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 43. 216 That is one reason why theologies such as pluralistic inclusivism or liberation theologies are labeled contextual rather than as part of the corpus of Western Systematic theology. 217 Kathryn Tanner, Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1997), 82-85; Nicholson, Comparative Theology and the Problem of Religious Rivalry. 218 Hugh Nicholson, "Comparative Theology after Liberalism," Modern Theology 23, no. 22 (2007): 244.
98
Indian Christian theology is recognized as a legitimate theological enterprise even though Indian
Christianity is neither in the tradition of Western scholastic systematic theology nor necessarily
does it have the desire to reform systematic theology.
The attempts by Clooney, who is situated within Western academia, to utilize the textual
tradition of various streams of Hinduism to deal with the increasing diversity of Western system-
atic theology is the logical end of his project. The reform is predicated on the existing use of a
Western method of theologizing and adding of textual traditions from other religious traditions
as commentators of home theology. This has the consequence of expanding tradition to incorpo-
rate traditional texts from other religions where deep commentarial analysis finds that such tradi-
tions elucidate and/or amplify the doctrine being analyzed. This method ultimately leads to the
reformation of theology. However, reforming theology in the Western tradition is not a fluid pro-
cess. Reformation of theology requires institutional adoption of the sources of the reformation, as
well as the resulting reformation. The practicality of such reformation or the end of new compar-
ative theology has not been fully discussed in Clooney’s work. Yet, new comparative theology,
as a paradigm of exploration and theological-textual discourse, has a vital life in the academy but
not necessarily in the practical arena of the church or society.
Nicholson correlates Clooney’s method with agonistic pluralism. Similarly, Aleaz’s the-
ology, if related analogously, would have communitarianism as a correlate. Such a communitar-
ian pluralism works from the metanarrative of a hermeneutically grounded theological approach
that attempts to develop a common linguistic frame for the end or telos of interreligious dialogue.
This metanarrative is contained within the parameters of fixed identities. Understood in this way,
pluralistic inclusivism allows for the reformation of home theology without demanding the de-
mise of one’s identity. This reformation allows for religious interaction to occur through
99
dialogue that is about incorporating aspects of the “other” rather than the implicit dissipation of
one’s identity. New comparative theology is undergirded by the philosophical analysis that reli-
gions are in a state of evolving identities and once they interact with each other, they are able to
move away from their fixed doctrinal identities yet retain their distinct identity.
5.9 Communitarianism and Agonism as Analogues
As Nicholson’s poignant correlation between agonism and new comparative theology is
based on its centeredness on difference, communitarianism is linked with pluralistic inclusivism
as they desire to use dialogue to move towards a common understanding. The theological ap-
proaches taken by Aleaz and Clooney are analogues of the move within discussions of pluralism
between communitarianism and agonism respectively. It is important to underscore that there are
no self-contained methodologies. Methods are cross-influenced by a body of tradition, and a cor-
relation of theology with political philosophy is justified.
Communitarianism represents a stream of thought that values community over individu-
alism and socially grounded context for moral reasoning, over a priori reason. Like pluralistic in-
clusivism, it too is rooted in higher shared values of Truth understood through dialogue within
the context of community. While Aleaz does not explicitly utilize the work of political philoso-
phy or moral theology in his work, there are ways in which political philosophy intersects or can
be seen as amplifying his theological work. Aleaz implicitly understands that religions are not
atomistic and self-contained. Each religion is shaped by its context and incorporates elements
from this context. The emergence and expression of faith systems is always dialogical. At the
same time, religions have boundaries. These boundaries are constructed from historical and
100
contextually shaped markers that function as grammars through which religious identity is ex-
pressed.
Pluralistic inclusivism is a way in which identities become open to the richness and diver-
sity pointing towards the Ultimate Truth. Aleaz’s theology of pluralistic inclusivism can be seen
as a method that aims to be open to theological and religious change. Similar to communitarians
that understand individuals as constituted by community values, Aleaz understands religions to
be constituted by the interaction of philosophy and context. Both communitarians and Aleaz
value the dialogical process in helping to engage what is considered to be the other. While he
considers religious identities to be permeable with the potential to move towards oneness, com-
munitarians value a movement between disparate communities through dialogue.
As a method, pluralistic inclusivism is distinctly based on a dialogue between inherited
theological concepts and culture and is specifically based on the interaction between Christianity
and religions that are indigenous to South Asia. The importance of community in the functioning
of political life and in the creation of human identity and well-being is privileged over the notion
of individualism that undergirds political and classical liberalism. Communitarians understand
that individual identity is overwhelmingly constructed by culture and social relations. The call of
communitarianism is to engage beyond differences. In rooting his work in pluralistic inclusivism,
Aleaz points out that a metanarrative of the Ultimate exists through which religious identities
take shape. This value of community and dialogue stands in stark contrast with agonism and new
comparative theology.
Nicholson highlights that their argument that religious identity needs an ‘other’ and that it
is through relation and social interaction that identity is formed. Implicit for theorists who sub-
scribe to agonism is the acknowledgement of the contingent and the relational nature of
101
identity.219 Struggle or conflict is at the heart of agonism and is important in creating opposition
to aid the engagement as well as formation of identity. For theorists, not consensus formation but
cultivating of agonistic respect is a means of maintaining pluralism.
The agonistic perspective is shaped by the European Enlightenment’s emphasis on auton-
omous agency and instrumental reason. For William Connolly220 and Chantal Mouffe,221 the
identified agonistic theorists, difference is rooted in post-structuralism, which is a direct critique
of the hegemony of a priori universalism and its imposition on the individual moral agent.
Hence, we have here a conception of the person that is derived from an understanding of the
moral agent as an individual who needs to create identity apart from other autonomous human
beings. It views the other as someone who may be a threat to one’s identity. Such a conception of
the individual leads to conflict as the source of identity formation rather than an engaged dis-
course with the other whereby identity is formed through community interaction and discourse.
In New Comparative Theology, religions are seen as distinct and different. Because the sphere of
interaction is limited, identity is formed by clarifying one’s own religious identity in comparison
with the other. Thus, there is no need to engage the other in terms of dialogue. Rather, the other
is used as a means of clarifying one’s home religion’s theological perspective.
Pluralistic Inclusivism by its very nature is rooted in a conception that challenges the un-
derlying presuppositions of Enlightenment rationalism and autonomous agency. Aleaz moves to
critique the very epistemological foundations of Western Christianity by incorporating the
219 Nicholson draws on the concept of political agonism developed by Chantal Mouffe and William Connolly. 220 William E. Connolly, Identity\Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991); William E. Connolly, The Ethos of Pluralization (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne-sota Press, 1995); William E. Connolly, Samuel Allen Chambers, and Terrell Carver, William E. Connolly: Democ-racy, Pluralism & Political Theory, Routledge Innovators in Political Theory (New York: Routledge, 2007); David Campbell and Morton Schoolman, The New Pluralism: William Connolly and the Contemporary Global Condition (Durham: Duke University Press, 2008). 221 Chantal Mouffe, ed. Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community (London: Verso, 1992).
102
philosophical schema of Eastern Christianity and Advaita Vedanta. What Pluralistic Inclusivism
and moral theorists like Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor have in common is their critique
of the European Enlightenment tradition. For Aleaz, the tradition has led to the hegemony of a
Western lineage of Christianity that utilizes Eurocentric tools in self-understanding and self-re-
flection thereby relegating other religious traditions to be an “other” rather than a conversational
partner. MacIntyre has a different take; he criticizes the lack of a rational way of securing moral
agreement in the Western culture due to conceptual incommensurability evolved from personal
preferences and emotivism.222
Emotivism is the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more specifically all moral
judgments are nothing but expressions of preferences, expressions of attitude or feeling, insofar
as they are moral or evaluative in character.223 The effect of the European Enlightenment is what
Charles Taylor calls the primacy of instrumental reason wherein rationality centered on scientific
knowledge and construed through human rationality is celebrated with a deconstructed telos or
moral end. In other words, once society no longer has a sacred structure, once social arrange-
ments and modes of action are no longer grounded in the order of things or the will of God, they
are in a sense up for grabs.224
MacIntyre offers a return to the virtue ethics of Aristotle as the grounding for a founda-
tional narrative in dealing with moral quandaries thereby decrying the European-Enlightenment
period that evolved into a relativistic moral frame. Aleaz grounds his desire for interreligious en-
gagement based on the epistemological foundation of Advaita Vedanta. Both understand the de-
contextualized nature of engagement and offer a resounding perspective through which
222 Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 10-13. 223 Ibid., 11. 224 Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 5.
