A Study of Pluralistic Inclusivism as Inter-Religious Theological Methodology by Manoj Zacharia A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Trinity College and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College © Copyright by Manoj Zacharia 2018 A Study of Pluralistic Inclusivism as Inter-Religious Theological Methodology Manoj Zacharia Doctor of Philosophy in Theology University of St. Michael’s College 2018 ABSTRACT This thesis is an examination of pluralistic inclusivism, a theological method that has been developed by Kalarickal Paulose Aleaz. Such an examination is necessitated by the in- creased attention to a method called New Comparative Theology, developed by Francis X. Clooney, which is receiving critical acclaim in North American and European theological con- texts. This dissertation is an analysis of pluralistic inclusivism vis-à-vis new comparative theol- ogy with the argument that pluralistic inclusivism is a constructively wider and context sensitive approach to inter-religious dialogue. The analysis is affected with a postcolonial sensitivity and use of political philosophers in the area of pluralism. Along with highlighting the similarities be- tween pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology, this research argues that such simi- larities end when the methodological presuppositions of both are analyzed. In other words, the similarities between pluralistic inclusivism and new comparative theology are ostensible. While Clooney focuses on internal transformation of one’s home tradition, Aleaz offers a theological methodology that is centered on bridging religious differences through the development of a communicative framework. In a context of religious strife and ambiguity, dialogue, or the devel- opment of a communicative frame as set forth by pluralistic inclusivism, offers a solution ii towards achieving the common good. The achievement of the common good, a result of dia- logue, is part and parcel of an Anglican theological method. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The undertaking of a doctoral program consists of a plethora of support from colleagues, friends, and family. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to my thesis director, Dr. Abrahim H. Khan at Trinity College, University of Toronto. Professor Khan’s keen sense of detail, encouragement, intense intellectual rigour, good pedagogical methodology, hu- mour, and unwavering support is the epitome of an exemplary thesis director. I also wish to thank the other members of my thesis committee: (the late) Dr. Chelva Kanaganayakam (Depart- ment of South Asian Studies in the University of Toronto); and Dr. Michael Stoeber (Regis Col- lege, Toronto School of Theology). Chelva’s advice was an inspiration. Dr. Stoeber’s careful reading of the proposal and this work has been formative. I would also like to express my gratitude to the faculty of Divinity at the Trinity College, staff of the University of Toronto library system, and the Toronto School of Theology for their generous support during my doctoral program. Without the practical support, this project would not have been possible. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the prayerful support that I received from my spiritual communities of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, particularly the Metropoli- tan, The Most Rev. Dr. Joseph Mar Thoma, The Anglican Church of Canada, and The Episcopal Church. During my doctoral program, I was supported by the Mar Thoma communities in Ot- tawa and Kingston, ON, and Montreal, QC, in Canada, and in Rochester, NY, as well as by The Church of St. Paul’s and Resurrection, Wood-Ridge, NJ, and Christ Church Cathedral, Cincin- nati, OH. The Rt. Rev. Thomas E. Breidenthal, D.Phil., bishop of the Diocese of Southern Ohio, iv and the Very Rev. Gail E. Greenwell, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Cincinnati, supported my endeavor through their moral encouragement and financial support. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to acknowledge the love and support of my amazing family. My parents, Mathew and Elizabeth Zacharia and John and Lally Thomas, instilled in me a powerful model of Christianity, along with a strong work ethic. My wonderful children Abigail and Johan (who were born after I began my doctoral program) provided a necessary and wel- come balance to my life when this project threatened to become all-consuming. Finally, my beautiful wife Joelle was the rock upon which this doctoral program was built. Her living em- bodiment of grace was the inspiration for this work. It is to her and her unconditional love that I dedicate this work. v CONTENTS Abstract …………………………………...