“Christianity and the Religions” Revisited Jacques Dupuis

Louvain Studies 28 (2003) 363-383 “Christianity and the Religions” Revisited Jacques Dupuis 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 cer- tainly 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 par- ticular 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 eter- nal 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 cor- rect 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 par- ticular 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.

Load more