103
engagement occurs. They are rooted in a methodological grounding of understanding commonal-
ity and moving towards a dialogical center wherein identity is shaped in conversation through the
other. MacIntyre’s words are poignant here:
A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves to achieve instead––often not recognizing fully what they were doing––was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness…we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intel-lectual moral life can be sustained.225
In an age of global interreligious, cultural, and economic strife, a method that is based on
difference cannot significantly contribute toward a conversation around the common good. The
reality is that there are diverse religions. Yet, these religions according to the pluralistic inclusive
model are a cultural and geographical interpretation of Brahman. Engagement through dialogue
enables one tradition to better deal with the reality of diversity. In contradistinction to a method
that highlights difference, pluralistic inclusivism is apt at dealing with conflict. The telos of plu-
ralistic inclusivism, particularly in a context that sees religious conflict arise, is interreligious en-
gagement through dialogue.
As the Indian context provides a geographical and cultural platform for both pluralistic
inclusivism and new comparative theology, which method provides a more cohesive method in
addressing the problem of division in India? Can a model based on the goal of Oneness or one
based on difference build bridges towards one-nation or nationhood?
The Indian nation-state, according to Dipankar Gupta in a text entitled Culture, Space,
and the Nation-State: From Sentiment to Structure, is a society that aspires to embody the ethics
225 MacIntyre, 245.
104
of freedom, fraternity, and citizenship. And cultures, according to the text, are by definition hy-
brids, as they do not exhibit pure qualities or grammatically consistent elaborations and estab-
lished on the basis of root metaphors.226 As the dominant metaphors, freedom, fraternity, and cit-
izenship give rise to other metaphors that aid in creating membership boundaries within a partic-
ular geographic-territorial state. In other words, territory-geography affects the manner in which
root metaphors are understood. Gupta argues for the advancement of a Root Metaphor centered
on the “Good Life, ” as formulated through the guise of law, democratic participation, and moral
consensus. Thus, this conception of the nation-state is clearly different from one that is a con-
glomerate of ethnicities.
In briefly addressing subaltern concerns, Gupta argues that civil society and the develop-
ment of rational-intermediary institutions through the state that promote the ethics of freedom
can fight against oppression.227 Civil Society offers the conditions of fraternity for the nation-
state to develop policies that enable her citizens to move towards the “good life.”
Gupta argues that India’s root metaphor is centered on anti-colonialism. This root meta-
phor acts as a cohesive agent. Gupta argues that differences are not a good or value in and of
themselves. In fact, increasing difference at the cost of the nation-state metaphor leads to de-
stroying the national fabric. He further notes that diversity is only positive if there is no conflict
with the root metaphors of the nation-state. Implicit within228 his understanding of the nation-
state as the locus of civil society’s engagement with fraternity, Gupta argues that differences and
diversity are hindrances to the notions and goals of the “good life.” The actualization of the good
226 Dipankar Gupta, Culture, Space, and the Nation-State: From Sentiment to Structure. (New Delhi: Sage Publica-tions, 2000), 31. 227 Ibid., 181. 228 Ibid.
105
life is located within the collective good of society. This collective good is understood through
democratic participation and freedom.
Similarly, pluralistic inclusivism has its root metaphor, namely, One-ness (Brahma), and
sees religions as cultural interpretations of the One. In order to engage in a discourse and under-
stand Truth, there needs to be a rootedness that moves away from understanding Christianity as
distinct from classical Hinduism while absorbing a dialogical model that strives towards contex-
tualizing one’s own religion in light of the other. Such a movement leads to a collective develop-
ment of engaging conversations around creating the common good for all people in India, re-
gardless of caste, religion, and creed while at the same time celebrating individual diversity. On
the other hand, if difference were celebrated as in a model analogous to new comparative theol-
ogy, religious interaction would lead to a nuanced clarification of one’s home tradition and per-
haps some transformative truth. Such a truth would not necessarily translate into engaging the
other as new comparative theology solely focuses on transformation of one’s home tradition and
not with dialoging with the other.
5.10 Summary and Remarks
This chapter compares pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology and argued
that the two methodologies are ostensibly similar. That is, they have meta-similarities, referred to
as ostensible similarity; but, when both their premises and ends are examined, they are quite dif-
ferent. Aleaz and Clooney advance the need for religions to be in conversation; understand the
need for interpretation in digging deeper into the meaning of texts; and posit reformation as a re-
sult of inter-religious engagement. Yet, the fundamental divergence between the two is at the
level of their respective goals.
106
Aleaz emphasizes a theology of Oneness. All truths, religions, or conceptual schemes are
names, forms, effects, and reflections of Brahman. Similarly, religions though different at the
phenomenal level converge at the noumenal level or Ultimate Reality. Thus, particular religions
are understood to be expressions of the One Ultimate Reality that take on various shapes based
on context. The move that he makes is important because Aleaz is quite explicitly distinguishing
the sociology-history-cultural embeddedness of religion from the essence of religion. Pluralism,
for Aleaz, is the implicit understanding of the Oneness of the Transcendent by making the claim
of the fundamental universality of religion while upholding the realty that such Oneness is under-
stood differently across cultural-geographic-and cultural lines. A methodological differentiation
between Hick’s propensity to totalize and homogenize religions versus Aleaz’s adhikarabedha
or diversity as part and parcel of Reality, was offered in chapter two. Aleaz influenced by Pan-
ikkar and Upadhyaya does not subsume differences. Pluralistic inclusivism aims to move to-
wards a theology that acknowledges diversity as a fundamental reality of different geographic,
cultural, and linguistic contexts. Religions are different colors of the rainbow dispersed through
the same light. Interreligious dialogue aims at bridging differences so that the colors are not com-
peting with each other but acknowledge their particularity and common rootedness. In this way,
it has an analogue with communitarianism.
By contrast, Clooney asserts that new comparative theology is not an attempt to achieve
consensus by sweeping aside major doctrinal discrepancies between traditions nor even to see
analogues wherein complementarities or differences between religions are analyzed. In this way,
Clooney’s new comparative theology is not interreligious dialogue as movement towards the
common good of realized moral fruits or ends. Rather, it focuses on difference and does not seek
to bridge these theological differences. Analogically, it is on par with agonism. As a theological
107
endeavor, Clooney emphasizes a strong commitment to one’s home theology before embarking
on a journey into another faith tradition. New comparative theology analogously is about culti-
vating a sense of contingency and evolution through correction and enrichment. The textual na-
ture of Clooney’s engagement has the danger of leading to theological-ethical solipsism if left
unchecked. Tracy Tiemeir in an essay entitled “Comparative Theology as a Theology of Libera-
tion” raises the question of whether New Comparative Theology is responsive to the cultural,
multi-religious, and social contexts within which the religions being compared inhabit and
whether it plunders the riches of other religions to enrich Christianity.229 Clooney responds to
this question by referring to his method. New Comparative Theology is essentially a co-opera-
tive endeavor engaged in communities of learning. The aim of these communities of learning is
to be consistently open to the value of co-operation and engaging truth through self-correction.
