Theology of Religion and Interreligious Study a Need for Conversation and Collaboration

Theology of Religion and Interreligious Study A Need for Conversation and Collaboration

Ashlee Kirk1

Abstract. — In general, Christian scholars interested in the world’s religions have one of two options: theology of religion or interreligious studies. Rarely is sustained dialogue established between these two disciplines. This article analyzes particular cases from each field in order to reveal that there is considerable distance and difference between the disciplines, despite their sharing of at least one object of study: religion. While Roman Catholic magisterial theology of religion studies other world religions abstractly from the perspective of Catholic sources and teaching in order to understand the role of other religions in a world saved by Christ, the Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, serving as a forum for interreligious studies, features authors who choose to study other religions concretely in order to learn about and from other religions traditions. These different starting points lead the fields to different emphases and, at times, conclusions that challenge one another. Such challenges beg for dialogue between theology of religion and interreligious studies. Theology of religions calls for a deeper reflection on the theological implications of the findings uncovered by those engaging in interreligious studies, and interreligious studies stresses the need for a humbler, more concrete theology of religion.

Christian scholars interested in world religions often have one of two options: theology of religion or interreligious studies. The former is often found within departments of systematic or dogmatic theology, while the latter is often found within departments of religious studies.2 Occasionally, one will happen across a comparative theologian working within a department of theology practicing interreligious studies. By and large, however, Christian scholars have a choice to make. Should they

1. This article is partially indebted to the insight of Dr. Martin Sebastian Kal- lungal. 2. Klostermaier discusses the choice between departments of theology and departments of religious studies. See: Klaus Klostermaier, “Dialogue in the Modern West,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 1 (1988) 8-9, at 9.

997461.indb7461.indb 273273 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 274 ASHLEE KIRK

take a predominately theoretical approach to other religious traditions based on Christian resources and reasoning? Or should they enter a methodologically diverse field that concretely approaches religions other than Christianity? One might ask: why not do both? Yet this option seems seldom (if ever) available. Christians partaking in theology of religion seem largely content to discuss the world religions from afar – without ever seriously engaging with these religions – whilst believers partaking in interreligious studies seem content to leave separation between their findings and deepest convictions – as if willing Hindus to become better Hindus does not have implications for the way Christian- ity interprets Christ. The dialogue between practitioners of theology of religion and interreligious studies is practically non-existent. This article is one small attempt at ameliorating this situation, of examining the implications of a dialogue between theology of religion and interreligious studies. In order to examine these implications, several things need to occur. First, one must examine theology of religion. Given the variety of approaches to theology of religion across Christian denominations, it is impossible to give an overview of the entire field. Focus is necessary, and we choose to focus on the magisterial approach to ‘non-Christian religions’ taken by the Roman Catholic Church in its interpretation of the axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and the call to evangelize.3 Next, one must examine interreligious studies. Approaches within interreligious studies sometimes appear as numerous as the field’s practitioners. Due to the field’s expansiveness, we focus on particular characteristics of interreligious studies that emerge in an analysis of the Journal for Hindu-Christian Studies.4 The journal (formerly The Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin) was founded in 1988 and has been published jointly by the Calgary Institute for the Humanities in Calgary, Canada and the Institute of Philosophy and Culture in Madras, India. This journal is, perhaps, the only worldwide regular forum for the exchange of scholarly views on Hinduism, Christianity, and their interrelationship. As such, it provides an excellent resource for anyone wishing to examine

3. It goes without saying that other approaches to theology of religion could and should constructively contribute to a conversation between theology of religion and interreligious studies. The magisterial approach to theology of religion was chosen partially due to the author’s abilities and partially due to the universal implications of magisterial pronouncements. Theoretically, magisterial pronouncements – as articulations of the sacred teaching authority of Catholic Christendom – should provide us with stable, trans-historical Catholic points of view, which should demand the attention of contemporary believers. 4. The article makes use of Volumes 1-21 of the Journal for Hindu-Christian Studies.

997461.indb7461.indb 274274 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 275

interreligious studies. Following this, the article will suggest implications for theology of religion in light of interreligious studies and vice versa.

I. An Overview of the Roman Catholic Interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: From Severe Exclusivism to Optimistic Inclusivism

An overview of some key Roman Catholic magisterial pronouncements on extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and the necessity of mission reveal a shift in the Catholic approach to non-Catholics: the Church moves from a straightforward, severe exclusivism to an optimistic inclusivism restrained by tradition.

1. Severe Exclusivism The earliest magisterial pronouncements concerning extra Ecclesiam nulla salus are quite straightforward: there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins for anyone outside of the Church’s purview.5 The earliest theology of religion, then, was a strict exclusivism. The Fourth Lateran Council makes this strict exclusivism quite severe in its evaluation of non-Christian religions. The Council makes clear non-Christian inferiority.6 It forbids Jews from holding public office and demands that Jewish converts completely shed their former religion.7 Moreover, the Council demands Jews and Saracens wear distinctive clothing in public places, in order to impede accidental fraternization between Christians and non-Christians.8 Finally, the Council endorses the Crusades in order to “liberate the holy Land from infidel hands.”9 It is, however, the ecumenical Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence- Rome held from 1431 to 1445 that develops the most severe approach

5. For example, Unam Sanctam declares: “We are obliged by the faith to believe and hold – and we do firmly believe and sincerely confess – that there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.” See Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder (eds.), Documents of the Christian Church, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 121. 6. For the Fourth Lateran Council, see: Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990). 7. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 266. For example, citing Deuter- onomy, the Council argues: “a garment that is woven together of wool and linen ought not to be put on” (267). 8. Ibid., 266. 9. Ibid., 267.

997461.indb7461.indb 275275 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 276 ASHLEE KIRK

to non-Catholics. The previous decrees from the Fourth Lateran Coun- cil are upheld, but the tone is far harsher.10 The Council states: It firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it, do the Church’s sacraments, contribute to salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.11 Unlike previous Councils, however, the Council of Basel-Ferrara- Florence-Rome connects the axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus with the need for the evangelization of all non-Catholic peoples. The Council provides “measures whereby Jews and other infidels may be converted to the orthodox faith and converts may remain steadfastly in it.”12 These measures include: appointing persons well trained in Scripture and native languages to preach and elucidate the truth of Catholic faith to infidels; compelling infidels to attend Christian sermons through secular pressure; demanding bishops and priests to receive infidels with charity and kindness; and forbidding any Christian from impeding an infidel’s attendance at Christian sermons.13

2. Pessimistic Inclusivism With Pope Pius IX and Vatican I, the Catholic approach to non- Christian traditions begins to shift to a pessimistic inclusivism. Non-Cath- olic traditions continue to be inferior, but with Pius IX, salvation outside the Church is no longer utterly impossible. After reiterating the impossibility of salvation apart from truth faith and Catholic unity, Pius IX makes an exception in his encyclicals Singulari Quidem (1856) and Quanto

10. For a list of the decrees, see Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 483-485. 11. Ibid., 578. A detailed summary of the content and practice of true orthodox faith is presented; see ibid., 538-554. This summary often includes reminders that without full belief and practice of Catholic faith, a person cannot be saved. 12. Ibid., 483. 13. Ibid., 483. The Council also repeatedly asks for Christian unity so that evangelization can proceed more smoothly. For an example, see ibid., 478-479.

997461.indb7461.indb 276276 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 277

Conficiamur Moerore (1863) for the invincibly ignorant.14 This does not, however, dilute the Catholic call to mission, for all are called to the fullness of Catholic faith. As Vatican I makes clear, the invincibly ignorant non- believers do not have the same status as believers. The Council states: “The situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion.”15 True faith and participation in the Church remain essential for salvation.16 Because of this and because God wills the salvation of all, evangelization remains necessary.17

3. Optimistic Inclusivism Vatican II ushers in a period of optimism concerning other religious traditions, which culminates in the publication of Dialogue and Proclama- tion. It shifts Catholic theology of religion from a pessimistic inclusivism to an optimistic inclusivism. Non-Christian traditions are now understood as preparatio evangelica.18 Yet many of the traditional hallmarks remain. There is still no salvation outside of the Church; Christianity remains superior, and the steadfast call to evangelize still sounds. Though many documents from Vatican II discuss non-Christian or non-Catholic traditions, this overview is limited to a brief description of Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, and Ad Gentes. Lumen Gentium operates on the assumption that God not only willed to save people individually but also corporately, as a unified people.19 The Church is identified as

14. Claudia Carlen, The Papal Encyclicals, 1740-1878 (New York: McGrath Pub- lishing Company, 1981) 341, 370. Quanto Conficiamur Moerore states: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the effica- cious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punish- ments” (370). 15. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 808. See also ibid., 811. 16. Ibid., 803, 805. 17. Ibid., 803, 805. 18. One could argue that this shift is not as radical as it first appears. As early as Vatican I, reason was identified as praeparatio evangelica. One could argue that Vatican II interprets non-Christian religions along the same lines as Vatican I interpreted reason: something that contains rays of truth but is in desperate need of completion by divine revelation as held and adhered to by the Catholic Church. 19. For Lumen Gentium in its totality, see Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Coun- cils, 849-900. From this point forward, however, Lumen Gentium will be referenced by paragraph number. For statements concerning the corporate salvation of humanity, see: Lumen Gentium 1, 9.

