“Christianity and the Religions” Revisited Jacques Dupuis

Louvain Studies 28 (2003) 363-383

Louvain Studies (24 [1999] 211-263) published an article entitled “‘The Truth Will Make You Free’: The Theology of Religious Pluralism Revisited,” in which I answered many questions raised by reviews of my book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, that appeared in English and French periodicals. A similar article was published in Rassegna di teologia (40 [1999] 667-693) under the title “La teologia del pluralismo religioso revisitata,” which answered questions formulated in book reviews published in Italian periodicals. Another article on the same subject, which sums up the “status quaestionis” in the light of the recent discussion and treats the matter more synthetically, is still due to be published.1 My more recent book, Christianity and the Religions: From Con- frontation to Dialogue, which exists now in six languages, did not attract the same attention on the part of theologians as did its predecessor, nor did it raise a similar controversy. Yet, many book reviews have appeared in a number of languages which again formulate questions deserving an answer. Some reviewers invite me explicitly to answer their queries and formulate their wish that I may do so in writing. In this situation, I now address myself to the questions formulated in book reviews and articles of the more recent book in various languages. I do not claim here to be exhaustive. Some important reviews may have escaped my notice; others are written in languages which are not acces- sible to me, like Polish and Croatian. In an Appendix to this article I give the list of those book reviews and articles concerning the book, which I have been able to locate. I do not make explicit reference to all the items

1. Besides those articles in which I answered questions posed by different authors, I have written a special response to the questions raised by two very critical articles which followed the publication of the articles mentioned above. They are: Paolo Gamberini, “La cristologia del pluralismo religioso in un libro recente di Jacques Dupuis,” Filosofia e teologia 14 (2000) 131-144, and Henry Donneaud, “Chalcédoine contre l’unicité absolue du Médiateur Jésus-Christ?,” Revue thomiste 102 (2002) 43-62. My two articles in response are due to be published soon in two Festschriften, for Karl Neufeld of Innsbruck and Aloysius Pieris of Sri Lanka, respectively. 364 JACQUES DUPUIS mentioned in this bibliography.2 Some are short notices which do not raise important questions requiring an answer. I also leave out the lavish praise of the book which many reviews included; let it suffice to thank the authors in general for their generous appreciation. I do not include for comments the contributions to the Festschrift in my honour published recently and included in the bibliography; these, where they refer to the recent book, never address to it pressing questions needing an answer. In sorting and answering the questions, I will follow substantially the order of the book itself, thus grouping the questions under several headings. References to the book reviews are given in the text by men- tioning the name of the authors and the page numbers of the reviews. References to my own book (or its predecessor) are indicated by men- tioning between brackets the title of the book concerned and the page numbers.

1. Theological Method

I try to combine an inductive and a deductive method in theology. This means that a treatment of the theology of religions cannot proceed simply a priori in a deductive way, but must first be based on contact with the concrete reality of religious plurality through interreligious dialogue, and proceed then to interpret in the light of this reality the data of revelation and tradition. Clooney (Religious Studies, 321), while acknowledging that this is my intention, is of opinion that I follow this method very imperfectly. My way of proceeding remains largely a priori. The task of the future would consist, before constructing a Christian theology of religions, engaging thoroughly in a comparative study of religions. Notwithstanding the standard examples from the Indian Hindu and Christian contexts introduced in my text, “on the whole,” he writes, “his work serves as an excellent foundation, leaving off where a twenty- first-century theology of religions must begin.” Elsewhere Clooney (National Catholic Reporter, 16) states similarly that my book ends where “a richer dialogical theology – more concrete, enriched by dialogue – will have to start,” and asks whether “Christianity and the Religions could have

2. I have answered separately the important critical review by George Gispert- Sauch in Vidyajyoti. My article, entitled “Dupuis Responds,” is due for publication in Vidyajyoti 68 (2004). I do not repeat here what has been written there. “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 365 been written had he [Dupuis] never visited India.” In response to this, I wish to note that I agree entirely with the need of such comparative studies as those in which Clooney is deeply engaged, even though I would not agree with those claiming that meanwhile a moratorium must be imposed on attempts to build a Christian theology of religions. I think that there is room now for such attempts, and an urgent need for them in the present context of religious pluralism. We cannot afford waiting till elaborate comparative studies of each religious tradition have brought conclusive results in order to ask how Christianity relates in general to the other traditions in our present context. I consider it somewhat unfair to suggest that my book could have been written without my having had any contact with India. Other reviewers would disagree here, as where, for instance, it is pointed out that “Dupuis lives the interfaith dynamic that he writes about” (Swing, 12). I personally have said and written that the experience of 36 years spent in India “altered deeply my previous way of looking at things and that it shaped anew and altered deeply the theology I had previously entertained.” Had I never been there, I certainly would not have written the theology which I have been propos- ing, not without cost and suffering. Another reviewer considers that my work “is very much a reflection of the Indian Church and its solidarity with the Hindus who have been the Church’s dialogue partners in India” (Fredericks, 78). But he asks whether the theology I propose would serve equally in a context where the partners in dialogue are not Hindus, but Muslims or Buddhists. He suggests that “the time has come to let go of the entire project of a theology of religions in favour of interreligious dialogue.” To which it needs to be said that, rather than being kept separated, both dialogue and theology must be joined in a combined effort and that dialogue with particular traditions should not prevent, but be conducive to, a constructive theology on the relation between Christianity and the other traditions. Applying the question of method to Christology, another reviewer (Amaladoss, 623) regrets that, “while he [Dupuis] starts from below, at a certain stage he jumps up and comes from above. One would have expected a dialectical correlation rather than a jump.” Frankly, I do not see clearly what is meant here by “dialectical correlation.” I personally think – and I have tried to show this at some length in my book on Christology3 – that Christology must start from below, that is from the discovery of the human person of Jesus; but the dynamism of the faith