Clooney states: we have to make choices about where to try hardest for self-correction, since
there is no end to the broadening, corrective process, and we need also to be concerned about
race, literacy and orality, economic status, and how different religions need to be treated differ-
ently.230 While Clooney has not directly engaged questions about justice in his methodology, his
work has set the stage for other comparative theologians to think critically about these issues.231
229 Tracy Sayuki Tiemeier, "Comparative Theology as a Theology of Liberation," in The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, ed. Francis X. Clooney (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 129. 230 Francis X. Clooney, The New Comparative Theology : Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation (London ; New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 197. 231 Along with Tiemeir, among those who have opened Clooney’s New Comparative Theology to questions about comparative conceptions of justice are Michelle Voss Roberts and Anantanand Rambachan. Michelle Voss Roberts, "Gendering Comparative Theology," in The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, ed. Francis X. Clooney (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 109-28. Rambachan maps his scholarship as a comparative theology whose primary conversation is between Advaita Vedanta and other religious traditions. While he is trained in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, he seeks to engage in dialogue that move towards justice. A Hindu Theology of Liberation is the result of a conversation between Advaita Vedanta and a Christian theology of libera-tion which is rooted in a commitment to the preferential option for the poor as well as a comprehensive understand-ing of the meaning of liberation/salvation that shifts the emphasis from postmortem existence to the quality of exist-ence in this life. Anantanand Rambachan, A Hindu Theology of Liberation: Not-Two Is Not One, Suny Series in Religious Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2015).
108
Clooney’s method is decidedly textual. In this way, pluralistic inclusivism can add a needed di-
mension in conversation with Clooney’s new comparative theology for engaging issues of justice
and the common good. As a communicative bridge, pluralistic inclusivism offers a theological
model that can offer a framework through which resolutions between those who assert compet-
ing truth claims for it focuses on oneness. Dipankar Gupta suggested that focusing on a move-
ment towards the common good could serve as a means where competing identities can realize
such Oneness.
109
CHAPTER 6
Pluralistic Inclusivism’s Telos and the Anglican Sensibility
6.1 Introduction
Although Christianity continues to be a dominant theological influence, the United
States232 is witnessing an age of increasing religious intolerance. To counter that increase, a
lively option is to have a theological methodology that works towards creating the common good
by promoting interreligious engagement in order to have at least a semblance of religious har-
mony.
There are ostensible similarities between pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative
theology; yet, the most telling differences are in their purpose or telos. That difference accounts
for differing social visions. One celebrates non-duality and convergence while the other cele-
brates a recognition of and engagement with difference. Non-duality can take many shapes and
forms. The foregoing five chapters alluded to the relevance of interreligious dialogue. It is more
of a value in Aleaz and, not so much in Clooney. Pluralistic inclusivism offers the means and
method to build communicative bridges.
6.2 The Anglican Sensibility
For the purpose of this dissertation, I draw on an Anglican theological sensibility in the
engagement of other religions. Peter Slater correctly alludes that the reason why interfaith issues
are important in Anglicanism is because there are more Anglicans outside Europe and North
232 The variant of Christian theology is certainly debatable.
110
America in a multi-religious milieu than in those regions rife with a Western Christian theologi-
cal heritage.233
One emphasis on the Anglican model is the blending of contemplation with praxis. An-
other is its hesitance to judge the salvific nature of other religious traditions, which will be dis-
cussed in this chapter. Anglican theological understanding is the blending of theory, which in
this case is ecclesiastical reflection, based on scripture, reason, and tradition, with praxis or ac-
tion.
Working in the crosscurrents of contemplation and praxis, interreligious dialogue and co-
operation is a value through which Anglicans have lived out their Christian commitment. The
movement manifests itself in advocating for the common good. The theology of creating the
common good is a unifying vision based on interreligious engagement and dialogue in achieving
a just economic and social vision.
Alan Coates Bouquet, an Anglican scholar-priest in the area of the philosophy of religion,
makes a distinction between an Anglican and Protestant approach towards other religions. He de-
bunks the over emphasis of Christianity’s peculiarity.234 Instead, he argues that it is the patristic
period that is the proper reference point for Christian theological engagement with other cul-
tures––lived in close proximity to non-Christians with an openness to the truth of the other phi-
losophies by substantively working through the Logos doctrine taken from Justin Martyr.235
F.D. Maurice, influencing Bouquet, straddles two particular identities in his approach to
different religions. His Unitarian background opens him to appreciating insights from various
233 Peter Slater, "An Anglican Perspective on Our Interreligious Situation," in Grounds for Understanding: Ecumen-ical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 138. 234 Alan Coates Bouquet, Should Christianity Be Exclusive? (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1963), 20. 235 Ibid., 12-15.
111
religious and spiritual traditions insofar as accepting the fatherhood of God and the dignity of the
human race; yet it is filtered through his vocation as an Anglican cleric who stands in a Christo-
logical tradition that is centered on emphasizing the Logos-incarnation tradition in the gospel ac-
cording to St. John.236 Maurice, however, resisted the classification of religions and preferred di-
alogue as a way of engagement, displaying a kind of intersubjective sensibility in arguing that a
dialogue partner will not be intelligible if instead of listening to him and sympathizing with him,
you determine to classify him.237 Maurice’s concern for humanity and acknowledgement of di-
versity translates to a dialogical approach.238 Such a theological approach is found, according to
Peter Slater, in Anglicanism’s standing within the universal Christian tradition of understanding
the mind of the church through the first four ecumenical councils.
According to Slater, “the result of being in the common mind of the church was a gener-
ally Logos Christology and Neoplatonic orientation to finding glimpses of eternity in the faith of
others. Anglican divines were confident that we may know, or are known by, absolute truth,
without confusing this with provisional statements intended to warn us against untruth such as
the Chalcedonian definitions.”239
The dialogical method, although rooted in the pursuit of finding glimpses in the eternity
of others, has been expressed in the pursuit of advocating for the justice and humanity of all.
236 David Young, F.D. Maurice and Unitarianism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). 237 Marion Grau, Rethinking Mission in the Postcolony: Salvation, Society, and Subversion (New York: T&T Clark International, 2011). 238 For a more substantive examination of F.D. Maurice’s thought, I highly recommend two particular works. The first, “Universal Morality: Demand in the Newest Circumstances for a Divine Ground of Human Life and Morality,” known as Lecture 20, and in The Religions of the World and Their Relations to Christianity. In the latter, there is an engagement with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism that is Orientalist and decidedly marked by Christian fulfillment theology. Frederick Denison Maurice, Social Morality (London: Macmillian and Company, 1869), 371-96; Freder-ick Denison Maurice, The Religions of the World and Their Relations to Christianity, 3rd ed. (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1854). 239 Slater, in Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, 140.
112
Whether it is the dialogical and friendship experiences of Charles Freer Andrews;240 ecumenical
and missionary efforts of Leslie Newbigin;241 or Indian liberative model of Stanley Samartha;242
interreligious engagement has focused on fighting dehumanization and an engagement of what
Richard Hooker understands to be the common good.