997461.indb7461.indb 277277 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 278 ASHLEE KIRK

the visible sacrament of this saving unity.20 The Kingdom of Christ, therefore, subsists in the Catholic Church and visibly grows in the world through the growth and expansion of the Church.21 Participation in the Church becomes a matter of degree: from visible, active participation (Catholics)22 to participation by baptism (non-Catholic Christians)23 to mysterious, implicit participation (non-Christians).24 The call to mission, however, remains; full participation is the ideal and goal.25 Ad Gen- tes supports this vision of the Church. It re-iterates the Church’s role as the universal sacrament of salvation,26 the Church’s essential missionary nature,27 and the universal and steadfast call to mission.28 In addition, Ad Gentes identifies three distinct, though interrelated, approaches to Christian mission, namely Christian witness,29 Christian proclamation,30 and the building of Christian communities.31 Inculturation and interreligious dialogue are encouraged in the name of aiding evangelization.32 Dialogue is now possible because non-Christian traditions are viewed as preparation for the Gospel. According to Lumen Gentium, non-Christian

20. Lumen Gentium 9, 48. 21. Lumen Gentium 3. The document states, “All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And they belong to or are related to it in various ways …” (13). See also Lumen Gentium 3. 22. Lumen Gentium 14. 23. Lumen Gentium 15. 24. Lumen Gentium 16. It should be noted that the designation of different degrees of participation in the Church does not mean that everyone is saved. People must still accept God’s offer of grace. Those that know the necessity of the Church for salvation and refuse to join it cannot be saved. 25. Lumen Gentium 13-17. 26. For the totality of Ad Gentes, see: Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1011-1042. From this point forward, Ad Gentes will be referenced by paragraph number. For a discussion of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation, see: Ad Gentes 1. 27. Ad Gentes 2. 28. Ad Gentes 6. 29. Ad Gentes 11-12. 30. Ad Gentes 13-14. 31. Ad Gentes 15-18. 32. Both inculturation and interreligious dialogue are encouraged throughout the document. Ad Gentes 16 expresses both of these practices. It states: “Therefore, let the minds of the students be kept open and attuned to an acquaintance and an appreciation of their own nation’s culture. In their philosophical and theological studies, let them consider the points of contact that mediate between the traditions and religion of their homeland, on the one hand, and the Christian religion, on the other. Likewise, priestly training should have an eye to the pastoral needs of that region; and the students should learn the history, aim, and method of the Church’s missionary activity, and the special social, economic, and cultural conditions of their own people. Let them be educated in the ecumenical spirit, and duly prepared for fraternal dialogue with non-Christians. All this demands that studies for the priesthood be undertaken, so far as possible, in association and living together with their own people.”

997461.indb7461.indb 278278 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 279

religions contain elements of sanctification and grace. These elements, however, are in need of purification and elevation.33 The superiority of Christian revelation, the necessity of the Church, and the duty to evangelize remain.34 Nostra Aetate complements the teachings of Lumen Gen- tium on non-Christian religions, highlighting the positive elements of particular non-Christian religions.35 Concerning the religions of the East, Nostra Aetate claims: The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, through differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.36 Dialogue and Proclamation builds on the optimistic inclusivism established by Vatican II.37 Mission is now reconsidered in light of the optimistic, inclusivist approach taken to non-Christian traditions, becoming a two-fold task of dialogue and proclamation.38 Dialogue becomes essential in this optimistic, inclusivist framework because non- Christian religions are now understood both as praeparatio evangelica and as providential players in the divine economy of salvation.39 Whereas before, non-Christians could receive salvation despite their religious adherences, now non-Christians can receive salvation through the practice

33. Lumen Gentium 13, 17. 34. Concerning on the need for penance, renewal, and purification within the Church, see Lumen Gentium 8, 51. 35. For Nostra Aetate in its totality, see Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 968-971. From this point forward, Nostra Aetate will be referenced by paragraph number. The document devotes sections to Eastern religions, Islam, and Judaism. For the section on the Church’s relationship to ancient and Eastern religions, see Nostra Aetate 2. For the section on the Church’s relationship to Islam, see Nostra Aetate 3. For the section on the Church’s relationship to Judaism, see Nostra Aetate 4. 36. Nostra Aetate, 2. Concerning Hinduism in particular, the document states: “Thus, in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust (Nostra Aetate 2).” 37. For Dialogue and Proclamation in its totality, see: Francesco Gioia (ed.), Inter- religious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church, 1963-1995 (Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 1997) 608-642. From this point forward, Dialogue and Proclamation will be referenced by paragraph number. 38. According to Dialogue and Proclamation 2, “Proclamation and dialogue are … both viewed, each in its own place, as component elements and authentic forms of the one evangelizing mission of the Church. They are both oriented toward the communication of salvific truth.” See also: Dialogue and Proclamation 3-4, 77. 39. For a discussion on the positive interpretation of non-Christian religious traditions, see: Dialogue and Proclamation 14-17, 29.

997461.indb7461.indb 279279 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 280 ASHLEE KIRK

of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following their conscience.40 Of course, non-Christian traditions are not purely grace. Dialogue and Proclamation, therefore, encourages ‘dialogue and collaboration’ so that, in peaceful spirit, Christians may challenge non- Christians, thereby correcting non-Christian errors.41 The novelty of Dialogue and Proclamation, however, is that non-Christians can now challenge Christians as well, thereby aiding in the purification of Chris- tian practices and understandings.42 The goal of interreligious dialogue, then, is the deep conversion of everyone, regardless of religious affilia- tion, to God.43 Nevertheless, proselytization and proclamation remains essential, for the Christian message is “unique and irreplaceable. It allows of neither indifference, syncretism, nor compromise, for it concerns the salvation of mankind.”44 Proclamation is interpreted as the culmination of mission, and dialogue is always oriented to it.45

4. Restrained Optimistic Inclusivism The shift toward ever-increasing optimism concerning non-Chris- tian traditions comes to an abrupt halt after Dialogue and Proclamation. Dominus Iesus makes it quite clear that theology of religion can go no further than optimistic inclusivism; pluralism is not an option, for it denies the Church’s historical, doctrinal approach to non-Christian traditions.46 The axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus stands; the call to evangelize persists, and non-Christian traditions remain inferior.47 The document corrects several errors that have endangered the Church’s mission to proclaim the Gospel. It rejects, for example, any relativistic theory

40. Dialogue and Proclamation 29. 41. For a discussion on the need for discernment and purification of non-Chris- tian religions, see: Dialogue and Proclamation 30-32. 42. According to Dialogue and Proclamation 49: “In the last analysis truth is not a thing we possess, but a person by whom we must allow ourselves to be possessed. This is an unending process. While keeping their identity intact, Christians must be prepared to learn and to receive from and through others the positive values of their traditions. Through dialogue they may be moved to give up ingrained prejudices, to revise precon- ceived ideas, and even sometimes to allow the understanding of their faith to be puri- fied.” See also: Dialogue and Proclamation 46, 50, 79. 43. Dialogue and Proclamation 40-41. 44. Dialogue and Proclamation 66. See also: Dialogue and Proclamation 76. 45. Dialogue and Proclamation 82. 46. For Dominus Iesus in its totality, see: Stephen J. Pope and Charles Hefling (eds.), Sic et Non: Encountering Dominus Iesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002) 3-23. From this point forward, Dominus Iesus will be referenced by paragraph number. 47. Dominus Iesus 20-22.

997461.indb7461.indb 280280 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 281

that attempts to justify religious pluralism de iure.48 It also rejects any identification or equivocation of theological faith with religious belief.49 Faith is the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God, whilst religious belief is religious experience, which is still in search of absolute truth and lacks assent to God. In addition, Dominus Iesus rejects any theory that denies the unicity and universality of the Incar- nate Logos.50 This includes any approach that stipulates multiple incar- nations or divides the work of salvation between the Spirit and the Son. The primary purpose of these corrections is to reaffirm that the Church is not “one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions.”51 There is nothing equivalent to the Church, “even if these [other religions] are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom.”52 While it is possible for non-Christians to receive divine grace, it “is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.”53

II. An Overview of the Characteristic Elements of Interreligious Studies as Practiced within the Journal for Hindu-Christian Studies

In his introduction to the journal, Harold Coward discusses the journal’s purpose. This purpose has not changed through the journal’s many years: an almost identical note still appears on the inside cover of nearly every issue. According to Coward, “The aim of the journal is to create a world-wide forum for the presentation of Hindu-Christian scholarly studies, book reviews, and news of past and upcoming events.”54 This is a journal written for a broad, religiously mixed audience. Its contributors come from Hinduism, Christianity, and the secular world, from a variety of disciplines, and utilize various methodologies to sometimes reach contradicting results. There is no single approach or single conclusion cham- pioned by the journal. Rather, the journal seeks to balance “historical research and contemporary practice, and, where possible … employ

48. Dominus Iesus 4. 49. Dominus Iesus 8. 50. Dominus Iesus 9-15. 51. Dominus Iesus 21. 52. Dominus Iesus 21. 53. Dominus Iesus 23. 54. Harold Coward, “Introducing the Bulletin,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 1 (1988) 1.

997461.indb7461.indb 281281 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 282 ASHLEE KIRK

analytical and theoretical analysis set within the context of our shared human experience.”55 From this brief statement on the journal’s aims, one of the core convictions of many of the journal’s contributors is explicitly stated: a belief in shared human experience. This shared experience – of both the world and, often, the things that transcend the world – is for many the basis for dialogue. Because of this shared experience, the journal’s contributors trust that (partial) understanding across religious borders is possible. Therefore, it is not uncommon for Christian writers to present Hindu perspectives or vice versa. In fact, when volumes are dedicated to particular themes, it is quite common for contributors to focus on the theme from a single religion’s point of view, without making any mention of interreligious study.56 The implication being that the journal trusts that its audience is capable of discerning the interreligious implications. Because the journal is based on ‘shared human experience’, it must be noted that the journal is constantly operating in the shadow of Western colonialism. Colonialism and its policy of converting the heathen are ever present in Hindu and Christian memories. As Francis Clooney observes in one of his contributions: It is “very clear that Hindu-Christian relations today are still profoundly affected by a colonial past in which religious values were mixed with political and economic power, to the severe disad- vantage of Indian religious traditions – and also by the continuing zeal, in some circles, of Christians seeking to convert others.”57 This is, perhaps partially, why the journal and its contributors so often focus on the ‘main- line’ traditions within Hinduism and Christianity. Hinduism’s primary experience has been with state or institutionally sponsored Christianity, while Christian missionaries and Indologists often studied Brahmanical Hinduism in order to make the Christian message more palatable, thereby attracting more converts.58 Given this history, the study of obscure strands

55. Coward, “Introducing the Bulletin,” 1. 56. For examples of contributions written from a single point of view with little (if any) reflection on the interreligious import, see: Volume 6 (1993) which is dedicated to ecology; Volume 10 (1997) which is dedicated to science; Volume 9 (1996) which is devoted to Scripture; Volume 12 (1999) which is devoted to time; and Volume 18 (2005) which is devoted to women and the priesthood. 57. Francis Clooney, “Conversions in India: An Interim Report on Discussion on the Hindu-Christian Studies List, January-March 1999,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bul- letin 12 (1999) 34-38, at 37. 58. For more information on the role of missionaries in early studies of Hinduism, see: Harold Coward, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue: A Review,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 1 (1988) 1-5, 2; Catherine Cornille, “Missionary Views of Hinduism,” Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 21 (2008) 28-32. David Scott discusses the common reduction of Hinduism to Brahmanical Hinduism; see: David Scott, “Forest and Village: Popular Hindu-Christian Encounter,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 9 (1996) 36-41, at 36.

