What is Comparative Theology?

Transcription

WhatȱisȱComparativeȱTheology?ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
UlrichȱWinkler1
…ȱthatȱtheyȱthemselvesȱmayȱlearnȱbyȱsincereȱandȱpatientȱdialogueȱ
whatȱtreasuresȱaȱgenerousȱGodȱhasȱdistributedȱ
ȱamongȱtheȱnationsȱofȱtheȱearth.ȱ
(VaticanȱII,ȱAdȱGentesȱ11)ȱ
ReflectionȱandȱExperienceȱ
WINKLER, Ulrich, What is Comparative Theology?, in: Cheetham,
David/Winkler, Ulrich/Leirvik, Oddbjørn/Gruber, Judith (ed.),
Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe. Between Texts
and People. (Currents of Encounter. Studies on the Contact
Between Christianity and other Religions, Beliefs, and Cultures 40),
Amsterdam/New York 2011, 231-264.
Bringingȱ reflectionȱ andȱ experienceȱ togetherȱ isȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ cenȬ
tralȱ importanceȱ forȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brück.ȱ Inȱ myȱ introductionȱ Iȱ
wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ useȱ theȱ occasionȱ ofȱ hisȱ 60thȱ birthdayȱ toȱ discussȱ
brieflyȱthisȱtheologian,ȱreligiousȱscholar,ȱandȱBuddhismȱexpert,ȱ
wellȱ knownȱ beyondȱ theȱ bordersȱ ofȱ GermanȬspeakingȱ areas,ȱ
sinceȱhisȱworkȱopensȱupȱaȱperspectiveȱforȱaȱprogressiveȱcomparaȬ
tiveȱtheologyȱthatȱIȱwillȱprofileȱinȱthisȱpresentation.ȱAtȱ26ȱyearsȱ
old,ȱ vonȱ Brückȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ begunȱ toȱ developȱ hisȱ modelȱ ofȱ aȱ
theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ inȱ hisȱ dissertationȱ (1975;ȱ seeȱ vonȱ Brückȱ
1979),ȱ puttingȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ testȱ inȱ hisȱ lifeȬlong,ȱ personalȱ journeyȱ
withinȱtheȱencounterȱofȱreligions.ȱ
VonȱBrückȱdidȱnotȱadoptȱtheȱneutral,ȱobservingȱpositionȱofȱ
religiousȱ studies,ȱ norȱ didȱ heȱ becomeȱ aȱ Buddhist.ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ
broughtȱ bothȱ discoursesȱ ontoȱ theȱ solidȱ groundȱ ofȱ Christianȱ
theologyȱrightȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱhisȱLutheranȱchurch.ȱThisȱwasȱtheȱ
caseȱ fromȱ theȱ veryȱ beginning,ȱ asȱ hisȱ dissertationȱ shows,ȱ inȱ
whichȱ heȱ attemptsȱ toȱ showȱ aȱ complementaryȱ connectionȱ beȬ
tweenȱ Karlȱ Barth’sȱ andȱ Rudolfȱ Otto’sȱ viewsȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Karlȱ
Barthȱisȱusuallyȱconsideredȱtheȱantithesisȱofȱtheȱappreciationȱofȱ
religions.ȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brück,ȱ however,ȱ couldȱ makeȱ hisȱ apȬ
proachȱfruitfulȱforȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreligionsȱbyȱplacingȱhisȱconȬ
cernsȱinȱaȱnewȱcontextȱandȱthroughȱdialecticȱextrapolation.ȱTheȱ
1ȱTranslatedȱintoȱEnglishȱbyȱLaurieȱJohnsonȱandȱChristianȱHackȬ
barthȬJohnson.ȱ
232ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱINTERRELIGIOUSȱHERMENEUTICSȱINȱPLURALISTICȱEUROPEȱ
developmentsȱinȱBarth’sȱnotionȱofȱtheȱWordȱofȱGodȱandȱofȱreliȬ
gionȱofferedȱstartingȱpointsȱforȱtheȱquestionȱofȱexperiencingȱtheȱ
WordȱofȱGodȱasȱbeingȱgovernedȱbyȱtheȱTotallyȱOther,ȱwhichȱheȱ
developsȱfurtherȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱRudolfȱOtto.ȱ
Onȱ thisȱ solidȱ groundȱ ofȱ hisȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions,ȱ vonȱ
BrückȱsetȱoffȱonȱtheȱpathȱofȱexperienceȱinȱJapanȱandȱIndiaȱwithȱ
theȱ aidȱ ofȱ hisȱ teachersȱ Hugoȱ M.ȱ EnomiyaȬLassalleȱ andȱ Bedeȱ
Griffithsȱandȱbecameȱinvolvedȱinȱdialogue,ȱnotȱonlyȱonȱanȱintelȬ
lectualȱ levelȱ butȱ alsoȱ onȱ aȱ personalȱ one.ȱ Heȱ neverȱ placedȱ hisȱ
betsȱonȱtheȱbasicȱgroundȱofȱaȱmysticalȱunityȱofȱallȱreligiousȱexȬ
perienceȱbutȱinsteadȱalwaysȱemphasizedȱthatȱallȱunderstandingȱ
ofȱ experienceȱ isȱ culturallyȱ conditioned.ȱ Heȱ didȱ notȱ followȱ theȱ
enlightenedȱ spiritualistsȱ foundȱ inȱ certainȱ spiritualȱ groupsȱ whoȱ
ridiculeȱtheologyȱandȱtheȱinstitutionalizedȱshapeȱofȱreligion.ȱInȬ
stead,ȱheȱheldȱonȱtoȱtheȱirredeemableȱmultidimensionalityȱofȱreȬ
ligions.ȱInstitutions,ȱethics,ȱmysticism,ȱandȱtheologyȱallȱofferȱreȬ
sourcesȱ forȱ anȱ understandingȱ betweenȱ religions.ȱ Theȱ unityȱ ofȱ
realityȱ (Brückȱ 1986,ȱ 1991)ȱ hasȱ itsȱ religiousȱ theologicalȱ basisȱ inȱ
trustingȱ theȱ goodnessȱ ofȱ creation,ȱ whichȱ entailsȱ reverenceȱ forȱ
theȱ pluriformityȱ ofȱ allȱ historyȱ andȱ theȱ overallȱ salvificȱ presenceȱ
withinȱit.ȱ
Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ thusȱ substantiatesȱ
andȱ accountsȱ forȱ approachingȱ otherȱ religions,ȱ includingȱ inȱ
termsȱ ofȱ personalȱ experience.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ asȱ aȱ compleȬ
mentaryȱ force,ȱ theȱ mysticȱ dimensionȱ offersȱ anȱ incentiveȱ forȱ
theologyȱ toȱ moveȱ forwardȱ inȱ thisȱ process.ȱ Vonȱ Brückȱ derivesȱ
encouragementȱfromȱhisȱexperiencesȱandȱhisȱtheology;2ȱcourageȱ
isȱ desperatelyȱ neededȱ inȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ challengesȱ facingȱ ChrisȬ
tianityȱandȱotherȱreligionsȱinȱourȱworld.ȱ
Reflectionȱandȱexperienceȱareȱnotȱjustȱtheȱequipmentȱforȱanȱ
individualȱadventureȱbutȱalsoȱforȱtheologyȱandȱtheȱChurch.ȱTheȱ
referentialȱ frameworkȱ forȱ theȱ Church’sȱ claimȱ toȱ truthȱ hasȱ beȬ
comeȱradicallyȱpluralistic.ȱTheseȱchanges,ȱhowever,ȱareȱnothingȱ
newȱ forȱ livingȱ religion.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ aȱ religion’sȱ coreȱ operationsȱ inȬ
2ȱConcerningȱtheseȱstatementsȱseeȱthisȱsmallȱsampleȱofȱhisȱbiblioȬ
graphy:ȱ Brückȱ 1994b;ȱ 1994a;ȱ 1996a;ȱ 1996b;ȱ 1999;ȱ 2002;ȱ 2006;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ
BrückȱandȱWerbickȱ1994;ȱBrückȱandȱLaiȱ2001.ȱ
WHATȱISȱCOMPARATIVEȱTHEOLOGY?ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ233ȱ
cludeȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ assimilateȱ andȱ dissimilate,ȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ
rigidȱideologiesȱthatȱrefuseȱtoȱacceptȱreality.ȱReligionsȱcanȱcriticȬ
allyȱaccommodateȱvariousȱculturalȱcontexts.ȱTheȱviabilityȱofȱreȬ
ligionsȱisȱsecuredȱthroughȱongoingȱtransformationalȱprocesses.ȱ
Today,ȱ tepidnessȱ andȱ chaoticȱ amalgamationȱ areȱ notȱ theȱ necesȬ
saryȱ consequences.ȱ Theȱ assertionȱ ofȱ identityȱ underȱ pluralisticȱ
conditionsȱshowsȱcourage.ȱ
Eachȱ understandingȱ isȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ aȱ changeȱ inȱ one’sȱ
ownȱ position.ȱ Thusȱ theȱ unavoidableȱ encounterȱ ofȱ religionsȱ
furtherȱ propelsȱ theȱ continuousȱ processȱ ofȱ transformation.ȱ Theȱ
pluralizationȱofȱtheȱframesȱofȱreferenceȱandȱtheȱoverallȱpresenceȱ
ofȱ otherȱ religiousȱ claimsȱ toȱ truthȱ withinȱ theseȱ framesȱ severelyȱ
challengeȱreligionsȱandȱmakeȱreturningȱtoȱidentityȱconstructionȱ
throughȱ violenceȱ andȱ exclusionȱ insteadȱ ofȱ delineationȱ oftenȱ
seemȱattractiveȱtoȱtheȱvariousȱformsȱofȱfundamentalism.ȱAtȱtheȱ
sameȱtime,ȱunderstandingȱandȱencounterȱcanȱalsoȱproveȱthemȬ
selvesȱtoȱbeȱspirituallyȱexploitative,ȱasȱpostcolonialȱstudiesȱ(seeȱ
Nehringȱ2003a,ȱ2003b)ȱlikeȱthoseȱE.W.ȱSaidȱshowedȱ(Saidȱ1978).ȱ
Thisȱ isȱ whyȱ vonȱ Brückȱ arguesȱ forȱ aȱ partnershipȱ ofȱ identity:ȱ deȬ
lineationȱ withȱ equalȱ status,ȱ identityȱ underȱ theȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ
pluralism,ȱ mutualȱ selfȬinterpretationȱ throughȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ theȱ
other,ȱrelationalȱdifferentiationȱandȱnotȱamalgamation,ȱetc.ȱOthȬ
erȱreligionsȱareȱpartȱofȱone’sȱownȱframeȱofȱreference;ȱtheȱothersȱ
doȱnotȱbecomeȱstrangersȱorȱadversaries.ȱDifferentiatingȱandȱreȬ
spectfulȱrelationshipsȱwithȱotherȱbeliefsȱformȱone’sȱownȱidentityȱ
(Winklerȱ2005).ȱ
Michaelȱ vonȱ Brückȱ hasȱ workedȱ forȱ preciselyȱ thisȱ inȱ hisȱ
churchȱ andȱ beyond.ȱ Theologyȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reȬ
ligionsȱgaveȱhimȱaȱstartingȱbasisȱforȱhisȱacademicȱcareerȱasȱwellȱ
asȱforȱhisȱargumentation.ȱHisȱconfidenceȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱinterȬ
religiousȱ encounterȱ isȱ basedȱ mainlyȱ onȱ insightsȱ inȱ theologyȱ ofȱ
religions.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱheȱconfrontsȱtheologyȱwithȱaȱsharpȬ
enedȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ relativityȱ –ȱ notȱ arbitrarinessȱ –ȱ andȱ theȱ proȬ
visionalȱnatureȱofȱitsȱstatements.ȱHeȱhasȱaȱclearȱviewȱofȱtheȱculȬ
turalȱ andȱ temporalȱ conditionalityȱ ofȱ everyȱ dogmaticȱ andȱ instiȬ
tutionalȱ conceptualizationȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Falseȱ attachmentȱ toȱ exȬ
clusiveȱ teachingsȱ mustȱ beȱ checkedȱ forȱ idolatry.ȱ Beyondȱ that,ȱ
dogmaticsȱitselfȱisȱ–ȱthisȱisȱmyȱtheoryȱ–ȱaȱformȱofȱdiscourseȱthatȱ
canȱandȱmustȱestablishȱaȱpartnershipȱofȱidentity.ȱTheologyȱmustȱ
notȱ onlyȱ accompanyȱ thisȱ processȱ ofȱ encounterȱ butȱ canȱ alsoȱ reȬ