3. See Jacques Dupuis, Introduction to Christology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994) 57-76. 366 JACQUES DUPUIS naturally calls at a certain stage for a reversal of perspective, introducing a christological discourse from above: “From the risen Christ to the eternal Son,” I wrote. This two-way traffic is found in the New Testament itself, from the synoptic gospels to the gospel of John, witnessing to the progressive way in which the apostolic Church experienced and expressed the mystery of Christ, as well as to the pedagogy used by Jesus himself in making himself understood and believed in. I do not think it is correct to say that “the Johannine reflection [is], after all, from below” (Amaladoss, 623). What is then made, for instance, of the Prologue of John speaking of the Word of God eternally with the Father who became flesh in Jesus Christ (Jn 1:1-14)? I am thus blamed for “falling back on traditional formulations.” The truth is that the dynamism of the faith jus- tifies the lasting validity of those formulations, which were coined in particular and historical contexts.

2. The Interpretation of Scripture and Tradition

My exegesis of some New Testament texts is questioned by some reviewers. One reviewer notes that “in his attempt to find support for his position, Dupuis might sometimes be accused of bending the text to suit his purposes, a suspicion strengthened by his occasional reliance on the exegesis of likeminded commentators” (Merrigan, 16). No example is given; but another reviewer mentions some (McDermott, 14-15). My affirmation that “Jesus never puts himself forward” and never takes the place of the Father would contradict Jn 14:6 according to which Jesus claims to be “the way, the truth and the life” (Jn 24:6). Jesus, however, as I note, never claims to be the end and the goal, which is the Father. My claim that Acts 4:12 “means that there is no other Saviour for Jews” is likewise supposed to contradict Jesus’ own claim to be the universal Saviour. While there is no lack of New Testament texts which testify to the universality of Jesus’s Saviourhood, the context in Acts 4:12 is so strictly “inter- and intra-Jewish” as to suggest that what is meant here is that there is no other salvation for the Jews (cf. Christianity, 39-41). My assertion that the Word “is never totally contained in any historical manifestation” (Christianity, 159) is supposed to contradict openly Col 2:9, which states that in Christ “the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily.” This verse is often used to claim that through the mystery of the incarnation the totality of the mystery of the Godhead is contained in the humanity of Jesus. Yet, the context is not the mystery of the incarnation, but of the resurrection. What the writer of Colossians means is that in “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 367 the risen humanity of Christ the divine life is concentrated, to be spread to the baptized. The main bone of contention here is my claim that Jn 1:9 refers to an enlightening and saving activity of the Word as such before the incarnation, and not of the Word as incarnate in Jesus Christ. Yet it seems clear that verses 6 to 8 are an interpolation which breaks the sequence of the original hymn, with the result that the enlightening and saving action of vv. 9 to 12 seems already to refer to Jesus, the Word incarnate. However, in the original form of the hymn the mystery of the incarnation of the Word is introduced in v. 14. Another reviewer accuses me of “relativising the historical covenant” with Israel by making use of patristic models of Old Testament interpretations instead of relying on critical exegesis (Derousseaux, 63). May I remind the critic that to speak of several covenants of God with peoples, all of which remain valid in the new dispensation, does not relativise the special significance of God’s covenant with Israel, which continues as the immediate preparation in history for the mystery of Christ and the “new covenant” with humankind established in him by God (cf. Christianity, 103-113). Another reviewer (Fédou, 261) points to the ambiguity of the religions as they are pictured in the Old Testament, which I am enclined to overlook. I do not overlook the danger of idolatry, pluralism and malprac- tices about which the prophets of the Old Testament speak abundantly. But I point out that the other religions do not have the monopoly of deviation and error. I also, together with Giuseppe Odasso, distinguish the religions in themselves, which are as many “gifts of God to all peoples,” from what they too often become at the hands of human beings, being used as ideology justifying unworthy purposes (cf. Christianity, 241-242). In my approach to Scripture I have been concerned not to indulge in the “proof-text method,” too often present in work on Christology and the theology of religions, which selects some chosen texts, and, taking them out of their context, makes them affirm what they do not say. I have also insisted that Scripture, and the New Testament in particular, is not a monolithic piece of writing and that many affirmations are found in it which may seem to contradict each other, but are in reality complementary and must be combined and integrated. My recent book does not treat explicitly the patristic tradition as its predecessor did. Nevertheless it makes explicit reference to the early Christological councils, especially Chalcedon and Constantinople III. One reviewer (McDermott, 13-14) charges that my “divergences [with the Roman documents] may be greater than Dupuis here allows” and may extend to the doctrine of faith itself. Another speaks more accu- 368 JACQUES DUPUIS rately of a “differentiated consensus” (Chenu). McDermott claims that my book reveals “a break from the traditional ‘content of faith’.” He reads in it “a way of thinking about Jesus that goes back to the Enlighten- ment’s idealists,” such as Kant, Hegel and Schleiermacher, for whom Jesus is not “logically necessary to salvation” but is “the prime example of a process that does not logically require Jesus.” Certainly I do hold that Jesus is not “logically” necessary for salvation and that the mystery of the incarnation represents a totally free choice on the part of God as to the manner in which God intends to save humankind. But this point does not put me with Kant, Hegel and Schleiermacher – a strange trio. It is traditional Christian doctrine. Another reviewer (Derousseaux, 63) doubts whether my “argumentation starting from the Gospel of John takes really into account the decisions of the Council of Constantinople III, in the line of Chalcedon, on the distinction of natures and the dual- ity of the wills and energies in Christ.” The contention seems to be that there is no room for a saving action of the Word as such in Christian tradition. Let me note that no reviewer has questioned my interpretation of the two Christological councils; they affirm clearly that in the state of union the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human, and similarly his two actions or operations, are and remain distinct, while not being separated. Admittedly, the two councils do not affirm directly and explicitly that there is and remains an action of the Word as such, even in the state of union; they are directly concerned with the actions of the Word incarnate in which both natures are conjointly engaged. Yet, as I have explained (cf. Christianity, 144), “from the permanent integrity of the divine nature and of the action of the Word … the possibility of a continued action of the Word as such is derived, distinct from that which takes place through the humanity of Jesus Christ.” Another reviewer (O’Collins, Gregorianum, 358-359; Theological Studies, 393-394) agrees with the argument and corroborates it further, writing: “In the incarnation the Son of God’s divine nature does not lose its essential characteristics and functions. In Christianity Dupuis has drawn attention to the importance of this council’s [Constantinople III] teaching for reflection on the universal salvific action of the divine Word before and after the incarnation … Both before and after the incarnation, the Word of God remains divinely present and active everywhere, and has not been ‘eclipsed’ by the assumption of a human nature.” No one has questioned my interpretation of the Second Vatican Council on the religions of the world (cf. Christianity, 59-66), according to which, while affirming the presence in those traditions of “seeds of the Word,” of “elements of truth and grace” or of “truth and good- “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 369 ness” as well as of “a ray of that Truth which enlightens all human beings,” the Council does not venture to affirm that those religious traditions are ways or paths of salvation for their followers. The Council does not explain the nature of the divine endowments present in the traditions, either natural or supernatural, and therefore leaves the question of their salvific value unanswered. One reviewer (Fédou, 162) thinks it preferable “to abide simply by the language of Vatican II” rather than to venture in asserting that the values contained in them “have their source in a divine self-manifestation to human beings.” Another reviewer (Mer- rigan, 16) remarks that “Dupuis places himself squarely within the camp of the so-called “inclusivist theology of religions elaborated by Vatican II.” But he adds: “He ventures beyond the traditional position, however, by ascribing to non-Christian religions a real mediatory role on behalf of their members.” This is true; but the task of theology does not stop at simply abiding by official doctrinal statements, without ever venturing beyond the official teaching, provided this be done in a responsible manner and on solid foundation. The task of theology implies interpreting that teaching in the context of lived experience. Another reviewer (Phan, America, 34-35) remarks that my inclusive pluralism “constitutes a notable advance in Christian theology of religious pluralism … It must, however, be frankly acknowledged, with all due respect to Dupuis’ theological achievements, that inclusive pluralism is anything but avant- garde, much less beyond the pale of orthodoxy.” And he asks: “So why was Dupuis subjected to such harassment … and public humiliation?”