997461.indb7461.indb 282282 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 283

of Hinduism and Christianity may seem a luxury few can afford while the larger strands continue to be so woefully and painfully misunderstood.59 There are, however, some scholars, particularly those concerned with minority rights, who urge interreligious scholars to pay heed to the voices that have been silenced.60 Due to the wide array of themes, methods, assumptions, goals, and results present in the journal, the following sections will highlight a few key characteristics of the Hindu and Christian approaches to interreligious study and their religious others. It goes without saying that this analysis is far from exhaustive; it simply hopes to be a start for more sustained, in-depth study. Though this article is primarily focused on the Christian side of interreligious encounter, both Hindu and Christian approaches are featured. Christian and Hindu approaches often develop in light of one another, with one another in mind. Thus, one cannot properly understand the Christian approach to interreligious studies and Hinduism if one does not know something of the Hindu approach.

1. The Hindu Approach to Interreligious Studies and Christianity By and large, the most common Hindu response – both past and present – to interreligious study is tolerant indifference.61 Historically, Hinduism has embraced plurality. Radical inclusivism has been the predominant Hindu response to religious diversity. In other words, most frequently different Indian traditions (e.g., Buddhism, Sikhim) and different schools of thought (e.g., Mimamsa, Advaita, Srivaisnava, etc.) have been viewed as separate – but not necessarily equal – paths to the same all-encompassing reality. As Anantanand Rambachan explains, for most Hindus, the bar for orthodoxy is set quite low. It merely requires belief in the Vedas, yet even without belief in the Vedas, orthopraxis (e.g., abiding by the caste system) remains and tolerant indifference reigns.62 Thus,

59. For example, Francis Clooney suggests we need a retrieval of popular and religious classics; see: Francis Clooney, “Hindu-Christian Studies as a Necessary Luxury in the Context of Today’s Pluralism,” Hindu-Christian Studies 7 (1994) 39-44, at 39. 60. For examples, see: A. M. Abraham Ayrookuhzhiel, “The Dalits, Religions, and Interfaith Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 7 (1994) 13-19; Francis Clooney (ed.), “Four Responses to Prof. Dharampal’s Bharatiya Citta Manas and Kala,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 8 (1995) 2-19, at 13-16. 61. Anantanand Rambachan, “Evangelization and Conversion Reconsidered in the Light of the Contemporary Controversy in India – A Hindu Assessment,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 15 (2002) 20-27, at 21. See also: Margaret Chatterjee, “The Prospect for Hindu-Christian Interaction, Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 2 (1989) 2. 62. Rambachan, “Evangelization and Conversion Reconsidered,” 21.

997461.indb7461.indb 283283 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 284 ASHLEE KIRK

tolerance, rather than a zealous call for proselytization, has been and often continues to be the Hindu approach. In fact, certain Hindu approaches believe karma determines the path onto which someone is born.63 These approaches discourage against changing paths and preach, rather, acceptance of where one is. This does not deny the long history of debates between Hindu schools of thought.64 It does mean, however, that these debates were dialogical in nature and free of an organized agenda to sup- plant the other tradition’s viewpoints.65 Conversion was never the goal, for every tradition ultimately led to the same reality. When Hinduism encounters Christianity, tolerant indifference is still common.66 Many Hindu scholars within the journal claim that Hinduism’s engagement in Hindu-Christian studies is, at least partially, due to its experience of colonialism and the colonialist zeal for conversion.67 As Anantanand Rambachan observes: The rhetoric of contemporary Hinduism and its self-understanding has been deeply influenced by India’s colonial past in which Chris- tianity was seen as a servant of Western imperial interests. Cultures and religious traditions that were subject to the arrogance of colonialism have emerged with a bruised sense of self. They are defensive in their relationships with other traditions, concerned with the res- toration of power and preoccupied with pride building.68 In other words, Hindu engagement in Hindu-Christian studies is quite often the result of socio-political pressures rather than genuine interest in learning with and from Christianity.69 Thus, much of Hindu- Christian dialogue is focused on articulating what Hinduism is and,

63. Chateterjee, “Reflections on Religious Pluralism in the Indian Context,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 7 (1994) 2-12, 4-5. 64. Ibid., 5-7. 65. Rambachan, “Evangelization and Conversion Reconsidered,” 21. 66. For discussions concerning India’s historical indifference toward Christianity/ the West, see: Anand Amaladass, “The Scope of Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 2 (1989) 2-4, at 2-3; Tinu Ruparell, “Hindu Occidentalism,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 13 (2000) 26-31, at 26; Judson B. Trapnell, “The Controversy and Its Theological Implications,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin (2002) 13-19, at 14-15. 67. For example, Vasudha Narayanan describes how Hindus are completely indif- ferent to Christian modes of worship until said Christians seek to convert them to Christianity. See: Vasudha Narayanan, “Sacred Land, Common Ground, Contested Territory: The Healing Mother of Velankanni Basilica and the Infant Jesus Shrine in Bangalore,” Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 17 (2004) 20-32, at 30-31. 68. Anantanand Rambachan,“Evangelization and Conversion Reconsidered,” 24. See also: Margaret Chatterjee, “The Prospect for Hindu-Christian Interaction,” 2; Tinu Ruparell, “Hindu Occidentalism,” 26. 69. Anand Amaladass, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue Today,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 10 (1997) 41-42, at 42.

997461.indb7461.indb 284284 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 285

perhaps just as importantly, what it is not. In addition, most Hindus prefer to focus on practical issues of living together.70 Of course, there are always some Hindus, particularly Hindu contributors to the journal, who are interested in a broader discussion. With this preface concerning the standard Hindu approach to interreligious studies and Christianity in mind, we turn to an analysis of a few of the characteristic features of the Hindu approach to interreligious studies. First, we examine Hindu thinkers’ tendency to reiterate and/or illustrate the overwhelming diversity of Hinduism. Second, we observe how Hindu contributors problematize labeling ‘Hinduism’ a ‘religion’. Finally, we examine a few particular approaches to Christian- ity and their relationship to particular Hindu self-understandings.

a) Reiterates of the Internal Diversity of Hinduism Tinu Ruparell argues that it is absolutely essential Hinduism (and Christianity) be viewed as “umbrella terms for a diverse host of inter- linked texts, rituals, beliefs, prescriptions, and institutions, all organized into equally diverse and numerous historical traditions.”71 Hinduism is not a singular religious tradition. Rather, it is a collection of many traditions, each with its own language and culture, which often identify different texts as sacred. In this way, it is startlingly different from the monotheistic traditions, which, at the very least, agree more or less on what to include in their canons of sacred literature. Many contributors explicitly discuss Hindu intra-religious diversity, and they illustrate it frequently.72 For example, one thinker interprets caste as a means of correctly ordering a sustainable, peaceful society while another castigates it as a tool of the powerful to shame and exclude large portions of society.73 Another example: Some reformers during the Hindu renaissance held Scripture in

70. Anand Amaladass, “Dialogue in India,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 1 (1988) 7-8; id., “The Scope of Dialogue,” 42; Wesley Ariarajah, “Hindu-Christian Dia- logue during the Past Decade,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 10 (1997) 42-43. 71. Tinu Ruparell, “On Being Hindu-Christian,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 11 (1998) 45-48, at 46. 72. For a few examples, see: Deepak Sarma, “Is Jesus a Hindu?,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 13 (2000) 19-25, 20; Trapnell, “The Controversy and Its Theological Implications,” 14-15. 73. For a discussion on caste’s contribute to a sustainable world, see: O. P. Dwivedi, “Human Responsibility and the Environment,” Hindu-Christian Studies 6 (1993) 19-26, at 23-24; Jitendra Bajaj and Mandyam Doddamane Srivivas, “A Response to Prof. Dha- rampal’s Bharatiya Chitta Manas and Kala,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 9 (1996) 27-30, at 28-30. For a discussion of how caste disenfranchises, see: Ayrookuhzhiel, “The Dalits, Religions, and Interfaith Dialogue,” 17-19.

997461.indb7461.indb 285285 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 286 ASHLEE KIRK

disregard while Sankara identified Scripture as the only means of knowing God.74 Yet another example: the non-theistic Mimamsa school exists side by side with the theistic bhakti tradition.75 Hinduism is diverse. Given this diversity, one might assume that Hinduism ends in utter relativism, but this is not the case. Margaret Chatterjee explains the Hindu perspective: “Relativity is inevitable, and relativism is not. When pressed as to the difference I would say something like this: to admit relativity is to admit the partiality of all finite viewpoints and not to bewail this; to concede relativism is to admit partiality and to lament it.”76 Generally, Hinduism chooses the former. As already discussed, Hinduism often functions from the perspective that there are many paths with one final destination. Each path is limited; each path is finite. Because of this, there is neither a need for conflict nor for relativism. There is a place for apologetics and rational inquiry, but such endeavors are practiced from the perspective of epistemic humility. It must be noted, however, that there are, occasionally, scholars who border on lamenting diversity. They worry that the lack of a defined Hindu orthodoxy will give them a weaker position in negotiations with their former colonizers. They wish to define Hinduism, to set orthodoxy, in order to gain political strength and negotiating power. Dharampal, for example, pleads for the recovery of India’s unique civilizational con- sciousness.77 He seeks to define what it means to be Indian. In Trinidad, Hindus responded to an aggressive Presbyterian missionary campaign by creating their own schools, building a vast network of temples, and supporting Maha Saba, an organization with political ties.78 Because of this, Hindu belief in Trinidad has become rather homogeneous, but with this homogeneity has come political might.

74. Anantanand Rambachan discusses both Hindu approaches to Scripture; see: Anantanand Rambachan, “The Nature and Authority of Scripture: Implications for Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 8 (1995) 20-27. For a longer discussion on the Sankara’s Advaita approach to scriptural exegesis, see: Ananta- nand Rambachan, “Scripture as a Source of Knowledge in Hinduism,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 9 (1996) 2-7. 75. For a discussion of the non-theistic Mimamsa approach, see: William Allen and Bhibuti Yadav, “The Role of Hindu Scripture in Salvation,” Hindu-Christian Stud- ies Bulletin 9 (1996) 14-20. For a discussion of bhakti approaches, see: Robert L. Fastiggi, “The Mystical Path of Total Abandonment to God in Jean-Pierre de Caussade and the Bhagavad-Gita,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 3 (1990) 13-20. 76. Chatterjee, “Reflections on Religious Pluralism in the Indian Context,” 2. 77. For a discussion of Dharampal’s approach, see: Clooney, “Four Responses to Prof. Dharampal’s Bharatiya Citta Manas and Kala,” 2-19; Bajaj and Srivivas, “A Response to Prof. Dharampal’s Bharatiya Chitta Manas and Kala,” 27-30. 78. For a discussion of Hinduism in Trinidad, see: Marion O’Callaghan, “Hindu- ism in the Indian Diaspora in Trinidad,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 11 (1998) 2-10.