240 Charles Freer Andrews, similar to Allan Bouquet, was shaped by the F.D. Maurice and Bishop Westcott’s incar-national theology centered on the Gospel of John, as well as the relationship of Christianity to the liberation of, and justice for, all humans. According to Eric J. Sharpe, shocked by the racism that he found in British India, Andrews sought out friendships with Indians and immersed himself in the study of Hindu and Buddhist traditions and litera-ture. In Biographical Dictionary of Christian Missions, Andrews is known as deenabandhu or friend of the poor. His dialogical approach was rooted in friendship. Susan Visvanathan in Friendship, Interiority and Mysticism com-ments that for Andrews the art of dialogue lay in accepting the rules of friendship as the basis of human existence (page 67.) Andrews’ engagement in friendship and dialogue was centered on a correlation between logos Christian theology, incarnation, and a Christian interpretation of Advaita Vedanta that revolves around the understanding that “Father and I (Jesus) are one.” He writes in Christ in the Silence that while “the wrappings of mere ecclesiasticism and conventional Christianity were falling off,” he felt closer to Christ (page 76.) This closeness to Christ was re-flected not only in his friendships with Gandhi, Tagore, and Sadhu Sundar Singh, but also in his mission of love and service striving for the liberation of the oppressed. For more details the following texts are helpful: Charles Freer Andrews, A Bunch of Letters to Rabindranath Tagore and M.K. Gandhi (Calcutta: Deenbandhu Andrews Centenary Committee, 1931); Charles Freer Andrews, Mahatma Gandhi's Ideas, Including Selections from His Writings (Lon-don: George Allen and Unwin, 1931); Charles Freer Andrews, Sadhu Sundar Singh: A Personal Memoir (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934); Kim Comer, ed. Wisdom of the Sadhu: Teachings of Sundar Singh (East Sussex: Plough Publishing House, 2000). 241 While Leslie Newbigin is decidedly not a pluralist, as an ecumenist, bishop, and theologian in the Church of South India and later the Church of England, his contributions to a dialogical approach of Anglicanism is immense. He is fundamentally critical of the European Enlightenment’s legacy as: the cause of dualism which later contributes to the dualism between theory and praxis wherein there is a privatization of faith vis a vis Schleiermacher’s wherein religion became a private sentiment or feeling over a universal standpoint from which to develop values; the extolla-tion of science as objective fact to the detriment of a Christian worldview that has been relegated by postmodern society to the sphere of the private; and the debunking of a teleological vision of the world. For a more sustained reading, I commend: Leslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986); Leslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989). For a concise summary, I suggest Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003). 242 Stanley J. Samartha was a priest-theologian of the Church of South India in the Anglican Communion. He advo-cated for a Theocentric pluralism rooted in a hermeneutical understanding Jesus Christ. This stems from his critique of Christianity’s ties with the legacy of European colonialism. His advocacy of religious pluralism is centered on the need to take into account the larger political and economic struggles of those who are oppressed. In his seminal work, One Christ-Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology, Samartha writes: “The rejection of religious plu-ralism, the refusal to recognize that neighbors of other faiths in the world live by their own cherished beliefs and values, is a more serious form of injustice than the merely economic (page 2). He calls for a parity in interreligious relationships centered on liberation as to affirm plurality is one way of fighting against this (hegemonic) tendency. Religious pluralism thus provides resources for the survival of peoples and nations against forces that openly or cov-ertly seek to impose uniformity on a pluralist world (page 3). S. J. Samartha, One Christ, Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology, Faith Meets Faith. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991).
113
The Anglican sentiment of advocating for the common good derives from Hooker and, by
virtue of Hooker’s adaptation, ultimately Aquinas.243 Drawing from Aristotle’s Nicomachean244
Ethics and Politics, Aquinas advocates for the common good as a reflection of the functioning
principle of law in the complete or perfect community.245 The common interest is the goal of
governance and yet it is intended that such a common interest leads to the formation of the com-
mon good embedded in virtue.246 To be human, for Aquinas, is to be active in community. Any
sort of separation from community is subhuman for Aquinas. Understood in this way, the good
of any virtue, whether such virtue directs man in relation to himself or in relation to certain other
individual person, is referred to as the common good.247 On the basis of the Aristotelian notion
that the good is what all desire, the telos of the community is a life that lives out the virtues. Ac-
cording to John Goyette’s commentary on Aquinas: the common good is a single end pursued or
enjoyed by many without being diminished.248 For Aquinas, the common good revolves around
the pursuit of a common end that allows humanity to flourish and allows such a flourishing to
make possible the ordering of men towards virtue of prudence, justice, temperance, and
243 For additional reading on this, I commend the following: Charles Miller, Richard Hooker and the Vision of God: Exploring the Origins of 'Anglicanism' (London: James Clarke & Co Ltd, 2013); Torrance W.J. Kirby, "Richard Hooker's Discourse on Natural Law in the Context of the Magisterial Reformation," Animus, no. 3 (1998); Arthur Stephen McGrade, ed. Richard Hooker and the Construction of Christian Community (Tempe, AZ: Arizona Board of Regents, 1997); Douglas W. Kmiec, "The Human Nature of Freedom and Identity––We Hold More Than Ran-dom Thoughts," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 29, no. 3 (2005); Edward J. Furton, "Richard Hooker as Source of the Founding Principles of American Natural Law" in The Failure of Modernism: The Cartesian Legacy and Contemporary Pluralism, ed. Brendan Sweetman (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999). 244 It is inherently problematic that the common good was seen as only for citizens, thereby excluding non-citizens who were women, slaves, and manual laborers for Aristotle is not addressed as I, in the tradition of most commenta-tors of Aquinas, am merely pointing to the influence of Aristotle on Aquinas. 245 Aquinas is drawing from and contributing his theological and philosophical analysis on the common good and civil society as an expansion of Augustine of Hippo’s City of God. De Regno, I, 15-16. 246 Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theological of Thomas Aquinas, vol. I-11, q.90. a.2. 247 Ibid., II, q.58. 248 John Goyette, "On the Transcendence of the Political Common Good: Aquinas Versus the New Natural Law Theory," National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 13, no. 1 (2013).
114
courage.249 It is this understanding of the common good to which engagement is sought by
Hooker and Anglican priest-scholars.
An Anglican theological approach is similar to pluralistic inclusivism because of its non-
duality in terms of interreligious conversation and creating the common good. Further, the Angli-
can approach does its work within a pluralistic cultural and philosophical milieu while retaining
its particularity. It is grounded in scripture, and uses reason and tradition as the basis for engag-
ing in substantive analysis. It is grounded also in particularity, yet has a deep respect and open-
ness to pluralism. It seeks to move from contemplation to praxis and vice versa by using the con-
cepts of incarnation and contextuality in order to relay a theology of engagement that advocates
for the common good. The notion of creating the common good is derived from Anglican’s ad-
vocacy for justice via Aquinas and Aristotle. When it comes to interfaith engagement, the Angli-
can theological approach has evolved from colonial missiology and has moved toward attempt-
ing to engage other religious faiths on their terms.250
The context of contemporary Anglican’s interest in interreligious relations is the result of
coming to terms with several factors: its colonial past; its involvement with the World Parliament
of Religions; the ecumenical movement, starting with the Edinburgh missionary conference in
1910 through the development of the World Council of Churches; as well as the Nostra Aetate
declaration issued by the Roman Catholic Church as a result of Vatican II. The 1998 Lambeth
Conference provided the impetus for Anglicans to more deeply engage in dialogue with people
of other faiths as a mark of Christian discipleship. Anglican theology has been described as an
249 Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theological of Thomas Aquinas, vol. Ia, IIae 55.4, 61.2. 250 The Network for Interfaith Concerns of the Anglican Communion notes, “In parts of our Communion, mission work was historically associated with Western political and economic expansion and memories of that can still shape current perceptions. In every context, whatever its historical background and current pressures, we face the challenge of discerning the loving purposes of God within the religious plurality of humankind.” Anglican Com-munion Network for Interfaith Concerns, Generous Love: The Truth of the Gospel and the Call to Dialogue—An Anglican Theology of Interfaith Relations (Canterbury: Anglican Consultative Council, 2008), 3.