3. A New Paradigm: Inclusive Pluralism

In trying to answer the question just asked, Peter Phan (America, 35) suggests that perhaps this is due to the fact that “his expression ‘inclusive pluralism’ (or ‘pluralistic inclusivism’ or ‘pluralism in principle’) con- jures up the specter of the ‘pluralism’ or ‘pluralistic paradigm’ of such theologians as John Hick and Paul Knitter. But anyone who has read his corpus, even without complete attentiveness, should know that Dupuis has repeatedly distanced himself from this position and has convincingly rebutted it.” What then is meant by the paradigm of “inclusive pluralism?” It is intended, as I have explained repeatedly, to combine two fun- damental affirmations which, though apparently contradictory, must be seen as complementary (cf. Christianity, 95): “the universal constitutive character of the Christ event in the order of salvation and the saving significance of the religious traditions in a plurality of principle of the 370 JACQUES DUPUIS religious traditions within the one manifold plan of God for humankind.” Reviewers of the book have sensed that this is essential to my thought on the theology of religions and constitutes the challenge put in the present context to such a theology. Peter Phan has in fact centred his comments on the book under the heading “Inclusive Pluralism” (cf. America, 34). Reviewers are more or less precise in describing what the paradigm of inclusive pluralism stands for. One sees it as a “via media” between inclusivism and pluralism (Yong, 357). Another (Gamberini, 468) speaks more accurately of a “via media between the pluralist position (irrecon- cilable with Christian faith and Catholic doctrine) and the pluralist position of Catholic theology before and after the Council (cf. Karl Rah- ner).” This description has the merit of referring explicitly to the more open version of inclusive theology in which “elements of truth and grace” are said to be present in the other religious traditions, thanks to which those traditions have a certain efficacy in the order of grace (K. Rahner). Yet another reviewer (Amaladoss, 623) complains that my vision “is more inclusive than pluralist.” In the process, he identifies my view with the theology of R. Panikkar, distinguishing without separating “the Word from its incarnate manifestation. Panikkar and other Asian theologians earlier had done the same.” This observation is not quite accurate, for Panikkar speaks of a “cosmic Christ” present in Hinduism, not of a salvific action of the Word as such before and after the incarnation. The theology of the cosmic Christ or of a Christ eternally present in God and operative throughout history is open to criticism, for loosening the bond existing between the Christ and the historical humanity of Jesus.4 For clarity’s sake, theologians should distinguish between (a) the Word of God in himself, eternally present in God and, before the incarnation, universally present and active in history, (b) the Word as incarnate in time in Jesus of Nazareth, and (c) the same become Christ through his resurrection at the hand of the Father (cf. Acts 2:36). In strict terms, there is no preexisting Christ active in history before the incarnation, but a preexisting Word of God; and it is to this Word as such that I am referring. The same reviewer also makes the mistake of simply identify- ing my position about a salvific role of the religious traditions for their followers with that of Karl Rahner (cf. Amaladoss, 623): “Rahner had said this long ago.” While gratefully acknowledging my dependence on