sultȱfromȱit.ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱsetsȱtheȱstageȱforȱtheȱrehearsalsȱ
(Winklerȱ 2007d)ȱ forȱ thisȱ challengingȱ processȱ ofȱ transformationȱ
forȱChristianityȱinȱwhichȱdoctrinalȱtheologyȱplaysȱaȱcentralȱrole.ȱ
Comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ newȱ variationȱ ofȱ anȱ academicȱ
theologicalȱ fieldȱ withȱ newȱ materialsȱ fromȱ otherȱ religionsȱ butȱ
presupposesȱ bothȱ theologicalȱ reflectionȱ andȱ religiousȱ experiȬ
enceȱ –ȱ inȱ one’sȱ ownȱ andȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditions,ȱ intellectualȱ
discourse,ȱandȱexistentialȱencounterȱor,ȱasȱvonȱBrückȱoftenȱdeȬ
scribedȱ hisȱ ownȱ existenceȱ ofȱ combiningȱ religions,ȱ descendingȱ
intoȱaȱmineȱshaftȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱtwoȱopposingȱwalls.ȱ
TheȱHistoricalȱRootsȱofȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ
Toȱanswerȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱoriginsȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱ
oneȱ mustȱ firstȱ understandȱ whatȱ isȱ meantȱ byȱ theȱ termȱ “comȬ
parativeȱ theology.”ȱ Whatȱ canȱ beȱ consideredȱ theȱ root?ȱ Doȱ weȱ
understandȱ “comparativeȱ theology”ȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ newlyȱ emergingȱ
disciplineȱ inȱ theologyȱ comprisingȱ recognizedȱ protagonistsȱ andȱ
works?ȱ Orȱ shouldȱ aȱ similarȱ methodȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ history?ȱ Thisȱ
questionȱcomesȱtooȱearlyȱforȱaȱcomprehensiveȱanswer,ȱandȱonlyȱ
theȱ beginningsȱ ofȱ historicalȱ contoursȱ canȱ beȱ drawn.ȱ Iȱ distingȬ
uishȱbetweenȱthreeȱhistoricalȱapproaches:ȱ1)ȱinterculturalȱtheoȬ
logy,ȱ2)ȱolderȱandȱ3)ȱmoreȱrecentȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ
AllȱofȱreligiousȱhistoryȱcanȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱaȱhistoryȱofȱdifȬ
ferenceȱ andȱ interactionȱ betweenȱ religionsȱ andȱ cultures,ȱ andȱ
Christianityȱisȱnoȱexception.ȱBasedȱonȱaȱcomprehensiveȱconceptȱ
ofȱ culture,ȱ Iȱ callȱ aȱ theologyȱ thatȱ developedȱ inȱ communicationȱ
withȱoutsideȱreferencesȱinterculturalȱtheology.ȱ
Comparativeȱtheologyȱisȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱaȱfieldȱofȱtheologyȱasȱ
anȱattributeȱofȱtheologyȱand,ȱthus,ȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱChristianity,ȱasȱ
oldȱ asȱ Christianȱ theologyȱ itself.ȱ Patrologyȱ establishedȱ theȱ termȱ
apologistȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ representativesȱ ofȱ thisȱ theology.ȱ Theȱ inȬ
ventionȱofȱheresyȱasȱanȱinternalȱsafeguardȱofȱdogmaticsȱagainstȱ
infusionsȱfromȱoutsideȱdiscourses3ȱbecameȱformativeȱforȱtheȱenȬ
tireȱ historyȱ ofȱ theology.ȱ Apologeticsȱ becomeȱ constitutiveȱ forȱ
3ȱSeeȱIrenaeusȱofȱLyon’sȱtwoȬpartȱmainȱwork:ȱfirstȱtheȱpolemicalȱ
writingsȱ Adversusȱ Haeresesȱ andȱ thenȱ theȱ dogmaticȱ elaborationȱ EpiȬ
deixis.ȱSeeȱAltanerȱandȱStuiberȱ1980:ȱ110Ȭ17;ȱDrobnerȱ2004:ȱ154Ȭ58.ȱ
Christianȱtheologyȱandȱdevelopedȱanȱimpressiveȱsystematicȱupȱ
untilȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Neoscholasticism.ȱ Theȱ tractȱ ofȱ demonstatioȱ reliȬ
giosaȱwasȱdevelopedȱwithȱatheisticȱworldviewsȱinȱmind,ȱtheȱdeȬ
monstratioȱ christianaȱ withȱ otherȱ religionsȱ inȱ mind,ȱ andȱ theȱ deȬ
monstratioȱ catholicaȱ orȱ ecclesiaeȱ withȱ otherȱ churchesȱ andȱ deȬ
nominationsȱinȱmind.ȱThisȱtypeȱofȱtheologyȱwasȱalsoȱdesignedȱ
comparativelyȱ andȱ interculturally,ȱ asȱ itȱ were,ȱ howeverȱ shapedȱ
itȱmightȱbeȱbyȱanȱinevitableȱcomparisonȱfromȱtheȱstandpointȱofȱ
one’sȱownȱsuperiorȱpositionȱandȱthereforeȱbyȱstrategicȱinterest.ȱ
Itȱwasȱclearȱthatȱone’sȱownȱtruthȱwasȱgreater;ȱtheȱoutsideȱworldȱ
heldȱ noȱ relevantȱ answersȱ orȱ evenȱ bothersomeȱ questionsȱ inȱ
store.ȱThisȱepochȱofȱCatholicȱtheologyȱsankȱinȱisolation,ȱrobbedȱ
ofȱ theȱ possibilityȱ toȱ learn,ȱ andȱ becameȱ selfȬcontainedȱ behindȱ
thickȱwallsȱuntilȱJohnȱXXIIIȱopenedȱtheȱwindowsȱwithȱtheȱSecȬ
ondȱVaticanȱCouncilȱandȱsecuredȱaȱnewȱpermeability.ȱ
Aȱ comparativeȱ natureȱ canȱ thereforeȱ beȱ foundȱ forȱ theȱ larȬ
gestȱ spectrumȱ ofȱ outsideȱ discourses.ȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brückȱ notȱ
onlyȱ developedȱ aȱ schemeȱ or,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ aȱ rationaleȱ forȱ anȱ interȬ