115
incarnational, kenotic theology251 in which God identifies with human suffering. This should en-
able Anglicans to identify with those on the socio-cultural and economic margins of society. In
Embassy, Hospitality and Dialogue, Anglican theologian Michael Nazir-Ali notes:
We have seen already that it is quite possible to acknowledge that God has re-vealed Himself in the natural world (Acts 14:17), in people’s consciences (Ro-mans 2:15) and even in their religiosity, however far removed that may seem from a Judeo-Christian point of view (Acts 17:22–31.) At the same time, it is also pos-sible to hold that we recognize God’s revelation in these other ways precisely be-cause He has revealed himself definitively in the call, the liberation and history of His chosen people and, supremely, of course, in the living, the dying and the ris-ing again of Jesus of Nazareth. This history of God’s judgement, as well as of His salvation, is the canon or the touchstone by which we are able to recognize God’s revelation in other ways.252
Dialogue, as deduced from Nazir-Ali’s sensibilities above, is about growth in trust and
the understanding of faith and traditions.253 The General Convention of The Episcopal Church, a
constituent member of the Anglican Communion, states “professing salvation in Christ is not a
matter of competing with other religious traditions in order to convert one another.254 Each tradi-
tion brings its own understanding of the goal of human life to the interreligious conversation.
Christians bring their particular profession of confidence in God’s intentions as they are seen in
and through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”255
Jenny Daggers, an Anglican postcolonial feminist scholar, proposes a revised particular-
istic theology of religions along the sensibilities offered by Nazir-Ali and the rest of the com-
munion. The aim is to respect the integrity of Christianity and of other religious traditions.
251 This is decidedly a liberal Anglo-Catholic notion centered on the collection of essays by Anglican divines in Charles A. Gore, ed. Lux Mundi: A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation, 10th ed. (London: John Mur-ray, 1954); Michael Ramsay, An Era in Anglican Theology: From Gore to Temple. The Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War, 1889–1939 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1960). 252 Michael Nazir-Ali, Embassy, Hospitality and Dialogue: Christians and People of Other Faiths (Lambeth: Net-work for Interfaith Concerns of the Anglican Communion, 1997), 12. 253 The Episcopal Church General Convention, 11. 254 Ibid., 12. 255 The Episcopal Church General Convention, 12.
116
Daggers critically examining the notion that different faith traditions are mutually complemen-
tary, acknowledges that such a space is opened through pluralism.256 She takes each religion on
its own merits by critiquing what she labels to be European cosmopolitan “white mythology.”
Such a mythology mistakes its own metaphysics for a universal form, thereby allowing Euro-
American Christian theology to consider itself entitled to sit in judgment of the religions of the
extra-European world.257
The particularity that Daggers takes resonates with pluralistic inclusivism. Daggers un-
derstands that the philosophical-theological moorings of each distinct context shapes the particu-
lar tradition’s view of faith. She cites the Asian theology of religions approach as an example of
a deeply contextual engagement with the question of diversity. While a Euro-American pluralist
theology of religions was innovative in valuing religious diversity, it perpetuated a Eurocentric
universalizing logic. Daggers offers an interesting commentary for this. By way of example, she
argues that by reading religious plurality in Asian terms, Asian theologians open new possibili-
ties to the longstanding notion of Christianity as the one true faith, although beset by error, which
are pertinent for a re-centered Christian theology that is disentangling itself from Eurocen-
trism.258 Similarly, Daggers’s pluralist and particularistic approach is firmly rooted in the integ-
rity of the Christian tradition and faith, yet open to its transformation in light of other traditions.
What she proposes is a transformation that pursues a conception of justice rooted in socioeco-
nomic liberation.259
256 Jenny Daggers, Postcolonial Theology of Religions: Particularity and Pluralism in World Christianity (Abing-don: Routledge, 2013), 1–9. 257 Ibid., 29. 258 Ibid., 154. 259 Ibid., 176–178, 206–208.
117
A correlative discussion of pluralistic inclusivism and Anglican theological sentiments
offers a fruitful interaction. Both approaches are relational and value dialogue while advocating
for a transformation of understanding through new insights. Pluralistic inclusivism and Anglican
theological methodology share the goals of dialogue and transformation. Pluralistic inclusivism,
as a theological method rooted in South Asian, can influence Anglican theology, which is influ-
enced by a theology of incarnation, and strive towards a method that furthers mutual understand-
ing in the pursuit of dialogue in enabling religions to envision and live into the common good.
6.3 Summary and Remarks
This chapter has offered an existing Christian theological sensibility that is consonant
with a pluralistic inclusive approach in validating religious diversity through interreligious en-
gagement at a theoretical level and in terms of moving towards creating the common good. Un-
dergirding this chapter is the belief that interreligious dialogue is the seed that produces the fruit
of engagement that leads to the common good. This chapter did not offer an explanation as to
what constitutes the common good; different definitions of what constitutes the common good
may exist within each particular tradition. Pluralistic inclusivism can help facilitate the conversa-
tion as to what constitutes the common good or justice, as it is a theological paradigm that is
shaped through conversation and the application of that conversation. As a theological model,
based on inward transformation, new comparative theology is not necessarily in a position to ad-
vance interreligious conversation that strives towards engaged action.
Pluralistic inclusivism is fundamentally a non-dualistic model that seeks the reformation
of theology through interreligious engagement and movement towards a common understanding.
An example of a theological paradigm that emphasizes theological engagement and action in a
118
non-dualistic relationship was highlighted by offering the potential for a contemporary Anglican
theological paradigm that seeks a non-dualistic approach between theory and praxis and an
Advaita Vedantic approach to understanding concrete matters of justice.
119
Concluding Remarks
This dissertation argued for pluralistic inclusivism as a theological method that is rooted
in interreligious dialogue. It did so by putting K. P. Aleaz’s pluralistic inclusivism, a relatively
unknown position in North American academic circles, in conversation with Clooney’s new
comparative theology, which has received increasing attention in the American Academy of Re-
ligion. The two share certain commonalities, yet when analyzed from the perspective of their
methodological presuppositions and teleology, they remain quite dissimilar. While new compara-
tive theology focuses on the internal transformation of one’s own theological tradition, pluralistic
inclusivism offers a theological methodology centered on bridging religious differences through
the development of a communicative framework.
In six chapters, the argument for pluralistic inclusivism was delivered. The first two
chapters introduced the subject and provided a roadmap of the methodology and questions in-
volved in developing this dissertation. In the third chapter I discussed and highlighted pluralistic
inclusivism as a method that challenges the North American and Eurocentric dominance of
Christian theology by its focus on Eastern Christian theological and classical Hinduism as its
epistemological foundation.
The fourth chapter focused on Clooney’s formulation of new comparative theology. New
comparative theology shares an appreciation of religious diversity to the extent that it values dif-
ferences among religions. The emphasis on differences as well as reliance on textual analysis and
interaction allows Clooney to map new comparative theology within the inclusivist paradigm.
The fifth chapter put pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology in dialogue by
considering their genealogies and goal. Pluralistic inclusivism engages in a constructive ap-
proach to interreligious dialogue that desires religious convergence when compared with new
120
comparative theology which focuses more on learning and elucidation so that inward transfor-
mation can occur within one’s home tradition. Unlike the agonism of new comparative theology,
pluralistic inclusivism imbibes Advaita Vedanta’s epistemology and argues for the realization of
non-duality of religions, while acknowledging that there are different ways to approach non-du-
ality. The sixth chapter highlighted some possibilities in correlating an ethos of pluralistic inclu-
sivism in the pursuit of a common good as a goal of interreligious dialogue demonstrating as ex-
amples the possibilities of an Anglican theology of religions.
There are broadly three contributions to the academy through this research. First, the
work of K. P. Aleaz, an under discussed scholar in Western academic circles, is introduced, par-
ticularly focusing on his method in the work of interreligious dialogue. The second contribution
is to highlight the work of Aleaz on terms put forward by Francis X. Clooney, whereby attention
was drawn to the fact that while some facets of Clooney’s methods have been developed and
practiced in the Indian context through Indian Christian theology, Clooney’s method is different
from other South Asian methods and particularly previous Roman Catholic engagement in India.
A third contribution is in offering pluralistic inclusivism with its vision of interreligious engage-
ment as a non-dual method that contributes towards interreligious engagement through offering
similitudes between it and a contemporary Anglican theology of religion.