4. See Jacques Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991) 184-188. “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 371

Rahner, I also claim to go beyond his open inclusivism. Rahner affirms a “transitory” saving efficacy of the religious traditions in individual cases of persons who have not yet been confronted with the mystery of Christ and received the grace of faith in him. I put no such restrictions in time or extension to the efficacy of the traditions in the order of salvation for their followers, and I base my position not only on the universal presence and efficacy of the risen Christ but also on the universal presence and action of the Word of God as such before and after the incarnation. Another reviewer (D’Costa, 310-311) clearly states that my inclusive pluralism “is a new development of Karl Rahner’s approach, emphasizing more the anonymous Christ, rather than, (as Rahner did), the anonymous Christian … For Dupuis this … means that religions are … salvific in themselves, not despite their structures, scriptures and practices.” In the light of my subsequent writing, including my last book, the same reviewer generously admits that most of the “concerns” he has earlier expressed in connection with my previous book “were misplaced.” Clooney (Religious Studies Review, 321) has no doubt that my “inclusive pluralism is orthodox.” Another reviewer (Emonet, 42) sees in it “a nuanced answer half way between relativism and an exclusive conception of Christianity.” Another (P. T., Lumen Vitae, 359) hopes that it may open “new horizons for what is still today the official teaching of the Church Magisterium.” Others are less affirmative. For one (McDer- mott, 14) “there is a tension” between affirmations in the book which are in agreement with traditional inclusivism and “a host of others” advocating pluralism. He objects especially to the uniqueness of Christ being not “absolute” but “constitutive.” For another (Derousseaux, 63), “the reader remains with some perplexities” regarding the way of salvation apparently similar outside and inside the historical covenant. Another still (D’Arcy May, 635) thinks that, “though it does not solve the fun- damental difficulties facing a Christian theology of religions, (the book) points the way ahead, advocating ‘a purification of theological understanding itself’ and a ‘qualitative leap’ beyond currently available theological models.” What to make of such a variety of opinions? O’Collins (Gregorianum, 357-359) explains well, with reference to chapter 6 of Christianity, that “the divine activity of the Logos, while always related to the humanity assumed at the incarnation, is not limited to that humanity. The situation ‘before’ the incarnation does not pose or should not pose much difficulty. Unless one wants to claim in a heterodox fashion that the created humanity of Christ really (and not merely intentionally or in the divine intention) existed from all eternity and hence did not truly first come into existence at his 372 JACQUES DUPUIS conception and birth (around 5 BC), one should recognize that it was only through the divine nature that the Logos was active in the creation and conservation of the universe and in the unfolding history of salvation. The human nature, while always present in the divine plan, did not actually “pre-exist’ the incarnation.” He goes on to explain further that, “In the incarnation the Son of God’s divine nature does not lose any of its essential characteristics and, in particular, its operations which are strictly divine and in that sense transcend the finite operations of his human nature, even while being constantly related to it.” It is therefore legitimate to speak of an enduring action of the Word as such also after the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ, but it must be added that such action is related, in the one divine plan of salvation, to the action of the Word through the human nature of Jesus assumed personally by him.

4. The Christ Event at the Centre of Salvation History

Some reviewers ask whether, by speaking of an enduring action of the Word as such, I am doing justice to the Christ event as universal source of salvation and to the fullness of divine revelation in him. My terminology is being incriminated when I speak of Jesus Christ as “constitutive” Saviour, not “absolute,” and of the divine revelation in him as “decisive,” not “definitive.” On such terms, one reviewer (Canobbio, 96) writes, “one could disagree and a discussion could be initiated.” Another (Derousseaux, 63) insists on the “absolute character” of the manifestation of God in Jesus Christ, notwithstanding its limitation in space and time. Another (D’Arcy May, 634) observes correctly that ‘inclusive pluralism’ or ‘pluralistic inclusivism’ (is) based on a “constitutive Christology.” He adds: “It is crucial to Dupuis’s argument that the incarnation is central in the mystery of salvation, yet the saving action of the Word is not cir- cumscribed by it: all religions have their source in the self-manifestation of God through the Word.” Similarly, another reviewer (Fredericks, 78) points out correctly that, “The incarnation of the Word in first century Palestine does not exhaust the saving economy of the Word.” This is precisely the reason why I speak of the “constitutive character” of the Christ event in the order of salvation. That I speak of Jesus Christ as “constitutive” Saviour, not as “absolute Saviour” is also due to the fact that the fontal cause of salvation in the New Testament is God (the Father) himself, who stands beyond Jesus Christ as Word incarnate. Saint Paul states this clearly when he says: “In Christ, God [the Father] was reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). O’Collins (Theological Studies, 390- “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 373