culturalȱtheologyȱinȱcollaborationȱwithȱreligiousȱstudiesȱinȱaȱmoreȱ
specificȱwayȱinȱhisȱ1991ȱMunichȱinauguralȱlectureȱ(Brückȱ1992);ȱ
heȱalsoȱintroducedȱaȱpreludeȱtoȱaȱtheologicalȱmasteryȱofȱreligiousȱ
pluralityȱ thatȱ isȱ currentlyȱ enjoyingȱ increasedȱ awareness.ȱ Heȱ
analysesȱ theȱ basicȱ patternsȱ ofȱ theseȱ interactionsȱ substantiatedȱ
byȱfourȱexamplesȱofȱtheȱencounterȱbetweenȱreligionsȱacrossȱtheȱ
historyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Forȱ him,ȱ itȱ allȱ comesȱ downȱ toȱ theȱ basicȱ
patternȱ ofȱ cooperationȱ afterȱ isolation,ȱ confrontation,ȱ andȱ tolerȬ
ance.ȱ Formsȱ ofȱ cooperationȱ startȱ muchȱ moreȱ concretelyȱ inȱ
specificȱ historyȱ andȱ theȱ theologicalȱ comprehensionȱ ofȱ differȬ
ences,ȱpreparedȱby,ȱandȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱEnȬ
lightenment’sȱattemptsȱatȱtoleranceȱandȱtheȱnineteenthȱcentury,ȱ
whichȱ hadȱ theȱ humanumȱ orȱ essentialistȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ unityȱ inȱ
mind.ȱThisȱisȱwhyȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱguiltȱwillȱbecomeȱaȱtopicȱinȱtheȱ
encountersȱandȱclaimsȱtoȱtruthȱandȱtheȱassertionȱofȱidentityȱbyȱ
differentȱtraditionsȱofȱbeliefȱwillȱbeȱ–ȱnotȱdissolvedȱ–ȱbutȱrewritȬ
ten.ȱ Consensusȱ cannotȱ beȱ achievedȱ easilyȱ butȱ mustȱ beȱ foundȱ
throughȱaȱcommonȱprocess.ȱTheȱChristologicalȱprincipleȱofȱtheȱ
relativeȱ Absolute4ȱ andȱ thusȱ theȱ absoluteȱ Relativeȱ leadsȱ vonȱ Brückȱ
toȱexpressȱtheȱcategoricalȱclaimȱofȱtheȱabsoluteȱinȱconcreteȱandȱ
relativeȱ form.ȱ Theologyȱ isȱ alreadyȱ deniedȱ mereȱ selfȬreferenȬ
tialityȱthroughȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱreligiousȱstudies.5ȱTodayȱmoreȱ
thanȱever,ȱtheologyȱcanȱshowȱitsȱlegitimacyȱonlyȱ“inȱcommunȬ
icationȱ andȱ communionȱ withȱ otherȱ modernȱ livingȱ religions”ȱ
(Brückȱ1992:ȱ246).ȱBasedȱonȱthis,ȱreligionsȱareȱonȱtheȱthresholdȱ
ofȱ renewingȱ theirȱ religiousȱ values.ȱ Withȱ itsȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ conȬ
crete,ȱtheȱexistentialȱanchoring,ȱtheologicalȱdiscursivity,ȱandȱtheȱ
enrichmentȱ throughȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱ vonȱ Brück’sȱ designȱ ofȱ
“interculturalȱ theologyȱ asȱ aȱ Christianȱ theoryȱ ofȱ interreligiousȱ
dialogue”ȱ(vonȱBrückȱ1992:ȱ258)ȱcanȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱaȱjustifyȬ
cationȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology,ȱevenȱifȱheȱdoesȱnotȱuseȱtheȱtermȱ
himself.ȱ
Davidȱ Tracyȱ (1987a)ȱ setsȱ upȱ aȱ similarlyȱ fundamentalȱ apȬ
proach.ȱHeȱpresents,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱaȱmethodȱofȱcomparingȱ
theologyȱ withinȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ and,ȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ aȱ theologicalȱ
discourseȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱmanyȱbeliefȱtraditions.ȱOtherȱhistoricalȱ
approachesȱareȱmoreȱinterestedȱinȱtheȱnotionȱorȱaȱdistinguishaȬ
bleȱ methodȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ andȱ unearthȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ
whatȱweȱhereȱcallȱanȱolderȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ
Theȱ current,ȱ perhapsȱ mostȱ prominentȱ representativeȱ ofȱ
comparativeȱtheology,ȱFrancisȱX.ȱClooney,ȱshowsȱaȱvitalȱinterestȱ
inȱnotȱallowingȱhisȱfieldȱandȱtheologicalȱaccomplishmentsȱtoȱbeȱ
viewedȱasȱaȱmeddlesomeȱinnovationȱofȱtheologyȱbutȱtoȱplaceȱitȱ
inȱ aȱ traditionȱ ofȱ research,ȱ showingȱ terminologicalȱ continuity.ȱ
Thus,ȱ inȱ hisȱ 2007ȱ articleȱ inȱ Theȱ Oxfordȱ Handbookȱ ofȱ Systematicȱ
Theologyȱ (Clooneyȱ 2007a:ȱ 654ff.),ȱ heȱ listsȱ aȱ widerȱ rangeȱ ofȱ auȬ
thorsȱ whoȱ haveȱ explicitlyȱ usedȱ theȱ termȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ
sinceȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ century.ȱ Aȱ wideȱ fieldȱ ofȱ researchȱ isȱ
waiting,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ overviewȱ leadsȱ oneȱ toȱ suspectȱ thatȱ theseȱ
terminologyȱ findsȱ byȱ noȱ meansȱ constituteȱ anȱ excavationȱ ofȱ reȬ
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ Christologicalȱ principleȱ ofȱ theȱ universaleȱ concretumȱ inȱ
Balthasarȱ1960:ȱ183.ȱ
4
searchȱhistory.ȱTheȱbordersȱbetweenȱmissiologicalȱliteratureȱandȱ
religiousȱstudiesȱapproachesȱareȱfluid.ȱ