997461.indb7461.indb 286286 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 287

b) Focuses on the Distinctiveness of Hinduism as ‘Religion’ Martin Baumann argues Hinduism’s interaction with the Christian West has resulted in Hinduism slowly becoming a religion.79 Baumann argues that Hinduism, which was once an ethno-cultural religion, has slowly shifted to a confessional religion, requiring commitment to a sys- tematized faith. Such a claim may not be met with universal agreement, but it does raise an important point that is explicitly or implicitly raised by many contributors: If Hinduism is religion, it is religion in a completely different way than Christianity. While Christians often assume religions have central creeds, authoritative texts, and institutional bodies, Hindus assume nothing of the sort, for Hinduism has no central creed, no single, agreed upon authoritative text, and no institutional body.80 There is no prevailing theological system, and few Hindus have any interest in constructing one.81 Thus, while Christian faith often includes a commitment to particular beliefs, Hindu ‘faith’ requires no such commitment. Multiple allegiances are possible, for multiple paths are adequate.82 There is, for example, no Sanskrit word for heretic.83 Perhaps the distinctiveness of Hindu religion best emerges in a discussion about the experiences of the Hindu diaspora. Because there is no set orthodox doctrine, members of the Hindu diaspora constantly negotiate their identities, including their religious identities. Marion O’Callaghan observes: “Hinduism in Trinidad has proved itself capable of re-working crucial aspects of Hinduism in India in order to bind Hindus abroad as an ethnic group and to provide a strategy for upward mobility.”84 One example: Hindus in Trinidad have begun to assume caste upon immigration or award caste according to merit. Similarly, Raymond Williams observes that Hindus in America “are able to maintain several identities and to express these at times and in ways that are most advantageous to them in adapting to current circumstance and in preserving options for the future.”85 Thus, since

79. Martin B. Baumann, “The Hindu Presence in Europe and Implications of Interfaith Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 11 (1998) 25-30, at 29-30. 80. For a discussion of Christian assumptions, see: Baumann, “The Hindu Pres- ence in Europe,” 29-30. For a good discussion on the difference between Christian religion and Hindu religion, see: Chatterjee, “Reflections on Religious Pluralism in the Indian Context,” 4-7. 81. Chatterjee, “The Prospect for Hindu-Christian Interaction,” 2. 82. Chatterjee, “Reflections on Religious Pluralism in the Indian Context,” 4-7. 83. Ibid., 6. 84. O’Callaghan, “Hinduism in the Indian Diaspora in Trinidad,” 9. 85. Raymond Williams, “Immigrants from India in North America and Hindu- Christian Study and Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 11 (1998) 20-24, at 20.

997461.indb7461.indb 287287 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 288 ASHLEE KIRK

Hinduism has no dogma and no institution, the Hindu response to diversity is quite often behavioral. As Margaret Chatterjee argues, it is often assimilation up to a certain point.86 Certain Hindu practices and ideas are held onto while others are negotiated. Of course, Hinduism’s distinctiveness can sometimes serve as an impediment to dialogue. Because Hinduism and Christianity are built upon different theological foundations, they sometimes lack shared categories. Some Hindu scholars respond to these impediments by trying to prove that Hinduism does have similar categories. Rambachan observes: “It is often too easy for the Hindu who is involved in interreligious dialogue with the Christian to fall into the habit of striving assiduously to show that the insights of Hinduism do not differ, in essentials, from those of Christianity.”87 This occasionally occurs in the journal. For example, S. Gangadaran and Israel Selvanayagam attempt to demonstrate that there is a corporate dimension to Hindu worship. They cite the bhakti tradition of the communion of saints as evidence.88 However, most Hindu scholars give the impression of wanting to remain true to Hindu distinctiveness. V. A. Devasenpathi is quick to remind Gangadaran and Selvanayagam that the bhakti conception of communion differs greatly from the Chris- tian conception, for the former has no structural organization and set form.89 Rambachan, perhaps, captures the mindset of most Hindus when he states: “One’s contribution to the encounter of religions is greatest when one is able to offer, humbly, at the table of mutual inquiry and respect, the uniqueness of one’s perspective and experience of the Ultimate.”90 Hinduism is best when it remains true to itself.

c) Studies Christianity from Hindu Perspective Because it values its distinctiveness, perhaps it is no surprise that Hindu approaches to Christianity are often determined according to one’s particular Hindu convictions. Thus, Hindu self-understandings often correlate with particular approaches to Christianity. Before describ- ing these correlatives, however, it is best to make a few preliminary

86. Chatterjee, “Reflection on Religious Pluralism in the Indian Context,” 2. 87. Clooney, “Four Responses to Prof. Dharampal’s Bharatiya Citta Manas and Kala,” 11. 88. S. Gangadaran and Israel Selvanayagam, “The Communion of Saints: Chris- tian and Tamil Shaiva Perspectives,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 5 (1992) 13-20. 89. V. A. Devasenpathi, “Response to S. Gangadaran and Israel Selvanayagam,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 5 (1992) 21-22. 90. Clooney, “Four Responses to Prof. Dharampal’s Bharatiya Citta Manas and Kala,” 11.

997461.indb7461.indb 288288 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 289

remarks. Regardless of particular Hindu self-understandings, most researchers’ approaches share certain characteristics. First, most are somewhat suspicious of their Christian dialogue partners. They worry that dialogue is a preliminary step toward conversion. As Anand Amaladass admits: “When a commission on dialogue and a commission on direct evangelization are set up by the same organization side by side and sometimes the same participants move in and out of these commissions one begins to wonder … about the motives of such a dialogue initiative.”91 Because of this, many Hindus have certain prerequisites for engaging in dialogue. The most common is undoubtedly requiring their Christian dialogue partners to accept the validity of their positions, the truthful- ness of their positions.92 For must Hindus, dialogue is not concerned with discerning right from wrong. Rather, it is concerned with understanding both one’s own tradition and another’s tradition.93 Dialogue is, ultimately, about communication. Within the journal, one can identify three different (though not necessarily fully independent) approaches to Christianity. The first two approach Christianity from a common assumption: there are many paths to ultimate reality and Christianity is one of those paths. However, Hindu scholars disagree as to Christianity’s place in the unfolding drama of salvation/liberation. Tinu Ruparell captures two distinct interpretations: So we have two main Occidentalist attitudes apparent in modern Hindu responses to the Christian West. The homogenizing inclusivism of sanatana dharma allows Hindus to incorporate alterior religious traditions into their own highly developed hierarchical tropologies, thus eviscerating them of any threatening power. Eclecticism, on the other hand, temporarily postpones inclusion in order to identify and extract specific elements of the foreign religious or culture for its own use. These modes of negotiation are cloaked in the rhetoric of religious tolerance and universality, allied to an

91. Amaladass, “Dialogue in India,” 8. See also: Amaladass, “The Scope of Dia- logue,” 3; Klaus Klostermaier, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Revisiting the Tannirpalli Trinity’s Original Vision,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 16 (2003) 3-11, at 3. 92. Amaladass, “Dialogue in India,” 8; Glady Ambat, “Why Dialogue with Hin- dus?,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 2 (1989) 9-10, at 9; Rambachan, “The Nature and Authority of Scripture,” 24. 93. Amaladass, “The Scope of Dialogue,” 3. Amaladass states: “We begin to realize that it is not always the questions of who is right and who is wrong, not always an either/or. Sometimes both truth and error are present without eliminating error. Oppo- sites do co-exist and in life things do not neatly arrange themselves as contradiction and convergence. One cannot eradicate what is ‘false’. To perceive this mystery of reality is a sign of maturity. To let oneself be shaped by the reality and not trying to force reality to be what we would like them to be is a sign of wisdom” (4).

997461.indb7461.indb 289289 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 290 ASHLEE KIRK

attitude of almost messianic duty to guide, instruct, and encourage the spiritually moribund West.94 The first approach, homogenizing inclusivism, incorporates Chris- tianity (or, at least, elements of Christianity) within the Hindu topogra- phy. Often this means that Christianity is just one more path on the way.95 Within this approach, Christianity is held with as much esteem as Advaita or bhakti or Mimamsa. Many Hindu reformers took this approach, including Radhakrishnan, Vivekananda, and Gandhi.96 Many contemporaries take this approach as well. Rambachan for example, interprets the authoritative sources of Christianity as rival pramanas, i.e., as valid sources of knowledge. Since valid sources of knowledge cannot contradict each other, “the pramana approach urges us to account for our differences and similarities.”97 Thus, this approach encourages study of and (sometimes) learning from Christianity.98 The second approach, eclecticism, views Hinduism as the guru of the West. Tinu Ruparell describes how “an inclusivist, universalized Hin- duism raised in apologetic awareness … made possible the view of the West as morally and spiritually bankrupt and in need of India’s greater religious wisdom to birth its own spiritual epiphany. In being colonized, Hinduism is ironically the Christian West’s savior.”99 According to

94. Ruparell, “Hindu Occidentalism,” 29. 95. Vasudha Naryanan provides an example of this approach within popular religiosity. Naryanan describes how, in the sharing of religious places, “Divinity is both generic and specific. Generic enough to appear in many places, but forceful, powerful because it is local, it is in the form of Arogya Mata or Infant Jesus. And they recognize that power as being that of Mary or the Infant Jesus; it is not Parvati, Durga, or baby Krishna. In other words, it is not a simple ‘mushiness’ of confusing religions and rituals … They recognize that the paths are distinctive, though perhaps similar.” See: Naryanan, “Sacred Land, Common Ground, Contested Territory,” 28. 96. On Radhakrishnan, see: Coward, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” 3; Chatterjee, “Reflection on Religious Pluralism in the Indian Context,” 10-12. On Vivekananda, see: Ron Neufeldt, “Reflections on Vivekananda’s Speeches at the World Parliament of Reli- gions,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 6 (1993) 1-3. On Gandhi, see: Devadatta Dab- holkar, “Mahatma Gandhi: A Living Embodiment of Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 5 (1992) 23-25; Chatterjee, “Reflection on Religious Pluralism in the Indian Context,” 9-10. 97. Rambachan, “Scripture as a Source of Knowledge in Hinduism,” 6; See also: Arti Dhand, “The Politics and the Dharma of Conversion: Reflections from the Mahab- harata,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 15 (2002) 6-12, at 11. 98. For example, Rambachan argues that Advaita can learn to include the allevia- tion of suffering in its understanding of liberation from Marcus Borg’s analysis of Advaita. See: Anantanand Rambachan, “Advaita Vedanta and Marcus Borg: Opportuni- ties for Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 16 (2003) 30-37, 35-36. 99. Ruparell, “Hindu Occidentalism,” 28.