393) has amply justified the terminology I have adopted for the sake of accuracy of expression and in order to avoid a current inflation in the use of some terms. But more than a question of terminology is involved here. Accord- ing to some reviewers I undermine the significance of God’s intervention in Jesus Christ. Specifically, one reviewer (McDermott, 15) refers to Jesus’ human consciousness which is claimed to be limited, as is also, conse- quently, the divine revelation which takes place in him. He writes: “Jesus’ limited consciousness demonstrates not partial revelation of the divine mystery but the full picture of what salvation entails.” He adds: “It is theologically shortsighted to think one can avoid exclusivism while also saying that Jesus’ salvation was somehow the cause of all salvation.” Against the claim that, because Jesus’ human consciousness was limited, the Christian revelation cannot exhaust the mystery of God, the same author appeals to the communicatio idiomatum in virtue of which – so he claims – “the divine person of the Logos had available to itself both its limited human nature and the divine omniscience of the divine nature – even while choosing at times to restrict itself to the former.” I have explained at length (cf. Christianity, 129-132) that this interpretation of the communicatio idiomatum is simply inexact and smacks of monophysitism, according to which the human nature is somewhat absorbed into the divine and shares in the divine attributes and perfections; the Christo- logical dogma insists, on the contrary, on the natures and actions remain- ing distinct, though not separated. No direct communication takes place of the divine knowledge of the Word within the mystery of the Godhead to the human consciousness and intellect of Jesus; the revelation of God which he conveys is based on his human consciousness of being the Son of God in a unique manner, not on the inner divine knowledge contained in the mystery of the Godhead. For another reviewer (Amaladoss, 623), I make no effort to explain “how Jesus Christ relates to the members of other religions.” This seems to me an understatement. I have amply shown (cf. Christianity, 159), that the resurrection of Jesus introduces his humanity into a “metahis- toric” condition. “In the glorified state of the Risen one, the historic salvific event becomes present and actual for all times and places.” On the other hand, I have also insisted (cf. Christianity, 162) – rightly, I believe – that “theology must always maintain a strong sense of the mystery and transcendence not only of God, but also of his plan of salvation. … It must not claim to describe or define the ‘how’ and ‘in which way’ (quomodo sit) of the essential relationship between the universal action of the Word – and the Spirit – and the historical event of Jesus 374 JACQUES DUPUIS

Christ. Theological apophaticism suggests silence where, though being able to underline the fact (an sit), we cannot and need not explain the ‘how’. It behooves theology to be reserved and humble.”

5. Saving Religions

The positive role of religions in the order of salvation gives rise to several observations, some of which call for an answer. For one reviewer (Clooney, National Catholic Reporter, 16), “Dupuis elegantly refines an enduring paradox: God works everywhere; the Spirit is universally trans- formative; yet all salvation is in and through Christ. Perhaps a good theology of religions can do little more than preserve this paradox.” This does not prevent the same reviewer from asking “further hard questions:” “What is a ‘divine manifestation’ and a ‘saving figure’? Is Krishna a personal saving presence, or just a symbol of God? Is Amida Buddha a divine manifestation in whom one might actually take refuge? Are some pages of the Quran revelatory while others err? Dupuis never answers such questions.” In a similar vein, another reviewer (Merrigan, 16) asks: “In the light of his [Dupuis’s] insistence that it is God – and not Christ – who is ultimately our Saviour,” is it “desirable to speak of other religious leaders as ‘saving figures’?” I have insisted on the fact that God is in all situations the ultimate Saviour, in whatever circumstances salvation is obtained by human beings; Jesus Christ is the universal sacrament of God’s saving action: I have called him “the human face of God” (Chris- tianity, 173). This does not prevent other historical figures and religious founders from being sign-posts pointing for their followers to ways along which they may encounter unknowingly the mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ. In this sense they may rightly be called “saving figures;” but it should be clear that their role does not consist in saving; it is limited to pointing to paths where salvation through the mystery of Christ may be encountered. The Word of God has sown his seeds and the Spirit of God has been at work in the religious experience of such seers and leaders, whose authentic religious experience opens paths for their followers to follow. As I have written (Christianity, 122-123): “Theologically we must hold that wherever and whenever human beings turn toward an Absolute that addresses them and bestows itself upon them, an attitude of supernatural faith is thereby at work, in response to a personal divine revelation. The one at whom this attitude of faith is directed, and the one who originally arouses it, is the God of Jesus Christ who communicates himself to them.” The genuine experience of God made by religious founders “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 375 has had, in God’s providence, a social function for their followers. Con- sequently, I also wrote (Christianity 116): “A Christian theology … will search for the signs of God’s action, for the ‘seeds of the Word’, for the imprint of his Spirit in the foundational experiences and events upon which religious traditions have been built, and for traces of it in the sacred books and the oral traditions that constitute the official record and the living memory of those traditions.” And I quoted A. Dulles writing: “It need not be denied that the eternal Logos could manifest itself to other peoples through other religious symbols … In continuity with a long Christian tradition of Logos theology that goes back as far as Justin Martyr … it may be held that the divine person who appears in Jesus is not exhausted by his historical appearance. The symbols and myths of other religions may point to the one whom Christians recognize as the Christ.”5 One reviewer (D’Arcy May, 634) remarks that in the present context the salvific efficacy of other religions “has become inescapable.” Another recalls opportunely (Duclaux, 127) that the intention of the book is precisely to “show how Christian faith and doctrine can combine the faith affirmation in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as universal Sav- iour and the theological concept of a positive role and significance of the other religious traditions, in keeping with the divine plan for humankind.” Others, however, make critical remarks. One asks (Fédou, 261): “In what measure is it possible to speak globally of religions and their positive meaning in the history of salvation?” Another (Canobbio, 96) remarks that “a deeper research on the meaning of salvation” is required than is offered in the book: “If the categorical datum is not indifferent to the (participated) mediation of grace present in the different religions, how can the historical experience of salvation in the diverse religions be thought of? Do prayer and love suffice?” Another still (McDermott, 15) regrets that, while salvation is defined as “whole- ness/self-fulfilment/integration,” it is never thought of in terms of “redemption of sins.” How to answer those questions? The possibility of speaking globally about the significance of the other religions for the Christian faith remains real and that task has become more urgent than ever before in the present pluralistic context. Specific treatments of the relationship between Christianity and individual religions are of course welcome, and such studies are multiplying in recent years. But these do

5. Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992) 190, quoted in Christianity, 124. 376 JACQUES DUPUIS not prevent more general studies, answering the vexing question of the plurality of religions in the present world and of their significance for the Christian faith and conscience. Deeper research in the meaning of salvation is certainly in order. I have purposely (Christianity, 168) given a rather neutral description of the concept which might apply to the different religious traditions: it is remarkable that all religions present themselves as routes to salvation/liberation, even while they have very different concepts of salvation. I have explained why the two concepts of salvation/liberation are combined. The reason is that “the joint notion applies more easily to various traditions.” I have pointed to the practice of charity (agape) being, according to the Christian tradition, a sure criterion of the presence of grace and salvation in human beings and asked whether the same criterion is found in other religions as a mark of authentic humanity. This does not mean that charity is the only content of the “categorial” reality of salvation. It is well understood that, for the Christian tradition, salvation implies redemption from sins, or rather overcoming of sin. But this is only the negative aspect of Christian salvation which positively consists in the invitation extended by God to human beings of sharing in his own life here and in the hereafter. The question was whether salvation thus understood can apply to other religions and whether it comes to them through a certain mediation of their tradition.