Thus,ȱ Clooneyȱ attemptsȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ intentionsȱ andȱ
methodsȱ ofȱ theseȱ approaches.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ enlighteningȱ studyȱ soȱ
farȱ wasȱ submittedȱ byȱ Norbertȱ Hintersteinerȱ (Hintersteinerȱ
2007a;ȱcf.ȱHintersteinerȱ2003:ȱ845ff;ȱ2001:ȱ316ff.),ȱwho,ȱdespiteȱallȱ
reservations,ȱidentifiesȱdistinctȱcriteriaȱforȱclassificationȱinȱolderȱ
comparativeȱ theologyȱ surroundingȱ theȱ Worldȱ Parliamentȱ ofȱ ReȬ
ligionsȱheldȱinȱChicagoȱinȱ1893.ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱitȱisȱcommittedȱ
toȱ aȱ theologicalȱ standpointȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ dealsȱ withȱ otherȱ
religionsȱcomparatively.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱtheseȱworksȱwereȱsubjectȱtoȱ
aȱWesternȱcolonialȱdiscourseȱofȱdominance,ȱsoȱthatȱtheirȱresultsȱ
wereȱ notȱ dissimilarȱ toȱ thoseȱ inȱ aȱ denominationalȬapologeticȱ
vein.ȱ Onlyȱ Christianityȱ couldȱ fillȱ theȱ criterionȱ ofȱ universalȱ
significanceȱ ofȱ aȱ soȬcalledȱ worldȱ religionȱ andȱ accordinglyȱ beȬ
cameȱtheȱmeasureȱofȱaȱworldȱreligion.ȱ
Theȱ traditionsȱ ofȱ theseȱ venturesȱ reachȱ asȱ farȱ backȱ asȱ GerȬ
manȱ philosophyȱ ofȱ religionȱ andȱ evokeȱ Hegel’sȱ Christianityȱ asȱ
theȱ absoluteȱ religion.ȱ Thusȱ Keithȱ Ward,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ influȬ
entialȱ pioneersȱ ofȱ recentȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ localizesȱ FriedȬ
richȱSchleiermacherȱasȱtheȱoriginȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱwithinȱ
theȱhistoryȱofȱtheologyȱ(Wardȱ1994:ȱ46f.),ȱ sinceȱhe,ȱwithȱtheȱaidȱ
ofȱhisȱnotionȱofȱreligion,ȱdistinguishedȱitȱfromȱaȱpurelyȱconfesȬ
sionalȱ theologyȱ andȱ wantedȱ toȱ accountȱ forȱ hisȱ ownȱ tradition’sȱ
doctrineȱ ofȱ faithȱ withinȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ religion.6ȱ
Heȱcalledȱforȱaȱshiftȱtowardȱtheȱpositiveȱreligionsȱandȱrefrainedȱ
fromȱecclesiasticalȱignoranceȱandȱpurelyȱsubjectiveȱpietyȱasȱwellȱ
asȱ fromȱ abstract,ȱ rationalȱ speculationȱ onȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ religionȱ
withȱaȱclaimȱonȱobjectivity.ȱ
Theȱreferenceȱtoȱbothȱtheology’sȱinterculturalȱmethodologyȱ
andȱolderȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱexhibitsȱconsiderableȱproblemsȱ
inȱ viewȱ ofȱ aȱ genealogicalȱ definitionȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ
TheȱpointsȱofȱreferenceȱareȱeitherȱtooȱgeneralȱorȱtooȱcloselyȱreȬ
latedȱ toȱ theȱ traditionalȱ formsȱ ofȱ apologetics.ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ
newerȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱhasȱdevelopedȱaȱratherȱuniformȱproȬ
fileȱdespiteȱtheȱformidableȱdiversityȱofȱopinions.ȱ
ȱ Seeȱ theȱ comprehensiveȱ exemplaryȱ studyȱ inȱ vonȱ Brückȱ andȱ Laiȱ
5
2001.ȱ
ȱOnȱWard’sȱreceptionȱofȱSchleiermacherȱseeȱWinklerȱ2009a.ȱ
6
IȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱhighlightȱtheȱworkȱofȱOxfordȱemeritusȱandȱ
Anglicanȱ Keithȱ Wardȱ (Wardȱ 1987,ȱ 1994a,ȱ 1998,ȱ 2000).7ȱ Hisȱ priȬ
maryȱ comparativeȱ theologicalȱ frontlineȱ positionȱ isȱ aimedȱ
againstȱ thoseȱ confessionalȱ theologiesȱ thatȱ areȱ nothingȱ moreȱ
thanȱ aȱ mouthpieceȱ forȱ theȱ magisterium,ȱ doȱ notȱ proveȱ themȬ
selvesȱ inȱ theȱ courtȱ ofȱ reason,ȱ onlyȱ impartȱ theirȱ ownȱ tradition,ȱ
andȱ onlyȱ acceptȱ theirȱ ownȱ truth.ȱ Forȱ Ward,ȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ
logyȱisȱaboveȱallȱaȱcounterȬprogrammeȱtoȱdenominationalȱapolȬ
ogetics.ȱInȱcontrast,ȱheȱwantsȱtheologyȱtoȱbeȱheldȱaccountableȱinȱ
theȱfaceȱofȱtheȱentireȱhistoryȱofȱreligions.ȱItȱisȱimportantȱtoȱhimȱ
thatȱ otherȱ religionsȱ beȱ portrayedȱ asȱ fairlyȱ asȱ possible,ȱ thusȱ
showingȱ anȱ affinityȱ withȱ theȱ methodologyȱ ofȱ phenomenology.ȱ
Hisȱstudiesȱareȱguidedȱbyȱtheȱoverallȱthemes.ȱThus,ȱhisȱcomparȬ
ativeȱ theologyȱ resultsȱ inȱ anȱ ideaȬhistoricalȱ comparison.ȱ Outȱ ofȱ
respectȱ forȱ otherȱ religionsȱ heȱ classifiesȱ hisȱ ownȱ traditionȱ inȱ aȱ
universalȱ contextȱ ofȱ salvationȱ historyȱ andȱ looksȱ forȱ aȱ deeperȱ
understandingȱofȱbothȱhisȱownȱandȱotherȱanswers.ȱHavingȱsaidȱ
this,ȱWardȱstillȱunderstandsȱhisȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱasȱbeingȱ
denominationalȱandȱlinkedȱtoȱaȱcertainȱperspective:ȱtheȱstudiesȱ