997461.indb7461.indb 290290 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 291

J. K. Bajaj and M. D. Srinvias, the West is viewed as spiritually bankrupt due to its contempt and disregard for idols and cows.100 Christians are deemed impious. It is Hinduism’s job to correct and purify Christianity. Thus, Dennis Hudson recalls how Armugu Navalar attempts to correct Christian interpretations of Scripture, while Deepak Sarma relates how S. C. Vasu believes that Jesus must truly be Hindu!101 The third approach to Christianity is from the exclusivist arm of Hinduism, which has attempted to define Hindu orthodoxy in order to gain social cohesion and political might. It often accomplishes this through the conflation of religion and culture. These exclusivist thinkers often disparage Christianity, claiming superiority.102 Sometimes such rhetoric becomes militant.103 This exclusivist approach most often rests on the narrative of India as Bharat Mata, i.e., Mother India. According to this narrative, India is the sacred origin of eternal religion (sanatana dharma). As a non-indigenous religion, Christianity is not one path among many. Rather, with its enduring colonialist designs, Christianity is an invading alien trying to force Indians to reject their sacred culture.104 As such, Christianity must be met with vigilance.

2. The Christian Approach to Interreligious Studies and Hinduism Ronald Neufeldt observes: “The history of Christian thought in the West is not notable for its efforts to come to grips with the claims of other religious traditions, except for the purpose of proselytization.”105 According to Harold Coward, Indian-Western relations began deterio- rating during the Medieval period when “Christianized myth based on Biblical allegories which painted India as a land of griffons, monsters and

100. J. K. Bajaj and M. D. Srinivas, “Core Issues of Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Idol-Worship, Cow-Protection, and Conversion,” Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 17 (2004) 3-11, at 5-9. 101. For a discussion on Navalar’s corrections, see: Dennis Hudson, “Response to John Carmen,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 4 (1991) 23-25, at 23-24. For a discussion on S. C. Vasu’s interpretation of Christ as a Hindu, see: Sarma, “Is Jesus a Hindu?,” 21-23. 102. For example, Dharampal preaches the superiority of the Indian approach. See: Clooney, “Four Responses to Prof. Dharampal’s Bharatiya Citta Manas and Kala,” 5-7. 103. For example, Dayananda Sarasvati denounced the evils of post-Vedic Hindu- ism and took a militant approach to Christianity; see Coward, “Hindu-Christian Dia- logue,” 2. 104. For discussion on the Bharat Mata narrative and its connection to exclusivism, see: Trapnell, “The Controversy and its Theological Implications,” 13-14. 105. Ronald Neufeldt, “Christianity and the ‘Other Religions’: Contributions from the Work of F. Max Müller,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 5 (1992) 9-12, at 9.

997461.indb7461.indb 291291 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 292 ASHLEE KIRK

demons lying somewhere East of the terrestrial paradise” served as the predominant paradigm.106 During the colonialist era, Christianity’s paradigm shifted its focus to conversion. While some missionaries straight- forwardly despised India and its Hindu religion, later missionaries studied (and sometimes emulated) Hindu customs and teachings in order to increase the attractiveness of the Christian message.107 Indology, inculturation, and dialogue developed out of this missionary impulse.108 Fred Clothey identifies several sins committed during the colonialist era: pejo- rative putdowns, noble savage paternalism, benign neglect, and roman- ticism.109 Because of this history, most Christian scholars within the field of interreligious studies believe they have to create a new approach, one which is open to recognizing and learning from the spiritual riches of another tradition.110 This approach involves taking Hinduism (and other world religions) seriously. This seriousness, particularly when applied to a tradition as broad and diverse as Hinduism, results in ever increasing spe- cialization.111 Consequently, there is no single Christian approach to

106. Coward, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” 1. 107. Neufeldt discusses Max Müller’s view that missionary activity deprecated the religious traditions of other peoples; see: Neufeldt, “Christianity and the ‘Other Reli- gions’,” 11. Geoffrey Cook describes how some missionaries shifted from a conception of the native as morally vile to a conception of the native as a decent person with a less than perfect religion. Under this paradigm, conversion was seen as an altruistic policy designed to save the ‘other’; see: Geoffrey Cook, “Reginald Heber and the Hindu- Christian Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 9 (1996) 31-35. See also: Richard DeSmet, “R. de Nobili as Forerunner of Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 4 (1991) 1-9. 108. This is why some Hindu scholars evaluate Indology negatively. For example, Dharampal refers to Indology as the study of the conquered by the conquerors, while Amaladass argues that the great Christian scholars of the past can never be divested from their missionary motivations; see: Amaladass, “The Scope of Dialogue,” 3. Alternatively, Catherine Cornille argues that the missionary approach was quite ambiguous. Some of the scholars achieved great sufficiency in their studies of Hindu customs and religiosity; see: Catherine Cornille, “Missionary Views of Hinduism,” at 28-29, 31. 109. Fred Clothey, “Hindu-Christian ‘Studies’: Some Confessions from the Boundaries,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 9 (1996) 42-45, at 43. 110. Sr. Vandana, “In Dialogue with Hindus?” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 3 (1990) 34-44, at 35-36. See also: Clothey, “Hindu-Christian ‘Studies’,” 44; C. Murray Rogers, “Grounds for Mutual Growth,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 14 (2001) 3-6, at 4. Clothey discusses the need to develop ever more adequate paradigms, while Rogers teaches how friendship can shatter old paradigms to usher in new paradigms. 111. Francis Clooney, “The Transformation of the Scholar as a Factor in Hindu- Christian Studies,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 3 (1990) 1-6, at 1: “But the con- comitant growth in complexity means that none of us can really master the whole any- more; we are all specialists, we focus most of our attention on particular areas of interest, and we work with materials in certain language areas, according to certain methods we have learned.”

997461.indb7461.indb 292292 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 293

Hindu-Christian studies. In fact, there are numerous methodologies, various assumptions, many goals, and occasionally contradicting results. That being said, several characteristics emerge that most Christian scholars of interreligious study seem to share; we will highlight a few of these characteristics. First, many Christian interreligious scholars assume the boundaries between traditions are blurred. This blurring results in commitment and openness being identified as prerequisites to interreligious study. Second, many scholars identify several types of dialogue. Third, most scholars articulate or treat interreligious study as a quest to achieve mutual understanding. This mutual understanding includes learning about and from Hindus and, subsequently, learning about one’s self. Scholars emerge from such learning with complicated identities, multiple loyalties, and, occasionally, the development of different interpretations of mission.

a) Assumes the Boundaries between Traditions are Blurred Most Christian scholars acknowledge that some cultural borders will always remain and, thus, that there are limits to Christianity’s interreligious understanding.112 Nevertheless, both Christian scholars and Indian Christians often hold that the firm and fast boundaries separating Christianity from Hinduism have disappeared or, at the very least, been significantly blurred.113 In fact, Francis Clooney explicitly advocates transgressing existing borders; he insists: “The reasonable and prudent boundaries of one’s faith are there to be transgressed … [One must] venture to preserve and protect one’s faith by forever seeking what is outside it, by forever inviting outsiders in.”114 For most scholars, the boundaries are blurred because they have discovered that the referent of religion is beyond every religion. This realization is often gained from interreligious study itself. As Francis Clooney explains: If I may generalize: a thorough immersion in Vedanta promotes the view that the real object of ‘Hindu-Christian studies’ is a profoundly

112. Klostermaier, “Dialogue in the Modern West,” 9; Clothey, “Hindu-Chris- tian ‘Studies’,” 42-43. 113. Klostermaier, “Dialogue in the Modern West,” 9; Francis Clooney, “How the Numbers Matter: Demographics and the Future of Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 17 (2004) 12-19, at 18; Clothey, “Hindu Christian ‘Studies’,” 42; Narayanan, “Sacred Land, Common Ground, Contested Territory,” 25-26; Selva J. Raj, “Dialogue on the Ground: The Complicated Identities and the Complex Negotiations of Catholics and Hindus in South India,” Journal of Hindu- Christian 17 (2004) 33-44; Diana Eck, “Excerpts from Encountering God,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 7 (1994) 26-30, at 28-30. 114. Clooney, “Hindu-Christian Studies as a Necessary Luxury,” 44.

997461.indb7461.indb 293293 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 294 ASHLEE KIRK

inarticulable referent which eludes the grasp of words – but which is noticed in its absence only after thorough, meticulous cross-religious research has been carried through and interiorized. The Vedantin tells us that the properly religious aspect of Hindu-Christian studies resides in this consequent achieved silence.115 For some Christian scholars, this ultimate referent is God – quite often a re-interpreted Christian God.116 For others, this referent is discussed ambiguously, as a single entity/phenomenon beyond every historical articulation.117 Still others uphold the belief in (a) transcending referent(s) but question how we can know all religions point to the same referent.118 Regardless of how one understands this referent – as a re-interpreted Christian God, as one Ultimate Reality, or as ultimately unknow- able – this belief in a referent beyond every religious articulation often results in a division between faith and belief or between faith and cumu- lative tradition.119 The various conflicting perceptions of God are deemed the result of cultural and education differences.120 Emphasis is placed on the historical mediation of all traditions, Christianity includ- ed.121 Scholars conclude that particular traditions may be our only paths

115. Clooney, “The Transformation of the Scholar,” 4. 116. Many Christian thinkers study Hinduism, at least in part, because they believe God wills it. This belief is predicated on the assumption that God’s saving grace is universal. This assumption is, of course, based on Christian sources. See: Coward, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” 4; L. Sundaram, “The Value of Inter-Faith Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Bulletin 2 (1989) 8-9; DeSmet, “R. de Nobili as Forerunner of Hindu- Christian Dialogue,” 1; Rogers, “Grounds for Mutual Growth,” 4. 117. Eck, “Excerpts from Encountering God,” 26-30; Jyoti Sahi, “The Holy Place as a Common Ground for Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Bulletin 4 (1991) 35-38; Glen Friesen, “Abhishiktananda: Hindu Advaitic Experience and Christian Beliefs,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 11 (1998) 31-38. John Carmen describes how it is typical for modern theories of religious pluralism to take a more ambiguous approach; see: John Carmen, “The Dilemma of Diversity and the Boon of Understanding,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 7 (1994) 20-25, at 21. 118. For example, John Carmen asks how we can know that all religions point to/partially see one reality, while Neufeldt argues that its counterproductive to assume that all religions point to the same goal; see: John Carmen, “The Dilemma of Diversity and the Boon of Understanding,” 20-21; Neufeldt, “Reflections on Vivekananda’s Speeches at the World Parliament of Religions,” 3. See also: Bettina Bäumer, “Levels of Dialgoue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 3 (1990) 33-34, at 33. 119. Robert Baird, “Academic Study and the Phenomena of Dialogue,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 3 (1990) 7-11, at 9-10; Sr. Vandana, “In Dialogue with Hin- dus?,” 42-43; Raimundo Panikkar, “The Ongoing Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 2 (1989) 10-11. 120. L. Sundaram, “The Value of Inter-Faith Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 2 (1989) 8-9, at 8. 121. William Cenkner, “Retrospective: The Birthing of a Discipline,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 14 (2001) 19-24, at 22.