6. The Reign of God and the Church

The reviewers seem to agree with the view expressed in the book regarding the need for a Reign of God perspective for a theology of religions, which extends beyond a too narrow ecclesiological perspective placing the Church at the centre. No reviewer has challenged my interpretation of Vatican II according to which, in the Council documents, the Church still seems to be identified with the Reign of God already present in the world. In the Reign of God perspective which developed after the Vatican II, the Church is seen as efficacious sign in the world and history of the active presence of the mystery of salvation wrought by God in Jesus Christ. I have called the Church the “sacrament of the Kingdom.” One reviewer (D’Arcy May, 634) echoes this when he speaks of the Church as a “sign pointing to the coming Reign of God to which all already belong in anticipation.” Another reviewer (Fredericks, 78) notes correctly that “Dupuis’s specific contribution to the discussion cen- ters around his ‘regnocentric’ approach to religious diversity … Salvation “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 377 in Christ does not necessarily entail an explicit turn to the historical Jesus on the part of a religious believer … All human beings (and their religions) are oriented in various ways to the Church. Explicit belonging to the Church, however, is not necessary for salvation.” This is all plain teaching and theology. However, one reviewer (Amaladoss, 623) raises the question: “In what does the ‘ordination’ of the other religions to the Church consist? Is it simply in the mind of God? Is it not enough to relate the other religions to the kingdom?” The answer to this question is that the other religions are not merely oriented to the Reign of God; they are part of it. Together with Christians the members of other religious traditions share actively in the Reign of God already present in history; together with them they are called to promote the growth of the Reign of God in history and to contribute to its eschatological fulfilment (cf. Christianity, 201-206). If “orientation” there is, it is not to the Reign of God, but to the Church. Neither is such an orientation to the Church merely in the mind of God. I have explained that, while a true mediation of the mystery of salvation is operative in the other religious traditions, this mediation cannot simply be equated with that which is at work in the Church for its members. I wrote: “In Christianity, God’s personal presence to human beings in Jesus Christ reaches its highest and most complete sacramental visibility through the word revealed in him and the sacraments based on him … In the other religious traditions [the mystery of salvation] is present hiddenly and implicitly, through a modality of incomplete, but no less real, mediation, constituted by such traditions” (Christianity, 188-189). John Paul II expresses this by saying that Jesus Christ has entrusted to the Church “the fullness of the means of salvation” (Redemptoris Mission, 55). D’Costa (310) generously states in his review that my recent writing convinced him that most of his concerns [about my previous writing] were misplaced, apart from one.” The one “misgiving” that remains concerns the Church’s role in the mystery of the salvation of non-members. He writes (311): “On the Church as universal sign and instrument of salvation (Lumen Gentium 9 and elsewhere), he (Dupuis) fully embraces the notion of universal sign (in terms of finality), but refuses instrumentality in terms of instrumental efficient causality. Dupuis argues that instrumentality should instead be understood in the case of non- members, as expectation and hope, based on their orientation to the Church.” He comments: “In my view this position has the effect of making the Church very special indeed, the best and fullest ‘sign’, but finally on a logical par with other mediated participations, other ‘ways of salvation’.” He does admit that “there is no straightforward answer to the 378 JACQUES DUPUIS question how is the Church to be understood as ‘instrument of salvation’ for non-members.” He even adds: “In answering the question thus, Dupuis marks a new and important avenue in Catholic theology of religions, which will no doubt receive the scholarly attention it deserves.” The same misgiving is found among the points which in Merrigan’s view (16) continue to raise questions: “There will inevitably be questions about Dupuis’ view of the role of the Church with regard to the salvation of those who do not belong to it.” There is no doubt that the role of the Church with regard to the salvation of non-members raises a seri- ous, almost insolvable problem. That the Church is universal “sign” of salvation is easily conceived; that, on the other hand, she acts as “instrument” in the conferring of grace and salvation on people who are saved outside Church membership, is another matter. It is difficult to conceive that it might be so, if the term “instrument” is taken in its strict theological meaning of instrumental efficient causality. I have quoted Y. Con- gar who already in 1965 wrote that it need not be so. He wrote: “Every Catholic must admit and admits that there have existed and exist gifts of light and grace working for salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Church. We do not even deem it necessary to hold, as is nonethe- less commonly done, that these graces are received through the Church; it is enough that they be received in view of the Church and that they orient people toward the Church.”6 I have also shown that the traditional distinction made in sacramental theology between the sacramentum tantum, the res et sacramentum and the res tantum, applied to our question by K. Rahner, makes it possible to conceive that non-members of the Church may receive grace and salvation (the res) without passing through a mediation of a Church’s instrumental causality of grace result- ing in Church membership (res et sacramentum) (cf. Christianity, 214). In their case a “substitutive mediation” comes into play, consisting of the elements of “truth and grace” comprised in their own religious traditions, not without relation to the unique mediation of Jesus Christ. This is not to say, as D’Costa fears, that the Church be reduced to a “very special indeed, the best and fullest ‘sign’, but finally on a logical par with other mediated participations, other ‘ways of salvation’.” For the mediation of grace which is at work in the Church on behalf of their members is of another, transcendent order than the one at work for the others through grace-filled elements of the traditions to which they belong (cf. Chris-