121
Bibliography Abhishiktananda. "The Advaitic Dilemma." In Swami Abhishiktananda: Essential Writings, ed-ited by Shirley du Boulay. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 2006. ––. "Extracts from Abhishiktananda's Spiritual Diaries." In Swami Abhishiktananda: Essential Writings, edited by Shirley du Boulay. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 2006. ––. "Letter to Fr. Jules Monchanin." In Swami Abhishiktananda: Essential Writings, edited by Shirley du Boulay, 48-52. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 2006. ––. "What Is a Christian?" In Swami Abhishiktananda: Essential Writings, edited by Shirley du Boulay. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 2006. Abraham, Susan. "Postcolonial Approaches to Hindu-Christian Studies." Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, no. 21 (2008): 13-21. Aleaz, K. P. Christian Responses to Indian Philosophy. Kolkata: Punthi Pustak, 2005. ––. Christian Thought through Advaita Vedanta. ISPCK Contextual Theological Education Se-ries. Delhi: ISPCK, 1996. ––. A Convergence of Advaita Vedanta and Eastern Christian Thought. Delhi: ISPCK, 2000. ––. Dimensions of Indian Religion: Study, Experience, and Interaction. 1st ed. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1995. ––. For a Christian Philosophy from India. Cambridge Teape Lectures, 2005. Tiruvalla: Chris-tiya Sahithya Samithy, 2005. ––. For a Christian Philosophy from India. Thiruvalla: Christiya Sahithya Samithy, 2006. ––. The Gospel of Indian Culture. 1st ed. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1994. ––. Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda. 1st ed. Calcutta: Punthi-Pustak, 1993. ––. "Indian Contribution to a Spirituality of Pluralism." CTC Bulletin (2016): 10. Accessed Janu-ary 27, 2017. ––. An Indian Jesus from Sankara's Thought. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1997. ––. Jesus in Neo-Vedanta: A Meeting of Hinduism and Christianity. World Religions Relation-ship Series 2. Delhi, India: Kant Publications, 1995.
122
––. Pluralism Call for Pluralistic Inclusivism: An Indian Christian Experience. Calcutta: Bish-op's College, 1998. ––. The Quest for Contextual Spirituality. Thiruvalla: Christiya Sahithya Samithy, 2007. ––. The Relevance of Relation in Sankara's Advaita Vedanta. Delhi: Kant Publications, 1996. ––. The Role of Pramanas in Hindu Christian Epistemology. Calcutta: Punthi-Pustak, 1991. ––. Theology of Religions: Birmingham Papers and Other Essays. 1st ed. Calcutta: Moumita Publishers & Distributors, 1998. Altizer, Thomas J.J., ed. Towards a New Christianity: Readings in the Death of God. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967. Andrews, Charles Freer. A Bunch of Letters to Rabindranath Tagore and M.K. Gandhi. Calcutta: Deenbandhu Andrews Centenary Committee, 1931. ––. Mahatma Gandhi's Ideas, Including Selections from His Writings. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1931. ––. Sadhu Sundar Singh: A Personal Memoir. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934. Anselm, Saint, Archbishop of Canterbury. Monologian (Electronic Resource). Edited by Centre Traditio Litterarum Occidentalium, 2010. Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theological of Thomas Aquinas. Vol. I, V vols. Summa Theolog-ica, edited by Christian Classics. New York: Benziger, 1948. Asad, Talal. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Is-lam. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Athyal, Jesudas M. The Oxford Encyclopedia of South Asian Christianity. New Delhi: Oxford, 2012. Bass, Diana Butler. Christianity after Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spir-itual Awakening. New York: HarperOne, 2012. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 2004. Bouquet, Alan Coates. Should Christianity Be Exclusive? London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1963. Boyd, Robin. An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology. Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2009.
123
Braaten, Carl E. and Robert W. Jenson, eds. A Map of Twentieth Century Theology: Readings from Karl Barth to Radical Pluralism. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995. Brown, L.W. The Indian Christians of St. Thomas: An Account of the Ancient Syrian Church of Malabar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. "India." International Religious Freedom Re-port July-December 2010. Accessed May 12, 2017. Campbell, David and Morton Schoolman. The New Pluralism: William Connolly and the Con-temporary Global Condition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008. Chakrabarty, B. Communal Identity in India: Its Construction and Articulation in the Twentieth Century. New Delhi; Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2003. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Clooney, Francis. Beyond Compare: St. Francis De Sales and Sri Vedanta Desika on Loving Surrender to God. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2008. ––. Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders. Kindle E-Books ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. ––. Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Reli-gions. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. ––. The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2010. ––. "Reading the World in Christ: From Comparison to Inclusivism." In Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religion, edited by Gavin D'Costa, 63-81. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992. ––. Seeing through Texts: Doing Theology Among the Srivaisnavas of South India. SUNY Series, toward a Comparative Philosophy of Religions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996. ––. Theology after Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology. SUNY Series, Toward a Comparative Philosophy of Religions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993. Clooney, Francis et.al. "Comparative Theology at Boston College: What Is Comparative Theol-ogy?" (2005). Accessed June 29, 2010. http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/theology/comparative/re-sources/articles,ct.html.
124
Cobb, John B. Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Bud-dhism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. ––. Postmodernism and Public Policy: Reframing Religion, Culture, Education, Sexuality, Class, Race, Politics, and the Economy. SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002. ––. Process Theology as Political Theology. 1st ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982. ––. Sustainability: Economics, Ecology, and Justice Ecology and Justice. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992. ––. Sustaining the Common Good: A Christian Perspective on the Global Economy. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1994. Cohn, Bernard S. Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Comer, Kim, ed. Wisdom of the Sadhu: Teachings of Sundar Singh. East Sussex: Plough Publish-ing House, 2000. Connolly, William E. The Ethos of Pluralization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1995. ––. Identity\Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-versity Press, 1991. Connolly, William E., Samuel Allen Chambers, and Terrell Carver. William E. Connolly: De-mocracy, Pluralism & Political Theory. Routledge Innovators in Political Theory. New York: Routledge, 2007. Daggers, Jenny. Postcolonial Theology of Religions: Particularity and Pluralism in World Reli-gions. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. D'Costa, Gavin. Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Reli-gions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. ––. The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity. Faith Meets Faith Series, edited by Paul F. Knitter. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000. Devanandan, Paul David, Nalini Devanandan, and M. M. Thomas. Preparation for Dialogue; a Collection of Essays on Hinduism and Christianity in New India. Devanandan Memorial Vol-ume, Bangalore: Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, 1964.
125
Devanandan, Paul David, M. M. Thomas, and Committee for Literature on Social Concerns (Bangalore India). Human Person, Society and State. Social Concerns Series. Bangalore: Com-mittee for Literature on Social Concerns, 1957. Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus: An Alternative History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. ––. On Hinduism. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Dupuis, Jacques. Christianity and the Religions. Edited by trans. Phillip Berryman. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002. ––. Towards a Christian Theology of Religion. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001. The Episcopal Church, Towards Our Mutual Flourishing. New York: The General Convention of The Episcopal Church, 2015. Espin, Orlando O. Grace and Humanness: Theological Reflections Because of Culture. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007. Fredericks, James L. Buddhists and Christians: Through Comparative Theology to Solidarity. Faith meets Faith Series. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004. ––. Faith Among Faiths: Christian Theology and Non-Christian Religions. New York: Paulist Press, 1999. Frey, William H. Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2015. Furton, Edward J. "Richard Hooker as Source of the Founding Principles of American Natural Law." In The Failure of Modernism: The Cartesian Legacy and Contemporary Pluralism, edited by Brendan Sweetman, 101-09. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1999. George, K. M. Interfacing Theology with Culture. Delhi: ISPCK, 2010. ––. Silent Roots: Orthodox Perspectives on Christian Spirituality. Risk Book Series. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1994. Goyette, John. "On the Transcendence of the Political Common Good: Aquinas Versus the New Natural Law Theory." National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 13, no. 1 (2013): 133-49. Grau, Marion. Rethinking Mission in the Postcolony: Salvation, Society, and Subversion. New York: T&T Clark International, 2011. Gregorios, Paulos Mar. Freedom, Love, Community : Festschrift in Honour of Metropolitan Pau-los Mar Gregorios. Madras, India: Christian Literature Society, 1985.