byȱ Ninianȱ Smartȱ andȱ Stevenȱ Konstantineȱ (1991)ȱ andȱ Wilfredȱ
Cantwellȱ Smithȱ (1993),8ȱ andȱ theȱ historicallyȱ orientedȱ worksȱ ofȱ
ȱ Onȱ methodologyȱ seeȱ Wardȱ 1994:ȱ 3Ȭ49,ȱ andȱ forȱ biographicalȱ
notesȱ seeȱ Wardȱ 2003.ȱ Forȱ theȱ discussionȱ seeȱ Wardȱ 2003ȱ andȱ Vroomȱ
2001.ȱ Inȱ Novemberȱ 2008ȱ Wardȱ tookȱ upȱ aȱ quiteȱ criticalȱ discussionȱ forȱ
theȱ firstȱ timeȱ inȱ theȱ GermanȬspeakingȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ world;ȱ seeȱ myȱ reȬ
sponseȱtoȱKeithȱWard:ȱWinklerȱ2009a.ȱ
7
Thisȱ Islamȱ scholarȱ andȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ foundersȱ ofȱ theȱ pluralisticȱ
theologyȱofȱreligionȱdevelopedȱhisȱownȱprogramȱforȱaȱworldȱtheologyȱ
comparableȱ toȱ thisȱ generationȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Asȱ earlyȱ asȱ
theȱ 1950sȱ heȱ madeȱ aȱ pointȱ ofȱ Muslimsȱ andȱ Christiansȱ studyingȱ toȬ
getherȱ atȱ whatȱ wasȱ thenȱ hisȱ McGillȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ Islamicȱ Studiesȱ inȱ
Montreal,ȱ Canada,ȱ justȱ asȱ heȱ setȱ itȱ upȱ laterȱ asȱ directorȱ ofȱ theȱ interȬ
religiousȱ discussionȱ forumȱ ofȱ theȱ Harvardȱ Centerȱ forȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ
Worldȱ Religions.ȱ Anȱ importantȱ prerequisiteȱ forȱ himȱ wasȱ notȱ justȱ
knowledgeȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱreligiousȱstudies,ȱbutȱalsoȱexchangeȱbetweenȱ
theȱ participants.ȱ Seeȱ Smithȱ 1989.ȱ Forȱ aȱ criticalȱ appraisalȱ seeȱ Nehringȱ
2005.ȱ
8
Universityȱ ofȱ Notreȱ Dameȱ emeritusȱ Davidȱ B.ȱ Burrellȱ (Burrellȱ
1986,ȱ1993)ȱhaveȱaȱcomparableȱapproach.ȱ
Asȱ aȱ secondȱ example,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ citeȱ theȱ probablyȱ
mostȱ interestingȱ collaboration,ȱ theȱ Crossȱ Culturalȱ Comparativeȱ
Religiousȱ Ideasȱ Project,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ conductedȱ atȱ Bostonȱ UniȬ
versityȱfromȱ1995ȱuntilȱ1999.ȱThisȱcollaborationȱbetweenȱscholȬ
arsȱfromȱfiveȱdifferentȱworldȱreligionsȱandȱworldviewsȱresultedȱ
inȱaȱtrilogyȱ(seeȱNevilleȱ2001a,ȱ2001b,ȱ2001c).ȱTheȱprojectȱleaderȱ
wasȱ Robertȱ C.ȱ Neville,ȱ who,ȱ alongȱ withȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ Clooney,ȱ isȱ
probablyȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱandȱleadingȱtheoreticiansȱofȱ
comparativeȱtheologyȱandȱhasȱcontributedȱdecisivelyȱtoȱtheȱdeȬ
velopmentȱ ofȱ theȱ fieldȱ andȱ presentedȱ anȱ extremelyȱ differentȬ
iatedȱ conceptȱ ofȱ methodologyȱ (Nevilleȱ 1991,ȱ 2006,ȱ 2008;ȱ Yongȱ
andȱHeltzelȱ2004).ȱNevilleȱisȱaȱMethodistȱandȱaȱqualifiedȱandȱreȬ
nownedȱ expertȱ onȱ Confucianism.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ observeȱ theȱ develȬ
opmentsȱofȱtheȱprojectȱandȱtheȱparticipantsȱinȱtheȱthreeȱvolumesȱ
ofȱtheȱBostonȱprojectȱ–ȱespeciallyȱinȱNeville’sȱclosingȱwordsȱandȱ
WesleyȱJ.ȱWildman’sȱprojectȱjournal.ȱTheȱmethodologyȱ(Nevilleȱ
2000a),ȱ theȱselectionȱ ofȱ scholars,ȱ theȱ projectȱsetting,ȱeverythingȱ
wasȱ–ȱnotȱunlikeȱWard’sȱconcernȱ–ȱdesignedȱtoȱbeȱobjectiveȱandȱ
authenticȱ portrayalsȱ ofȱ otherȱ beliefȱ traditionsȱ asȱ freeȱ ofȱ prejuȬ
diceȱ asȱ possibleȱ (Nevilleȱ 2000b)ȱ andȱ alsoȱ toȱ reachȱ comparisonsȱ
betweenȱthemȱprogressively.ȱTheȱprojectȱisȱoneȱofȱaȱkindȱsoȱfar,ȱ
distinguishedȱ byȱ theȱ concentrationȱ andȱ disciplineȱ ofȱ theȱ scholȬ
arlyȱandȱpersonalȱdiscourseȱandȱbyȱaȱhighȱdegreeȱofȱmethodicalȱ
reflexivity.ȱ Considerationsȱ onȱ methodologyȱ alreadyȱ madeȱ itȱ
clearȱthatȱjustȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱtopicsȱandȱappraisalȱofȱtheirȱrepreȬ
sentativeȱrelevanceȱbringȱnormativeȱcomponentsȱintoȱtheȱequaȬ
tion.ȱTheȱnormativeȱandȱthereforeȱconsequentialȱtheologicalȱnaȬ
tureȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱneedsȱfurtherȱreflection.9ȱ
Theȱ newestȱ initiativeȱ goesȱ backȱ toȱ Francisȱ X.ȱ Clooney,ȱ aȱ
Jesuitȱ andȱ expertȱ onȱ Tamilȱ Hinduism.ȱ Inȱ 2006ȱ heȱ foundedȱ theȱ
Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ Groupȱ atȱ theȱ Americanȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Religionȱ
(Clooneyȱ 2007b;ȱ Winklerȱ 2008c:ȱ 132ff.),ȱ whichȱ hasȱ sinceȱ beenȱ
usedȱ asȱ aȱ discussionȱ forumȱ worldwide.ȱ Theȱ groupȱ isȱ aȱ muchȱ
9ȱSeeȱNeville’sȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱBaselȱConferenceȱ2008ȱandȱmyȱ