6. Yves Congar, “L’Église, sacrement universel du salut,” Église vivante 17 (1965) 351; quoted in Christianity, 211. “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 379 tianity, 189). This difference in inscribed in reality. The mediation of the Church for her members in the order of salvation consists essentially, though not exclusively, in announcing to them the word of God and in the sacramental economy at the centre of which stands the eucharistic cel- ebration. These benefits do not by definition reach persons not belonging to the Church as members; where the others are concerned, the Church “intercedes” on their behalf, praying to God in his bounty to confer upon them the gift of his grace. In virtue of these differences, the mediation of the Church for her members cannot be placed “on a logical par with other mediatory participations.” In virtue of the same, non- members of the Church who are saved remain oriented to the mystery of the Church, to whom the risen Lord has entrusted the fullness of the means of salvation. I have called the Church the “universal sacrament of the Reign of God.” Her specific task consists in being a living sign, in time and history, of what God has accomplished and continues to accomplish everywhere in the world for the salvation of humankind in Jesus Christ. This role the Church is called upon to accomplish through her witness of life and by announcing the Gospel as good news of universal salvation for all human beings (Christianity, 213-217).

7. Complementarity and Convergence

Among the questions which remain, one reviewer (Merrigan, 16) notes that “in view of his insistence on the normative character of the Christ event, it is not entirely clear what Dupuis means when he speaks of the values of truth and grace in other traditions as ‘additional and autonomous’.” Another reviewer (Derousseaux, 62) quotes me, apparently with suspicion, where I say that, “in the entire history of God’s relations with humankind, there is more truth and grace than available and discoverable in the Christian tradition alone. Hence, the question emerges of a possible complementarity between the Christian tradition and the other religious traditions.” He goes on quoting me where I add: “The complementarity in question is not to be understood unilaterally as though the values scattered outside Christianity by way of fragmen- tary truths should univocally find ‘fulfilment’ – in a unilateral process – in Christian values, and should be destined to be simply ‘integrated’, assumed, and absorbed into Christianity, thereby losing their self-con- sistency. Rather it is a mutual complementarity whereby an exchange and a sharing of saving values, a dynamic interaction, can take place between Christianity and the other traditions, such as can result in mutual 380 JACQUES DUPUIS enrichment” (Christianity, 256-257). The question is thus clearly formulated. A reviewer (D’Costa, 311) affirms correctly that “the other religions must find their fulfilment and crown in Jesus Christ, but it should be noted that the fulfilment is mutual, for Christianity gains and grows in its engagement with the other.” How to solve this problem? I have explained that the “fullness” of divine revelation in Jesus Christ notwithstanding – which needs to be understood correctly – some aspects of the divine mystery may be stressed more in other religious traditions than they are in the Christian tradition itself. Divine truth present in the other religious traditions need not be reduced to “stepping stones” or adum- brations of truth, the fullness of which is in every case to be found in Christian revelation. In that sense I spoke of such truths being “additional and autonomous” endowments. Christians can truly profit from deeper insights into the mystery through interaction with members of the other traditions. Dialogue is not a one-way street in which Christians have nothing to gain; a true dia-logue implies the possibility of mutual enrichment. Mutual complementarity and the possibility of mutual enrichment is therefore to be affirmed (Christianity, 232-233). Nevertheless, in order to avoid misunderstandings and to preserve clearly the transcendence of Christian revelation, I have, in my latest book (Christianity, 257), called the complementarity existing between the other religions and Christian- ity “mutual and asymmetrical.” I explained: “That means that the acknowledgement of additional and autonomous values of truth and grace in the other traditions does not cancel out the unsurpassable transcendence of God’s revelation and self-communication in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Such transcendence … is based on the personal identity of Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God made man … Whereas other religious traditions can find, and are destined to find, in the Christ event their fullness of meaning – but without being absorbed or dispossessed – the reverse is not true: God’s self-manifestation and self-giving in Jesus Christ are not in need of a true completion by other traditions, even though they are interrelated with the other divine man- ifestations in the overall realm of God’s self-revelation to humankind, and can be enriched by mutually interacting with other religious traditions.” These explanations and distinctions should provide an answer, admittedly somewhat subtle, to the misgivings expressed above. “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 381

Conclusion

Is it correct then to say, as one reviewer complains (Amaladoss, 623), that “Dupuis does not draw out (the) implications [of what he affirms] for a new understanding of ecclesiology, Christology and the Trinity.” This statement seems somewhat exaggerated. I have shown the implications of a Reign of God perspective for an understanding of the mystery and the role of the Church; I have similarly stressed the importance of the enduring saving action of the Word of God as such for a correct appraisal of the centrality of the mystery of Christ and its universal salvific efficacy. Again, the attribution to each of the persons of the Trin- ity of distinctive saving actions should result in a more personalistic approach to the fontal saving activity belonging to the Godhead and the Trinitarian structure of God’s dealings salvifically with humankind. Another reviewer (Merrigan, 16) – to quote here but one – is more generous in his general evaluation. He writes: “Dupuis’ work stands as a courageous and creative attempt to translate the heart of Catholic faith into a language that resonates with our contemporary sense of the value and respect due to non-Christians.” This does not mean that the book claims to solve all the problems. As did its predecessor, it only claims to indicate a direction in which a solution to the problems should be sought. In conclusion I wrote: “The aim of this book (is) to propose some guide- lines for reflection which could lead to a ‘qualitative leap’ by the Chris- tian and Catholic theology of religions toward a more positive theological assessment of them and a more open concrete stance toward their followers … We are persuaded that such a ‘qualitative leap’ – which … has nothing to do with the ‘paradigm shift’ toward theological pluralism – is required for the Christian message to retain its credibility in today’s multicultural and multireligious world; or better, so that such credibility may grow in proportion to the adaptation of the message to the broader horizons of the contemporary world” (Christianity, 259). I am still convinced of this today.