126
––. The Human Presence: Ecological Spirituality and the Age of the Spirit. Amity: Amity House, 1987. ––. A Light Too Bright: The Enlightenment Today. SUNY Series in Religious Studies, edited by Harold Coward. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992. ––. Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002. ––. Science and Our Future. Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1978. ––. The Secular Ideology: An Impotent Remedy for India's Communal Problem. Delhi: Published jointly for Mar Gregorios Foundation of the Orthodox Theological Seminary by Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1998. Griffiths, Bede. Vedanta & Christian Faith. Los Angeles: Dawn Horse Press, 1973. Guha, Ramachandra and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, eds. Selected Subaltern Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Gupta, Dipankar. Culture, Space, and the Nation State: From Sentiment to Structure. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2000. Haight, Roger. "Jesus and World Religions." Modern Theology 12, no. 3 (July 1996): 321-44. Hick, John. Between Faith and Doubt: Dialogues on Religion and Reason. Houndmills, Basing-stoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. ––. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. 1st American ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. ––. Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. ––. An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. ––. The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. ––. The New Frontier of Religion and Science: Religious Experience, Neuroscience and the Transcendent. Basingstoke, England; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. ––. Who or What Is God? And Other Investigations. New York: Seabury Books, 2009. Hick, John and Hasan Askari. The Experience of Religious Diversity. Avebury Series in Philoso-phy. Aldershot, Hants, England; Brookfield, VT: Gower, 1985.
127
Hick, John and Brian Hebblethwaite. Christianity and Other Religions: Selected Readings. 1st Fortress Press ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Hick, John and Lamont C. Hempel. Gandhi's Significance for Today. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989. Hick, John and Paul F. Knitter. The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theol-ogy of Religions. Faith Meets Faith Series. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987. Hick, John and Edmund S. Meltzer. Three Faiths––One God: A Jewish, Christian, Muslim Encounter. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989. Hick, John, Dennis L. Okholm, and Timothy R. Phillips. Four Views on Salvation in a Plural-istic World. Counterpoints. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996. Hick, John and Princeton Theological Seminary. Faith and the Philosophers. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964. Hick, John and Arvind Sharma. God, Truth, and Reality: Essays in Honour of John Hick. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. Hick, John, Ninian Smart, David B. Burrell, and Gregory D. Pritchard. Hermeneutics, Religious Pluralism, and Truth: Lectures. The James Montgomery Hester Seminar. Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University, 1989. Higgins, Gregory C. Wrestling with the Questions: An Introduction to Contemporary Theologies. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009. Hough, James. The History of Christianity in India from the Commencement of the Christian Era. Vol. II. London: Seeley, Burnside and Seeley. Hatchard & Sons. Nisbet & Company, 1845. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Marcus Wiegelt. London: Penguin, 2008. ––. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, edited by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. London: Pantianos Classics, 1895. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. King, Archdale A. The Rites of Eastern Christendom. Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1947. King, R. Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and the Mystic East. London; New York: Routledge, 1999.
128
Kirby, Torrance W.J. "Richard Hooker's Discourse on Natural Law in the Context of the Magis-terial Reformation." Animus, no. 3 (1998). Klostermaier, Klaus K. Hinduism: A Short Introduction. Oxford: One-world Publications, 2006. Kmiec, Douglas W. "The Human Nature of Freedom and Identity––We Hold More Than Ran-dom Thoughts." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 29, no. 3 (2005): 33-52. Knitter, Paul F. Introducing Theologies of Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002. ––. The Myth of Religious Superiority: Multifaith Explorations of Religious Pluralism. Faith Meets Faith Series. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005. ––.No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes toward the World Religions. Ameri-can Society of Missiology Series No. 7. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985. ––. One Earth, Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995. Knitter, Paul F., and Muzaffar Chandra. Subverting Greed: Religious Perspectives on the Global Economy. Faith Meets Faith Series. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002. Kuriakose, M.K., ed. History of Christianity in India. Delhi: ISPCK, 1999. Lee, Hyo-Dong. "Interreligious Dialogue as a Politics of Recognition: A Postcolonial Reading of Hegel for Interreligious Solidarity." The Journal of Religion 85, no. 4 (2005): 555-80. Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Post-Liberal Age. Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1984. Lisbon Inquisition. Romanae Sedis Antistites, by Pope Gregory XV. The Jesuits in Malabar Vol. II, 1623. Locklin, Reid B. and Hugh Nicholson. "The Return of Comparative Theology." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78, no. 2 (2010): 477-514. Louth, Andrew. Discerning the Mystery. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. MacIntyre, Alasdair C. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981. ––. Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. MacIntyre, Alisdair C., & Kelvin Knight, The MacIntyre Reader. Notre Dame, IN.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998.
129
Madan, T. N. Images of the World: Essays on Religion, Secularism, and Culture. New Delhi; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Madan, T. N. (Ed.). India's Religions Perspectives from Sociology and History. New Delhi: Ox-ford University Press, 2004. Maurice, Frederick Denison. The Religions of the World and Their Relations to Christianity. Third ed. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1854. ––. Social Morality. London: Macmillian and Company, 1869. Mayeda, Sengaku. A Thousand Teachings: The Upadessashasri of Sankara. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1979. McGrade, Arthur Stephen, ed. Richard Hooker and the Construction of Christian Community. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Board of Regents, 1997. Miller, Charles. Richard Hooker and the Vision of God: Exploring the Origins of 'Anglicanism’. London: James Clarke & Co Ltd, 2013. Morris, Rosalind C. and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010. Mouffe, Chantal, ed. Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. London: Verso, 1992. Nazir-Ali, Michael. Embassy, Hospitality and Dialogue: Christians and People of Other Faiths. Lambeth: Network for Interfaith Concerns of the Anglican Communion, 1997. Neville, Robert Cummings. On the Scope and Truth of Theology: Theology as Symbolic Engage-ment. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. ––. Realism in Religion: A Pragmatist's Perspective. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2010. ––. Ultimates: Philosophical Theology. Vol. 1. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 2013. Newbigin, Leslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: Gospel and Western Culture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986. ––. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989. Nicholson, Hugh. "Comparative Theology after Liberalism." Modern Theology 23, no. 22 (2007): 229-51.
130
––. Comparative Theology and the Problem of Religious Rivalry. Reflection and Theory in the Study of Religion Series, edited by James Wetzel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. ––. "The Political Nature of Doctrine: A Critique of Lindbeck in Light of Recent Scholarship." The Heythrop Journal 48, no. 6 (2007): 848-77. ––. "The Reunification of Theology and Comparison in the New Comparative Theology." Jour-nal of the American Academy of Religion 77, no. 3 (2009): 609-46. Panikkar, Raimondo. Christophany: The Fullness of Man. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004. ––. A Dwelling Place for Wisdom. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1993. ––. The Experience of God: Icons of the Mystery. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. ––. The Intrareligious Dialogue. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1999. ––. Myth, Faith, and Hermeneutics: Cross-Cultural Studies. New York; Toronto: Paulist Press, 1979. ––. The Rhythm of Being: The Gifford Lectures. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010. ––. The Trinity and The Religious Experience of Man: Icon-Person-Mystery. New York: Orbis Books, 1973. ––. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1981. __. Panikkar, Raimundo. Worship and Secular Man : An Essay on the Liturgical Nature of Man, Considering Secularization as a Major Phenomenon of Our Time and Worship as an Apparent Fact of All Times. A Study Towards an Integral Anthropology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1973. Panikkar, R., & Cargas, H. J. (1995). Invisible Harmony: Essays on Contemplation and Respon-sibility. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995. Panikkar, R., & Eastham, S. The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Conscious-ness. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993. Panikkar, R., Knitter, P. F., & College Theology Society. Pluralism and Oppression: Theology in World Perspective. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991. Parekh, Manilal C. A Hindu Portrait of Jesus Christ. Rajkot: Dharmat Mission, 1953.