997461.indb7461.indb 294294 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 295

to God but that they are all limited and flawed. Consequently, Trapnell argues: “The challenge and the opportunity set before Christians is the retrieval of sources that support recognition of the symbolic nature of theological expressions while fostering commitment to the divine mystery to which such expressions point.”122 Most often this division between faith and belief leads scholars to identify commitment and openness as preconditions for interreligious study and dialogue.123 For many scholars, commitment is rather self- evident. Because true dialogue requires at least two participants, dialogue and interreligious studies functions best amongst people who are deeply rooted in their own traditions. We must be able to speak, in order to dialogue. However, we must also be able to listen. For most scholars, true openness means recognizing the truth and faith present in another religious tradition and allowing this truth to infiltrate us, thereby giving another religious tradition the power to change us.124 According to Raimundo Panikkar: [Dialogue occurs amongst people who] happen to more or less love their traditions, but who are not tied to them to such an extent so as to defend any fixed orthodoxy. The archetypes may play a more important role than the explicit ideas. Any authentic dialogue is a search for truth, incurs thus the ‘risk’ of finding itself also ‘outside’ the fold … There are no non-negotiable topics, no ‘classified’ materials or hidden agendas, not because previously people were not sincere, but because the very notion of orthodoxy has become flexible, dynamic, and not merely intellectual.125 Not all would agree fully with Panikkar, but his statement captures the sentiment of many Christian interreligious scholars: at the very least,

122. Trapnell, “The Controversy and its Implications,” 17-18. 123. L. Sundaram captures this precondition perfectly. See: Sundaram, “The Value of Inter-Faith Dialogue,” 8: If the participants in a dialogue are only ‘light half-believers in a casual creed who never deeply loved or deeply felt’ their dialogue will remain at only a superficial level. The paradox therefore in such meetings, is that those who dialogue must be persons of deep conviction and personal commitment to their faith and yet are eager to keep their minds open to beliefs and traditions other than their own, ready to learn from them and to fill up gaps in their own religious experience and knowledge. It is obvious therefore that it is wrong to expect short-term ‘results’ from the dialogue process. 124. For more information on openness, see: Sr. Vandana, “In Dialogue with Hindus?,” 36-37; Birgit Langer, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue in Austria/Vienna as a Typical Example for Interreligious Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 5 (1992) 29-32, at 31; Kenneth Cracknell, “Dialogue: A Call to Friendship,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 14 (2001) 37-38; Raj, “Dialogue on the Ground,” 41. 125. Raimundo Panikkar, “The Ongoing Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bul- letin 2 (1989) 10-11, at 11.

997461.indb7461.indb 295295 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 296 ASHLEE KIRK

orthodoxy needs to be open to challenges posed by interreligious study. As Diana Eck reminds us, “The Kingdom of God is much wider than the Church.”126 Most Christian scholars would agree with this statement, but it is the interreligious scholars who fully commit to the belief and its implications for the Christian understanding of non-Christian religions. For many, this means involving Hinduism in the dialogical process from the beginning. Hinduism and Christianity, together, find the ground on which dialogue is built.127

b) Identifies Different Approaches to Interreligious Study Most Christian interreligious scholars agree that there are many approaches to interreligious study. Francis Clooney argues there is no a priori reason for selecting one approach over another; all have their strengths and their weaknesses.128 The journal seems to agree, for its contributors discuss and practice many different approaches. The most common approaches represented within the journal include: friendship, ethical, theological, the turn to the scholar, and the spiritual.129 One should note that these approaches often overlap. The discussion of each approach separately is meant to simplify our analysis. The friendship approach to interreligious study believes friendship has the power to ground sustained dialogue and the ability to break open old paradigms.130 The ethical approach argues that religions should work together in order to make the world a better place: more just, more environmentally con- scious, more peaceful, etc.131 Theological approaches, which often take

126. Eck, “Excerpts from Encountering God,” 30. 127. For a discussion, see: Raimundo Panikkar, “The Ongoing Dialogue,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 2 (1989) 10-11; Francis Clooney, “Translating, Teaching, Conversing: A Reflection in Response to the Essays of Richard DeSmet and John Car- man,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 4 (1991) 21-22, at 22. 128. Clooney, “Translating, Teaching, Conversing,” 21. 129. Bettina Bäumer identifies several approaches to dialogue: social meeting (daily life), living together (ethical), intellectual, devotional (spiritual), and religious (deeper encounter with Ultimate Reality). As stated above, most of these approaches appear in the Journal, with the exception of the religious. See: Bäumer, “Levels of Dialogue,” 33-34. 130. For a discussion of this approach, see: Coward, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” 3; Kenneth Cracknell, “Dialogue: A Call to Friendship,” 37-38; Cenkner, “Retrospec- tive: The Birthing of a Discipline,” 21; Rogers, “Grounds for Mutual Growth,” 3-6. 131. For examples of this approach, see: Klaus Klostermaier, “Ecology and Reli- gion: Christian and Hindu Paradigms,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 6 (1993) 7-11; Klaus Klostermaier, “Introduction: The Hindu-Christian Science Trialogue,” Hindu- Christian Studies Trialogue 10 (1997) 5-11; Harold Coward, “Ethics and Genetic Engi- neering in Indian Philosophy, and some Comparisons with Modern Western Thought,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 16 (2003) 38-47.

997461.indb7461.indb 296296 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 297

the form of comparative theology, investigate the beliefs, doctrines, and methods of both Hinduism and Christianity side by side in order to gain new insights into the home tradition.132 The turn to the scholar approach often presents anecdotal or biographical evidence to illustrate the affect of interreligious study on the scholar, generally examining how his/her identity and theology has shifted.133 Last, but certainly not least, the spiritual approach focuses on the sharing of festivals, rituals, saints, etc among Hindu and Christian scholars and believers, and how such sharing has the ability to bring believers even closer together, sometimes temporarily overcoming dogmatic differences.134

c) Quests to Achieve Mutual Understanding It is Anand Amaladass who best captures the tenor of Christian approaches to interreligious study. Amaladass states: “For Europe, the relationship [to India/Hinduism] took the form of a quest. The search was not only for exotic and curious data but a subjective disquieting and a rethinking of its own basic assumptions and conceptions.”135 In other words, Christianity’s approach has been a quest for mutual understanding. Most often this mutual understanding is achieved through a focus on similarity; differences are often determined to be superficial or opportuni- ties for Christianity’s growth or purification.136 This focus on similarity is

132. For examples of this approach, see: Michael Stoeber, “Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, and Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 8 (1995) 28-35; Joseph A. Bracken, “Infinity and the Logic of Non-Dualism,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 11 (1998) 39-44; Allen and Yadav, “The Role of Hindu Scrip- ture in Salvation,” 14-20; L. Thompson Wolcott, “The Love of God in the New Testa- ment and in the Tulsikrt Ramcaritmanas,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 12 (1999) 28-33; A. Nayak, “Thoughts on Hindu and Christian Prayer,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 13 (2000) 32-34; Rachel Fell McDermott, “Meeting ‘the Mother who Takes Across’: Christian Encounters with the Fierce Goddesses of Hinduism,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 16 (2003) 48-57; Martin Ganeri, “Knowledge and Love of God in Ramanuja and Aquinas,” Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 20 (2007) 3-9; Fastiggi, “The Mystical Path,” 13-20. 133. For examples of this approach, see: Clooney, “The Transformation of the Scholar,” 1-6; Cenkner, “Retrospective: The Birthing of a Discipline,” 19-24; Vandana, “In Dialogue with Hindus?,” 34-44. 134. For examples of this approach, see: Thomas Forsthoefel, “The Sage of Pure Experience,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 14 (2001) 31-36; M. Darrol Bryant, “Dia- logue at/with the Kumbha Mela,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 15 (2002) 28-34; Raj, “Dialogue on the Ground,” 33-44; Narayanan, “Sacred Land, Common Ground, Contested Territory,” 20-32. 135. Amaladass, “The Scope of Dialogue,” 3. 136. Sundaram, “The Value of Inter-Faith Dialogue,” 8; Carmen, “The Dilemma of Diversity and the Boon of Understanding,” 21-22; Vandana, “In Dialogue with

997461.indb7461.indb 297297 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 298 ASHLEE KIRK

rather unsurprising, given that most Christian scholars assume that Hin- duism and Christianity refer to the same transcendent reality. A few scholars, however, challenge this focus. Ronald Neufeldt, for example, argues: “The challenge is not to create unity out of diversity ... but to live in harmony in spite of disagreements, some of which may be rather fundamental.”137 T. S. Rukmani seconds Neufeldt’s critique, illustrating how Richard DeSmet’s search for similarity ultimately led to his complete misinterpretation of Sankara’s Advaita.138 Whether mutual understanding is achieved through a focus on similarity or difference, it always includes learning about Hinduism. This process almost always involves an aspect of healing.139 The correc- tion of gross misconceptions, the eradication of prejudices, and the abo- lition of past reductions and caricatures are healing in the wake of Chris- tianity’s colonialist past.140 Mutual understanding requires the scholar to understand Hindu texts, customs, rituals, and beliefs first and foremost