Book Reviews and Articles in English

A. Amala Book Review, Theological Studies 63 (2002) 622-624. Francis X. Clooney, “Theology, Dialogue, and Religious Others,” Religious Studies Review 29 (2003) 319-327, see 321. Francis X. Clooney, “Book is a Start toward Rich Dialogue on Religions,” National Catholic Reporter, February 14, 2003, 16. John D’Arcy May, Book Review, The Furrow 54 (2003) 634-635. 382 JACQUES DUPUIS

Gavin D’Costa, Book Review, New Blackfriars (June 2003) 310-311. James Fredericks, Book Review, Ichtus 10 (2003) no. 4, 77-78. George Gispert-Sauch, Book Review, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 67 (2003) 967-971. Patrick J. Hayes, “Two Tough Questions to Christianity,” The Tidings (Los Angeles), October 17, 2003, 19. Patrick J. Hayes, Book Review, Eastern Oklahoma Catholic, October 26, 2003, 16. Daniel Kendall & Gerald O’Collins (eds.), In Many and Diverse Ways: In Honor of Jacques Dupuis (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2003). Gerald R. McDermott, Book Review, Bulletin of Monastic Interreligious Dialogue 70 (2003) 13-15. Terrence Merrigan, “Believer on the Frontiers,” The Tablet 9 (2003) 16. Gerald O’Collins, “Christ and the Religions,” Gregorianum 84 (2003) 347-362. Gerald O’Collins, “Jacques Dupuis’ Contributions to Interreligious Dialogue,” Theolog- ical Studies 64 (2003) 388-397. Peter C. Phan, “Inclusive Pluralism,” America, February 3, 2003, 34-36. Peter C. Phan, “Multiple Religious Belonging: Opportunities and Challenges for The- ology and Church,” Theological Studies 64 (2003) 495-519, see 499-504. William E. Swing, Book Review, The Living Church, June 8, 2003, 11-12. Amos Yong, Book Review, Religious Studies Review 29 (2003) 357. Book Review, Ecumenism 149 (March 2003). Book Review, Theology Digest 49 (2002) 370-371. Book Review, Monos 16 (2003) 8.

Book Reviews and Articles in French

Bruno Chenu, “Une complémentarité asymétrique,” La Croix, 2 novembre, 2002. Louis Desrousseaux, Book Review, Sidic 36 (2003) 61-63. Maryvonne Duclaux, Book Review, Telema (2003), no. 2-3, 126-127. Pierre Emonet, Book Review, Choisir (mars 2003) 42. Michel Fédou, “Pluralité des religions, unicité du Christ,” Études (février 2003) 260- 264. D. Gira, Book Review, Questions actuelles (janvier-février 2003) 44. Yves Ledure, Book Review, Esprit et vie 82 (2003) 21. Pierre Lefebvre, Book Review, Spiritus (mars 2003) 118-121. Jean-Pierre Manigne, Book Review, Actualité des religions 47 (2003) 64. N. E., Book Review, Irenikon 75 (2002) 419-420. P. T., Book Review, Lumen vitae 58 (2003) 359-360. Jacques Scheuer, “L’arc-en-ciel des théologies: Petite chronique de théologie des religions,” Revue théologique de Louvain 34 (2003) 514-530, see 520-521. Jacques Scheuer, Book Review, Nouvelle revue théologique 126 (2004) 131-132. Book Review, DIM International Bulletin (2003), no. 1, 16. Book Review, DIM Bulletin de la Commission francophone 29 (décembre 2003) 29.

Book Reviews and Articles in Italian, German and Spanish

Giacomo Canobbio, Book Review, Ad gentes (2003), no. 1, 95-96. Paolo Gamberini, Book Review, Rassegna di teologia (maggio-giugno 2002) 467-468. “CHRISTIANITY AND THE RELIGIONS” REVISITED 383

Luigi Sartori, “Prefazione: Riflessioni confidenziali di un amico,” Jacques Dupuis, Il cristianesimo e le religioni: Dallo scontro all’incontro (Brescia: Queriniana, 2001) 7- 13. Kardinal Franz König, “Kardinal König würdigt Jacques Dupuis SJ,” Die Furche 4 (Dezember 2003) 8. Carmen Márquez, Book Review, Sal Terrae 91 (2003) 969-971.

Jacques Dupuis, S.J., was born in Belgium on 5th December 1923 and obtained the doctorate in theology at the Gregorian University, Rome. He taught sys- tematic theology in India for 25 years, firstly in Kurseong and later in Delhi. From 1973 till 1977 he was assistant editor of the theological review Vidya- jyoti: Journal of Theological Reflection, and from 1977 till 1984 its Director. In 1984 he was transferred to the Theological Faculty of the Gregorian University, Rome, where he taught theology till 1998, becoming then Professor Emeritus. In Rome he was for 10 years (1985-1995) a Consultor to the Pontifical Coun- cil for Interreligious Dialogue; from 1985 till 2003 he was Director of the theological and philosophical review of the Gregorian University, Gregorianum. He is the author of many books and articles, including: Who Do You Say I Am? Introduction to Christology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2001); Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002); and Christianity and the Religions: From Con- frontation to Dialogue (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002, 2003). Address: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Piazza della Pilotta, 4, I-00187 Roma, Italy.