131
Phan, Peter C. Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004. ––. Christianities in Asia. Wiley Blackwell Guides to Global Christianity. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. ––. Christianity with an Asian Face: Asian American Theology in the Making. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003. ––. Ethnicity, Nationality and Religious Experience. The Annual Publication of the College The-ology Society. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995. ––. “Grace and the Human Condition.” Message of the Fathers of the Church 15. Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1988. ––. In Our Own Tongues: Perspectives from Asia on Mission and Inculturation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003. ––. “Social Thought.” Message of the Fathers of the Church 20. Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1984. Philip, T.V. East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia. Delhi: Indian Society for Promot-ing Christian Knowledge, 1998. Prakash, Gyan. Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Premawardhana, Devakala. "The Unremarkable Hybrid: Aloysius Pieris and the Redundancy of Multiple Religious Belonging." Journal of Ecumenical Studies no. 46 (2011). Race, Alan. Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1983. Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Eastern Religion and Western Thought. 2nd ed. London, 1940. ––. "The Ethics of Vedanta." International Journal of Ethics 24, no. 2 (1914): 168-83. http://dx.doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/2376505. ––. Indian Philosophy. Vol. II. London: George, Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1922. Ramamurty, A. Advaita: A Conceptual Analysis. Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 1996. Rambachan, Anantanand. A Hindu Theology of Liberation: Not-Two Is Not One. Suny Series in Religious Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2015.
132
Ray, Anita C., John D'Arcy May, and John R Dupuche. "Doing Theology Interreligiously." Aus-tralian eJournal of Theology 20 (August 2013): 94-106. Accessed February 1, 2016. Roberts, Michelle Voss. "Gendering Comparative Theology." In The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, edited by Francis X. Clooney, 109- 127. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Rodrigues, Hilary. Introducing Hinduism. New York: Routledge 2006. Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: First Vintage Books, 1994. ––. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978. Samartha, S. J. Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationships (U.S. ed.). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1982. ––. The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ. Madras: Published for the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore, by the Christian Literature Society, 1974. ––. Introduction to Radhakrishnan: The Man and His Thought. New York: Association Press 1967. ––. One Christ, Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991. ––. The Other Side of the River: Some Reflections on the Theme of the Vancouver Assembly. Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1983. ––. The Search for New Hermeneutics in Asian Christian Theology. Bangalore: Board of Theo-logical Education of the Senate of Serampore College, 1987. San Juan, E. Beyond Postcolonial Theory. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998. Segundo, Juan Luis, and Alfred T. Hennelly. Signs of the Times: Theological Reflections. Maryknoll, NY.: Orbis Books, 1993. Simpson, Gary M. Critical Social Theory: Prophetic Reason, Civil Society, and Christian Imagi-nation Guides to Theological Inquiry. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002. Singh, P. Hindu Bias in India's 'Secular' Constitution: Probing Flaws in the Instruments of Gov-ernance. Third World Quarterly, 26(6), 909-926, 2005. Schiwy, Walter D. Mignolo and Freya. "Transculturation and the Colonial Difference. Double Translation." In Translation and Ethnography, edited by Tullia Maranhoo and Bernard Streck, 12-34. Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 2003.
133
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultures Despisers. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, edited by Richard Crouter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Searle, John R. The Construction of Social Reality. Penguin Philosophy. London: Penguin, 1996. Sharpe, Eric J. Biographical Dictionary of Christian Missions. New York: Macmillan, 1998. Slater, Peter. "An Anglican Perspective on Our Interreligious Situation." In Grounds for Under-standing: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, edited by S. Mark Heim, 137-56. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Smith, Jonathan Z. Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. Belief and History (Richard Lectures for 1974-75, University of Vir-ginia. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977. ––. Faith and Belief. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979. ––. Faith and Belief as Seen by a Comparative Religionist: A Public Lecture. University of To-ronto, January 9, 1968. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1968. ––. The Meaning and End of Religion. London: SPCK, 1978. ––. Religious Diversity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. ––. Religious Diversity: Essays. 1st ed. A Harper Forum Book. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. ––. Scripture: Issues as Seen by a Comparative Religionist. Claremont, Calif.: Claremont Gradu-ate School, 1985. ––. Towards a World Theology: Faith and the Comparative History of Religion. Library of Phi-losophy and Religion. London: Macmillan, 1981. ––. What Is Scripture? A Comparative Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. ––. Wilfred Cantwell Smith: A Reader. Oxford: Oneworld, 2001. Stuart, James. Swami Abhishiktananda: His Life Told through His Letters. Delhi: ISPCK, 1995. Sugirtharajah, R.S. Postcolonial Reconfigurations: An Alternative Way of Reading the Bible and Doing Theology. St. Louis, MO: Christian Board of Publication, 2003. Suppes, Sinha Shreeya & Mark. "Timeline of the Riots in Modi's Gujarat." The New York Times (August 19, 2015). Accessed May 20, 2017.
134
Tanner, Kathryn. Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1997. Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. ––. Hegel and Modern Society. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979. ––. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2007. ––. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Tennent, Timothy C. Building Christianity on Indian Foundations: The Legacy of Brah-mabandav Upadhyaya . Delhi: ISPCK, 2000. Thomas, Daniel. The Fundamentals of Indian Culture. Kottayam: Sophia Publications, 1990. ––. Towards a Peaceful Society. Montreal: Vanier College Press, 1990. Thomas, M. M. The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance. London: S.C.M. Press, Ltd., 1969. ––. Ideological Quest within Christian Commitment, 1939-1954. Indian Christian Thought Series No. 16. Madras: Published for the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, Ban-galore, by the Christian Literary Society, 1983. ––. Religion and the Revolt of the Oppressed. Delhi: ISPCK, 1981. Tiemeier, Tracy Sayuki. "Comparative Theology as a Theology of Liberation." In The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, edited by Francis X. Clooney, 129-49. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1, 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951-1963. Torre, Joseph M. de. Politics and the Church; From Rerum Novarum to Liberation Theology. Manila: 1987. Tracy, David. On Naming the Present: Reflections on God, Hermeneutics, and Church. Concil-ium Series. Maryknoll, N.Y. London, England: Orbis Books; SCM Press, 1994. Tracy, David and John B. Cobb. Talking About God: Doing Theology in the Context of Modern Pluralism. New York: Seabury Press, 1983. Upadhyaya, Brahmbandav. The Writings of Brahmabandhab Upadhyay. Ed. by J. Lipner and G. Gispert-Sauch), 2 vols., Bangalore, 1991 and 2001.
135
Victor, P.G. Life and Teachings of Adi Shankaracharya. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, Ltd, 2002. Vivekananda. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 1, 9 vols. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991. ––. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 2, 9 vols. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991. ––. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 3, 9 vols. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991. ––. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 4, 9 vols. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991. ––. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 5, 9 vols. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991. ––. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 6, 9 vols. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991. ––.The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 7, 9 vols. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991. ––. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 8, 9 vols. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1991. Ward, Keith. Religion and Revelation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Wiebe, Donald. The Politics of Religious Studies. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000. Williams, Rowan. "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity Revisited." The Richard Hooker Lecture (October 26, 2005): 7. Williams, Thomas. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University, 2016. Yesurathnam, Regunta. A Christian Dialogical Theology: The Contribution of Swami Abhishik-tananda. Delhi: Punthi Pustak, 2006. Young, David. F.D. Maurice and Unitarianism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Young, Robert J.C. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