Hindus?,” 38. An excellent example of this search for similarity is Joseph A. Bracken’s study of infinity and non-dualism. Bracken observes that one of the most divisive issues between Hinduism and Christianity concerns whether ultimate reality is to be conceived as a personal God or an impersonal principle. Making use of Sankara’s understanding of Brahman’s non-duality and his own understanding of Christianity, Bracken discovers a deeper similarity beneath the difference. Both religions conceive of Ultimate Reality as ‘an all-comprehensive activity.” It is when Ultimate Reality is considered an entity that problems emerge; See: Bracken, “Infinity and the Logic of Non-Dualism,” 39-44. For other examples, see: Wolcott, “The Love of God,” 28-33; Fastiggi, “The Mystical Path,” 13-20. 137. Neufeldt, “Reflections on Vivekananda’s Speeches at the World Parliament of Religions,” 3. 138. T. S. Rukmani, “Dr. Richard DeSmet and Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 16 (2003) 12-21. Rukmani states: “In order to do a comparative study of two different religions or theologies, either in a religious or theological sense, it is not necessary to somehow fit the ontology and epistemology of the two systems being studied to appear as if they mean the same thing. In such an approach there is injustice done to both the systems and one ends up trying to, sometimes, fit round circles into square pegs. It is wise to acknowledge that religious and theological schools that rise and grow in different cultural milieus can have a rationale of their own and the best we can do, as scholars is to understand and appreciate the dynamics of that growth in their own setting” (12). 139. Clothey, “Hindu-Christian ‘Studies’,” 43. 140. For a discussion on misperceptions, see: M. Thomas Thangaraj, “Hindu and Christian Mutual Misperception,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 13 (2000) 3-4; Brian K. Pennington, “Reverend William Ward and His Legacy for Christian (Mis)perception of Hinduism,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 13 (2000) 5-11. For discussions on overcoming prejudice see: Sundaram, “The Value of Inter-Faith Dialogue,” 8. For a discussion on overcoming past reductions, see: Panikkar, “The Ongoing Dialogue,” 10: “It should be clear here that Hinduism is not reducible to orthodox versions of it. Religions today, as in times gone by, are living entities. They are moving and changing realities – labels not withstanding. Only from the outside we have a static view of religion.”

997461.indb7461.indb 298298 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 299

in their Hindu context. Evaluation and judgment are deferred so that understanding can occur.141 Understanding, however, does not imply mastery. As already mentioned, Christian scholars, by and large, recognize the limits of their understanding; they are in constant search for more adequate understanding. Learning about Hinduism leads to learning from Hinduism, which forces a reconsideration of Christianity. As Harold Coward explains: “The aim is an inner reflection upon the teachings and practices of different religions which leads to new insights and integrations in the experience of one’s own religion.”142 The study of another tradition reveals gaps or deficiencies in Christian thinking, which in turn leads to a reconsideration of certain propositions, rituals, customs, etc. This reconsideration is somewhat expected, since most interreligious scholars’ assume all traditions imperfectly point to the same reality. As Klaus Klostermaier argues: It is not a matter to be ashamed of if one recognizes one’s own tradition (as well as all others) as ‘incomplete’ and in need of ‘comple- mentation’. It is an admission of the given finiteness of everything human to recognize our indigence not only vis-à-vis a higher principle but also vis-à-vis each other. It is not a sign of weakness or deficiency to seek dialogue with each other. In and through dialogue we exercise our specific human nature, we grow in understanding, and we hope to realize our final destiny.143 Thus, interreligious study has the power to transform Christianity. It can purify, deepen, and expand it.144

141. John Carmen discusses deferring judgment/evaluation in the name of mutual understanding; see: Carmen, “The Dilemma of Diversity and the Boon of Understand- ing,” 22-23. T. S. Rukmani questions whether such cross-religious judgments are ever acceptable; see: Rukmani, “Dr. Richard DeSmet and Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta,” 12. 142. Coward, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” 4. See also: Langer, “Hindu-Chris- tian Dialogue in Austria/Vienna,” 31; Carmen, “The Dilemma of Diversity and the Boon of Understanding,” 21-25. 143. Klostermaier, “Introduction: The Hindu-Christian Science Trialogue,” 10. 144. Examples of Hinduism transforming Christianity abound. Three examples should suffice as illustrations. For an example of how Hinduism can purify Christianity, see: Coward, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” 4. Coward explains how Hinduism has taught him that the appropriate first step within any dialogue is restating and understanding the other’s position. Such an understanding of dialogue could, perhaps, help correct the strictly abstract approach taken to non-Christian religions by theology of religion. For an example of how Hinduism can deepen Christianity, see: Rogers, “Grounds for Mutual Growth,” 5. Through his study of Hinduism, Rogers comes to a surprising question: Is Hinduism’s embracement of plurality the result of absolute trust in God? If so, does that mean that Christianity’s tenacious cling to doctrine is the result of distrust? If this is indeed the case, Hinduism could help deepen Christian spirituality. For an example of how Hinduism can expand Christianity, see: McDermott, “Meeting

997461.indb7461.indb 299299 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 300 ASHLEE KIRK

However, interreligious study can change more than just the Chris- tian tradition; it also has the power to transform the Christian scholar. Caroline Mackenzie describes how the study of the Ramayana brought her to Christian faith; she relates: “When I got involved with the Rama- yana, I had no intention of dialoguing with Hinduism. Since I was not a Christian at that time, this would have been impossible. It was in doing this work that I discovered Christ in a convincing way.”145 Through the study of Hinduism, she was transformed. Often, interreligious scholars emerge from their studies with complex, hybrid identities indebted to multiple traditions. Such hybridization is not as unique as it might appear. Tinu Ruparell, upon reflecting on his Hindu-Christian identity, argues: “[I do not want] to suggest that having a hyphenated identity is something unique, special, or remarkable … We are all ‘works in progress’ – the products of negotiations between many competing spheres of influence or narrative, and thus we are all hybrids of a kind.”146 However, given that religious belief is considered by many Christians to require total commitment, one can see how the hybridization of Chris- tian identity causes some Christians to take pause. It is certainly prob- lematic from a doctrinal point of view, which interprets Christianity as the apex of all religion. Thus, for most scholars, their complex identities place them at the margins, for they are no longer completely at home in one tradition; rather they exist between two.147 Their position is ambiguous, forever changing, forever developing. Ruparell describes this process as metaphor. At first, the complexity appears logically inconsistent. But at that very moment the dialectic of metaphor pushes the interpreter to look for a way of relieving the erupting semantic

‘the Mother who Takes Across,” 54-55. McDermott explains how her study of the Sakta tradition has taught her how to accept death; how to tease, chide, and chastise God, about the confrontation with divine power; and how to acknowledge what sometimes feels like God’s ambivalence. All of this expands the Christian conception of God. 145. Caroline Mackenzie, “Interreligious Dialogue through Art,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 4 (1991) 31-34, 33. 146. Tinu Ruparell, “On Being Hindu-Christian,” 45. See also: Clothey, “Hindu- Christian ‘Studies’,” 42. 147. Clothey, “Hindu-Christian ‘Studies’,” 42. See also: Rogers, “Grounds for Mutual Growth,” 3. Rogers reveals some of the ambiguity involved in the construction of complex identities with multiple loyalties. Rogers states: “Their way, their presuppositions and perceptions, their scriptures and prayers, have reached so far inside me, into my mind and heart, that they are, I rather think, inseparable from ‘the little me’. This is the gift of friendship and every year … the distance between my close Hindu friends and myself, a disciple of Christ, grows less. We belong to one another; we see no need and have no intention of ‘becoming’ the other; we even wonder what ‘other’ means in the depth of our human and spiritual experience.” Rogers is not Hindu, but Hinduism has irrevocably become a part of him. He remains a Christian, but he lives in the margins, between traditions.

997461.indb7461.indb 300300 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 301

stress by forging a new figurative interpretation. In the process, both (the) ‘Hindu’ and ‘Christian’ are redescribed, each by the other, so that a third, new reference is built up in a shaky, liminal space between the two traditions – which indeed might have been thought until then to be incommensurable. In the interstice a new reference is established, but this is not an Archimedean point standing above the gap, rather it is a dynamic point of intersection, an area of overlap or interaction, onto which the hyphenated indi- vidual can hold.148 Hybrid identities – loyalties to, and investments in, traditions other than Christianity – automatically calls into question the continued validity of conversion. Many interreligious Christian scholars engage in interreligious studies hoping to become better Christians and that Hindus will become better Hindus.149 Francis Clooney goes so far as to suggest that if Hinduism were to decline, Christianity should help explain, defend, and revitalize the tradition.150 This is more than religious freedom or tolerance; this is viewing Hinduism as so important that Christians must keep another religious tradition – a tradition viewed as inferior for hundreds of years – alive. In a similar vein, C. Murray Rogers believes interreligious study has collapsed Christian claims of uniqueness and superiority.151 He, therefore, exclusively promotes deep conversion of all to God. Many scholars would not go so far, but several would be in favor of mutual evangelization or increasing hybridization.152 Of course, there are a few Christian interreligious scholars who still embrace a more traditional understanding of mission. Richard DeSmet’s positive evaluation of Robert de Nobili’s method of dialogue reveals DeSmet’s hope that dialogue will end in conversion to

148. Ruparell, “On Being Hindu-Christian,” 46. See also: Cenkner, “Retrospec- tive: The Birthing of a Discipline,” 22-23. 149. Sr. Vandana, “In Dialogue with Hindus?,” 35. 150. Clooney, “How the Numbers Matter,” 19. Clooney states: “Similarly, were Hindu traditions to become, for instance, a minority in India itself, should the Christian interest in interreligious exchange decline? I hope not. Would sympathetic Christians help explain, defend, and revitalize Hindu traditions, as if preserving an endangered species? I hope so.” 151. C. Murray Rogers, “A New Millennium – Nearly!,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 8 (1995) 36-37. 152. For discussions of mutual evangelization, see: Richard DeSmet, “R. de Nobili as Forerunner of Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” 1; Rogers, “Grounds for Mutual Growth,” 3. For a discussion on encouraging hybridization, see: Clothey, “Hindu-Chris- tian ‘Studies’,” 43. Clothey states: “In fact, for a number of us, if there is a ‘missionary spirit’ remaining in our work, it has less to do with seeking to change members of one religious persuasion to another than with wishing that all persons become thoughtful, sensitive ‘third culture people’.” Third culture people are people who do not feel at home in a single tradition but rather live between them.