……………………………………………… ii Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………. iv Contents …………………………………………………………………………………... vi CHAPTER 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 1 CHAPTER 2. Methodology ……………………………………………………………... 11 2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 11 2.2 Dialogue ………………………………………………………………………. 12 2.3 Roadmap ………………………………………………………………………. 14 2.4 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………….. 18 CHAPTER 3. The Emergence of Aleaz’s Pluralistic Inclusivism …………………….. 19 3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 19 3.2 Classical Indian Thought as Foundation ……………………………………… 20 3.2.1 Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta …………………………………………. 21 3.2.2 Neo-Vedanta Reading of Western Christianity ………...…………… 26 3.3 Indian Christian Theology …………………………………………………….. 31 3.3.1 The St. Thomas Tradition …………………………………………… 31 3.3.2 Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism ………………………...….. 35 3.3.3 Pluralistic Inclusivism as a Bridge ……….………………………… 43 3.4 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………….. 46 CHAPTER 4. The Emergence of Clooney’s New Comparative Theology …………… 49 4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 49 4.2 Toward the Development of New Comparative Theology …………………… 50 4.2.1 The Problem with Pluralism ………………………………………... 51 4.2.2 Crisis in the Academic Study of Religion …………...………………. 53 4.3 The Indian Legacy …………………………………………………………….. 56 4.4 Post Missiological Learning …………………………………………………... 62 4.5 Interreligious Learning ………………………………………………………... 63 4.6 Method and Logic …………………………………………………………….. 65 4.6.1 Coordination .…………………………..…………………………… 65 4.6.2 Superimposition ..……………………………………………………. 65 4.6.3 Comparative Conversation …...…………………………….………. 66 4.6.4 Comparative Tension …………………………………..…………… 66 4.6.5 Collage Visualization …………..…………………………………… 66 4.7 Posture of Openness …………………………………………………………... 68 4.8 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………….. 70 vi CHAPTER 5. Pluralistic Inclusivism and New Comparative Theology in Conversation ……………………………………...…………………………… 75 5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 75 5.2 Ostensible Similarity ………………………………………………………….. 76 5.2.1 Metaphysics and Pluralism as Concerns …………..……………….. 79 5.2.2 Movement Beyond Intra-Christian Dialogue: Towards Reformation of Theology …..………………………………………… 80 5.2.3 Subtle Vagueness ……………….…………………………………... 81 5.3 Relational Convergence and Multiple Religious Belonging ………………….. 82 5.4 Hermeneutics of Context and Hermeneutics of Particular Text ……………. 84 5.5 Theological Reformation and Reformation of Home Theology ……………… 86 5.6 Convergence and Divergence …………………………………………………. 88 5.7 Genealogy of Pluralistic Inclusivism …………………………………………. 90 5.8 Genealogy of New Comparative Theology …………………………………… 93 5.9 Communitarianism and Agonism as Analogues ……………………………… 99 5.10 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………… 105 CHAPTER 6. Pluralistic Inclusivism’s Telos and The Anglican Sensibility ………… 109 6.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 109 6.2 The Anglican Sensibility ……………………………………………………… 109 6.3 Summary and Remarks ……………………………………………………….. 117 Concluding Remarks …………………………………………………………………….. 119 Bibliography ……….…………………………………………………………………….. 121 vii CHAPTER 1 Introduction New comparative theology! What are we to make of the grammatical modifier in an ex- pression that has gained currency in the last decade or so? In short, is new comparative theology “new”? This question, which guides this study, is critical in a context and an era that is witness- ing a shift in cultural and demographic realities. The current context in North America is witnessing a crisis in Christian theology precipi- tated by the impact of global and cultural diversity. Sociologically, there is a tendency to refer to this as the “browning of America.”1 Various denominational forms of Christianity, rooted in the Western tradition, held much sway in North America. Yet, with the decrease in influence of Christianity, partially predicted in the 1960s with the death of God theology,2 the number of Hindu and Sikh temples, as well as Islamic mosques, has increased. Furthermore, commentators on religious trends like Diana Butler Bass have alluded to the phenomenon of people being “more spiritual” than religious; meaning, they claim either a hybrid identity or an identity apart from traditional confessional Christian terms.3 At the same time, there is seemingly increased suspicion and strife among religious groups and a deep lack of cooperation tearing at the fabric of what was once the Christian west. Which theological paradigms work best in this current climate is partially a function of geographical and cultural context. Studies at a North American theological seminary 1 William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2015). 2 Thomas J.J.