997461.indb7461.indb 301301 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 302 ASHLEE KIRK

Christianity.153 Similarly, Geoffrey Cook’s interpretation of Reginald Huber’s policy of evangelization as altruistic implies support for evangelization and, subsequently, conversion.154

Conclusion: The Need for Conversation and Collaboration

From our analysis of theology of religion, as developed by the Roman Catholic magisterium, and interreligious studies, as practiced in the Journal for Hindu-Christian Studies, it becomes apparent, at least initially, that there is considerable distance between the abstract and concrete Christian approaches to world religions.155 While the magisterium continues to claim the essentialness of the Church for salvation and the necessity of evangelization, interreligious scholars pay little heed to the Church and challenge the traditional understanding of evangelization as proselytization. While Dom- inus Iesus distinguishes faith from belief, ascribing the former to Christian- ity alone and the latter to all other religions, thereby confirming Christian superiority, interreligious scholars distinguish faith from belief, in order to ascribe the former to the referent beyond all religions and the latter to historical articulations of faith, thereby implying equality between religions. Hence, there is distance and difference between the two positions, yet they deal with the same subject matter. Both are Christian approaches to other religions. Both sets of scholars begin from similar fundamental presuppositions about God, Christ, the Bible, etc. Theology of religion and Christian interreligious studies share a common ground, and they could greatly benefit from conversing and collaborating with one another.

1. Interreligious Studies and Its Need for Theology of Religion Several insights emerge from our analysis of Christian interreligious studies, but perhaps the most striking is the discipline’s aversion

153. DeSmet, “R. de Nobili as Forerunner of Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” 1-9. See also John Carmen’s interpretation of DeSmet’s approach: John Carman, “Protestant Bible Translations in India,” Hindu-Christian Studies 4 (1991) 11-20, at 11-12. 154. Geoffrey Cook, “Reginald Heber and Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 9 (1996) 31-55. 155. It should, of course, be noted that some of the Christian scholars within the journal are non-Catholics. In addition, some of the Western scholars are more secular than Christian. However, given that Catholicism does understand itself to be a universal articulation of truth, these other voices should be taken into account. A protestant’s or a secular scholar’s (whose context will undoubtedly be inundated with Christian archetypes) position should matter to Catholicism.

997461.indb7461.indb 302302 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 303

to deep reflection on the implications of its methods and findings on fundamental Christian claims. There is certainly abstraction within interreligious studies’ concrete approach! Scholars plead for the recognition of Hindu truth, yet this truth remains, by and large, abstract. Allusion is made to a common referent beyond all religions but the nature of this referent remains vague, abstract, and almost empty. If interreligious study is meant to lead Christian scholars deeper into Christianity, it is strange that so little is said about Christ, revelation, the Church, mission, etc., particularly since each of these categories has historically been used (abused?) to claim superiority over other religions. Even when scholars do occasionally mention Christ and/or the Church, there is little serious consideration given to the implications of these findings. If Sr. Vandana states that Christ is neither Hindu nor Christian, what exactly does this make Christ? Has the logos asarkos been separated from the logos ensarkos? Is Christ equally present in both traditions? Equally revealed? Questions such as these are rarely (if ever) considered. At least some scholars of interreligious studies are aware of this lack of deep reflection and judgment on the implications of their findings.156 They offer several justifications for their behavior. Fred Clothey states: Our timidity at identifying publicly those areas where re-thinking is warranted is probably the result of several factors: our will to leave private the conclusions we draw inwardly; the fact that our research partners are less likely to ask us questions as to what we believe than we are to ask them; our temerity in face of the overspecialization in the academy, lest we be thought to sound like theologians who, after all, have created their own fiefdoms and relegated us to ours. Francis Clooney offers his own justification: one writes differently for different audiences. Clooney argues: One has to negotiate the tension between two sympathies, and it is often the case that one cannot really say what one knows, without seeming to separate oneself from the home community by making strong claims about the goodness and truth of another religion or betraying the ‘other’ by portraying it as deficient in comparison with what the community values … The Srivaisnava theologians have afforded me a precedent for believing that speaking in more than one voice can be a necessary and valid religious strategy, one that does

156. Clothey, “Hindu-Christian ‘Studies’,” 44; Clooney, “The Transformation of the Scholar,” 5-6; Wolcott, “The Love of God,” 28; Carmen, “The Dilemma of Diver- sity and the Boon of Understanding,” 22-23.

997461.indb7461.indb 303303 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 304 ASHLEE KIRK

not preclude the later possibility of understanding the several voices as harmonious, even one.157 In other words, Clooney feels that he can switch voices, from the Catholic theologian to the Indologist, depending on his audience. L. Thompson Wolcott offers one final justification, namely: one should not judge another tradition according to external criteria. Thus, one cannot determine if the Vedas are revelation as traditionally understood, for the traditional Christian understanding of revelation is foreign to the Vedas.158 Yet these justifications seem to fall short when one considers Hindu suspicion of Christian motivations for dialogue. Hindus have begged for the exposure of real or imaginary ‘hidden agendas’.159 According to John Carmen, his friend and colleague, Hindu Professor J.L. Mehta, spoke of “his frustration with this modern reticence of many Western Christians to express their deepest convictions.”160 Upon hearing this, Carmen realized that his postponement of evaluation in the name of understanding had “given the impression of unconcern about the truth of Hindu teaching, since the postponement continued indefinitely; the adequate understanding I sought was never quite reached. Still worse, I may have appeared to be hiding my critical judgments behind a mask of courtesy.”161 If Chris- tian interreligious scholars are sincere about taking their dialogue partners seriously, about including Hinduism from the beginning of their forays into interreligious learning, then Christian scholars must begin discussing their fundamental beliefs with Hindu audiences. If a discussion of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is too serious for an interreligious forum, Christian interreligious studies may be in trouble. Conversation and collaboration with theology of religion could help in this regard. Theology of religion develops slowly (perhaps too slowly) precisely because it takes into consideration the implications of novel interpretations of non-Christian traditions for Christianity’s fundamental truth claims. If conversion to Christianity is no longer necessary, does this imply Christ is no longer unique? Or does it imply our understanding of Church

157. Clooney, “The Transformation of the Scholar,” 5-6. See also: Cenkner, “Retrospective: The Birthing of a Discipline,” 20. Cenkner discusses the impossibility of writing as an Indologist, a comparativist, a Christian theologian, and a Roman Cath- olic at the same time. 158. Wolcott, “The Love of God,” 28 159. Amaladass, “The Scope of Dialogue,” 3; Amaladass, “Hindu-Christian Dia- logue Today,” 42. 160. Carmen, “The Dilemma of Diversity and the Boon of Understanding,” 22. 161. Ibid.

997461.indb7461.indb 304304 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 THEOLOGY OF RELIGION AND INTERRELIGIOUS STUDY 305

is incorrect? Or does it imply something else? These questions need to be answered slowly in conversation with both other religions and Christianity. They are fundamental questions of Christian faith, and their answers affect the way Christians see and interact with people from other religious traditions. Interreligious scholars cannot defer forever.

2. Theology of Religion and Its Need for Interreligious Studies But theology of religion is also in need of assistance. Interreligious studies has revealed the devastating affects of certain Christian claims on non-Christian peoples. The view of Christian superiority has created countless victims. One must wonder: if such violence can come from a claim of superiority, can such superiority possibly be true? Interreligious studies have taught us that theology of religion must take responsibility for the historical consequences of its particular beliefs, and it must take these consequences into consideration when reformulating its claims. This implies, at the very least, that theology of religion should become more humble. Theology of religion would do well to internalize C. Murray Roger’s insight that so much of belief depends upon the contingency of birth.162 Scholars within the field of theology of religion must realize that other religious traditions are just as rational, just as meaningful, and just as deep as Christianity. Non-Christians have rea- sons for remaining non-Christian. The content of their traditions differs from Christianity because their basic assumptions differ. Certain non- Christian claims and assumptions may be wrong just as certain Christian claims and assumptions may be wrong. The recognition of the value of another tradition does not result in the cessation of evaluation. If any- thing, it should encourage deeper study and more thoughtful judgment, for something valuable is at stake. Of course, given the subject matter, even greater humility is necessary. We shall never have a chance of knowing, in an objective scientific sense, that we are right and they are wrong about the transcendent until we are dead. Diana Eck observers: The Kingdom of God is much wider than the church. It is the Kingdom of God, not of the Christian church. The role of the immediate followers of Christ in bringing this to be is not imagined in grandiose language, but the most humble of domestic language. We are to be like yeast in bread dough, like salt in food, and like a light to the path.163

162. Rogers, “The Human, the Environment: Sundry Questions,” Hindu- Christian Studies Bulletin 6 (1993) 34-37, at 36. 163. Eck, “Excerpts from Encountering God,” 30.

997461.indb7461.indb 305305 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19 306 ASHLEE KIRK

Humility in the face of religious diversity seems to secure Christianity a safe path forward. Finally, interreligious studies has taught theology of religion that it can no longer function abstractly, in conversation with Christian sources alone. Non-Christian religion is not a single, monolithic category. Tradi- tions are internally and externally diverse. A one-size-fits-all approach is no longer appropriate. Interreligious studies teaches theology of religion that it should discern, for example, how God’s universal salvific will functions outside of the Church in consultation with those outside of the Church. It is almost as if theology of religion’s scholars fear that their deepest seated beliefs will be usurped if they engage in serious study of other religious traditions. Dominus Iesus almost appears to be a warning shot against going too far too fast; it warns against a series of errors that threaten Christianity’s most fundamental doctrines. Anand Amaladass admits that many Christians fear interreligious study will trivialize mission or dilute the uniqueness of Christian faith, but perhaps this does not have to be the case.164 If theology of religion collaborates with interreligious studies, if they work together to make sense of religious plurality, and to develop new metaphors in light of this plurality, perhaps we can navigate our way out of the quagmire in which we currently sit.

Ashlee Kirk is a doctoral researcher in the Research Unit of Systematic Theology in the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the KU Leuven (Belgium). Her project seeks to offer a tentative evaluation of the relatively new discipline of comparative theology, as developed by Francis Clooney. Kirk has Master’s and Advanced Master’s degrees in theology and religious studies from KU Leu- ven, and a Bachelor’s Degree in psychology and theology from Hanover College (USA). Her current research interests include comparative theology, theology of religions, intergroup contact theory, early phenomenology of religion, comparative cultural sciences, and feminism. She is a member of the research group Christian Self-Understanding and Interreligious Dialogue and participates in the GOA project, titled the Normativity of History. Address: St.-Michielsstraat 4/3101, BE-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected].

164. Amaladass, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue Today,” 41.

997461.indb7461.indb 306306 119/09/149/09/14 14:1914:19