responseȱinȱWinklerȱ2009a.ȱ
looserȱ unitȱ thanȱ theȱ Bostonȱ projectȱ butȱ offersȱ theȱ spaceȱ necesȬ
saryȱforȱanȱopenȱandȱcreativeȱprocessȱwhichȱisȱthusȱexposedȱtoȱaȱ
discerningȱ audience.ȱ Aboutȱ aȱ hundredȱ scholarsȱ worldwideȱ
haveȱ participatedȱ inȱ thisȱ processȱ ofȱ researchȱ andȱ exchangeȱ inȱ
theȱlastȱthreeȱyears.ȱTheȱchairȱandȱmentor,ȱFrancisȱClooney,ȱcanȱ
personallyȱ lookȱ backȱ onȱ anȱ enormouslyȱ productiveȱ creativeȱ
phaseȱinȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱdecades10ȱandȱisȱnowȱconsideredȱtheȱmostȱ
importantȱspokespersonȱofȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱClooneyȱhasȱ
aȱ wellȬthoughtȬoutȱ methodologyȱ thatȱ heȱ continuouslyȱ refinedȱ
inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ monographs.ȱ Inȱ comparisonȱ toȱ Smith,ȱ
Ward,ȱNeville,ȱandȱothers,ȱClooney’sȱcentralȱapproachȱhasȱlessȱ
toȱ doȱ withȱ freeingȱ one’sȱ ownȱ faithȱ fromȱ theȱ narrownessȱ ofȱ
apologeticsȱ andȱ lessȱ withȱ theȱ objectiveȱ andȱ fairȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ
otherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱthanȱitȱdoesȱwithȱtheȱcreativeȱprocessȱ
ofȱ theȱ interactionȱ ofȱ textsȱ fromȱ theȱ participants’ȱ perspectives.11ȱ
Clooney’sȱ handȱ willȱ beȱ recognizableȱ againȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ
systematicȱ sectionȱ ofȱ thisȱ paper.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ representȬ
tativesȱandȱgroupsȱmentionedȱthereȱis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱaȱwholeȱrangeȱ
ofȱindividualȱstudiesȱandȱauthorsȱwhoȱhaveȱrenderedȱoutstandȬ
ingȱservicesȱtoȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ
ParametersȱofȱaȱSystematicȱDescriptionȱ
Itȱ hasȱ becomeȱ apparentȱ throughȱ theȱ structureȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ
surveyȱ thatȱ Iȱ placeȱ theȱ veryȱ differentȱ formsȱ ofȱ theȱ approachesȱ
mentionedȱinȱrelationshipȱwithȱoneȱanotherȱandȱallowȱaȱspecificȱ
conceptȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱtoȱguideȱme.ȱThisȱconceptȱwillȱ
beȱsystematicallyȱexemplifiedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱthirdȱsection.ȱByȱ
thisȱIȱunderstandȱtheȱdefiningȱcharacteristicsȱbothȱdescriptively,ȱ
inȱ thatȱ theyȱ includeȱ theȱ widestȱ possibleȱ profileȱ ofȱ finishedȱ
works,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ normatively,ȱ inȱ thatȱ Iȱ alsoȱ wantȱ toȱ chartȱ theȱ
contoursȱofȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱresearch.ȱ
ȱ
ConfessionalȱTheology,ȱbutȱnotȱDepreciatingȱApologeticsȱ
Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theȱ interculturalȱ andȱ interreligiousȱ referenceȱ
belongsȱ toȱ theȱ earliestȱ ofȱ theologicalȱ discussionsȱ andȱ inȱ thisȱ
respectȱ theologyȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ doneȱ comparatively.ȱ Onȱ theȱ
otherȱ hand,ȱ thisȱ veryȱ referenceȱ wasȱ soȱ oftenȱ characterizedȱ byȱ
polemicȱapologeticsȱthatȱtheȱcentralȱthrustȱofȱbothȱcomparativeȱ
theologyȱ andȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ wasȱ inȱ reactionȱ toȱ it.ȱ ComparaȬ
tiveȱ theologyȱ isȱ anȱ antiȬapologeticȱ programmeȱ againstȱ theȱ selfȬ
aggrandizingȱ andȱ selfȬimmunizationȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ faith,ȱ directedȱ
againstȱ theȱ degradationȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ throughȱ aȱ hermenȬ
euticȱofȱsuspicion,ȱwhichȱoneȱcanȱstudyȱinȱtheȱexemplaryȱearlyȱ
ChristianȱAdversusȱJudaeos12ȱwritings,ȱandȱagainstȱtheȱisolationȬ
istȱrhetoricȱofȱuniqueness,ȱignoranceȱandȱblindness.ȱButȱnotȱevȬ
eryȱ theologyȱ thatȱ dealsȱ withȱ comparisonsȱ toȱ otherȱ religionsȱ isȱ
alreadyȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱ(1)ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱrelatesȱ
toȱ otherȱ religionsȱ withȱ aȱ benevolence,ȱ aȱ willingnessȱ toȱ learn,ȱ andȱ
criticalȱ appreciation.ȱ (2)ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Davidȱ Tracy’sȱ differentiaȬ
tionȱ (seeȱ above,ȱ p.ȱ 236),ȱ theȱ theologicalȱ natureȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ
theologyȱ consistsȱ inȱ theȱ factȱ that,ȱ materially,ȱ theȱ theologiesȱ ofȱ
religionȱ themselvesȱ belongȱ toȱ theirȱ fieldȱ ofȱ researchȱ andȱ thusȱ
theirȱ claimsȱ toȱ truthȱ areȱ takenȱ seriouslyȱ and,ȱ evenȱ more,ȱ thatȱ
formallyȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱnormativelyȱreflexiveȱandȱdoesȱ
notȱtryȱtoȱavoidȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtruth.ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱisȱ
denominationalȱ andȱ hasȱ itsȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ sphereȱ ofȱ creedȱ andȱ
church,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱdetailsȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱmayȱbeȱladenȱwithȱ
tension.ȱ
Theology,ȱnotȱjustȱReligiousȱStudiesȱ
Alongȱ withȱ olderȱ comparativeȱ theology,ȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ goȱ
backȱtoȱaȱcommonȱdateȱofȱorigin.ȱItȱbecameȱaȱtrueȱalternativeȱtoȱ
theology,ȱ whichȱ gaveȱ itselfȱ aȱ badȱ nameȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ religionȱ
throughȱ itsȱ distortions,ȱ whileȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ wereȱ thoughtȱ
capableȱ ofȱobjectivity.ȱWhyȱshouldȱ oneȱ notȱ justȱcontinueȱ toȱ doȱ
religiousȱstudiesȱandȱstillȱgiveȱtheologyȱcredit?ȱ
ȱ Seeȱ hisȱ mostȱ importantȱ studies,ȱ beginningȱ withȱ hisȱ dissertaȬ
tion:ȱClooneyȱ1990,ȱ1993,ȱ1996,ȱ1998,ȱ2001,ȱ2005,ȱ2008a,ȱ2008b.ȱ
10
11ȱForȱaȱconciseȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱClooney’sȱmethȬ
odologyȱseeȱHintersteinerȱ2007aȱandȱ2007b.ȱ
12ȱ Forȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ strategyȱ ofȱ immunizationȱ seeȱ Winklerȱ
2008a.ȱ
TheologyȱisȱreflectionȱfromȱtheȱinsideȱperspectiveȱandȱadȬ
vocatesȱclaimingȱvalidityȱforȱone’sȱownȱtruth.ȱBecauseȱofȱthis,ȱitȱ
isȱinȱdangerȱofȱonlyȱrelatingȱtoȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱoutȱofȱ
apologeticȱinterest.ȱInȱcontrast,ȱaccordingȱtoȱitsȱfoundingȱaspiraȬ
tions,ȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ choosesȱ anȱ outsideȱ perspectiveȱ forȱ obȬ
servingȱ religions,ȱ notȱ judgingȱ butȱ ratherȱ describingȱ andȱ classiȬ
fying.ȱ Butȱ itȱ hasȱ sufferedȱ severalȱ upheavalsȱ andȱ posedȱ graveȱ
problemsȱ concerningȱ itsȱ ownȱ subject.ȱ Howȱ canȱ aȱ religionȱ beȱ
graspedȱandȱunderstood,ȱwhenȱoneȱonlyȱknowsȱitȱfromȱtheȱperȬ
spectiveȱofȱtheȱobserver?ȱTheȱsearchȱforȱanȱessentialistȱconceptȱ
ofȱ religionȱ couldȱ neitherȱ removeȱ theȱ unavoidableȱ fixedȱ standȬ
pointȱofȱtheȱobserverȱnorȱattainȱanȱappropriateȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱ
concreteȱhistoricalȱandȱexistentialȱrealitiesȱofȱreligionsȱupȱtoȱtoȬ
dayȱwhenȱtheȱnotionȱofȱreligionȱisȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱdissolutionȱ
afterȱtheȱculturalȱturn.13ȱ
Theȱcontributionȱofȱreligiousȱstudiesȱandȱitsȱrichȱempiricalȱ
materialȱareȱofȱgreatȱvalueȱforȱcomparativeȱtheology.ȱReligiousȱ
studiesȱisȱindispensableȱforȱtheology.ȱTheȱonlyȱpointȱofȱcontenȬ
tionȱ isȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ methodicalȱ sufficiencyȱ forȱ religiousȱ
studies,ȱ andȱ theȱ claimȱ toȱ soleȱ representationȱ forȱ religionsȱ andȱ
thusȱtheȱdelegitimizationȱofȱtheology.ȱTheologyȱhasȱdevelopedȱ
aȱsenseȱforȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱparticipantȱperspectives,ȱsinceȱitȱisȱ
necessaryȱtoȱsubmitȱoneselfȱtoȱaȱreligion’sȱdemandsȱinȱorderȱtoȱ
understandȱit.ȱReligionsȱareȱparametersȱofȱmeaningȱthatȱaskȱnotȱ
justȱ toȱ beȱ observedȱ andȱ reflectedȱ uponȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ beȱ exisȬ
tentiallyȱtriedȱoutȱandȱexperienced.ȱAlthoughȱitȱisȱtrueȱthatȱobȬ
serversȱcanȱusuallyȱgraspȱtheȱgrammarȱbetterȱthanȱparticipants,ȱ
religiousȱstudiesȱhasȱalsoȱcarriedȱoutȱsignificantȱamendmentsȱtoȱ
theirȱ idealȱ ofȱ objectivity,ȱ asȱ Wilfredȱ Cantwellȱ Smithȱ hasȱ done,ȱ
forȱ example,ȱ throughȱ aȱ constitutiveȱ incorporationȱ ofȱ theȱ selfȬ
interpretationȱ ofȱ participantsȱ (seeȱ Smithȱ 1963;ȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ
1997:ȱ85;ȱ2005:ȱ56f.,ȱ167;ȱ2009;ȱTworuschkaȱ2001:ȱ132,ȱ136).ȱ
ȱItȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱtoȱfigureȱoutȱeitherȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtheȱorȬ
iginatingȱpointȱofȱview,ȱtheȱpositionȱfromȱwhichȱoneȱcarriesȱoutȱ
theȱ observation,ȱ orȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theȱ consecutiveȱ pointȱ ofȱ
view,ȱ sinceȱ researchȱ hasȱ itsȱ consequences,ȱ whichȱ isȱ especiallyȱ
ȱSeeȱmyȱdiscussionȱinȱSabbatucciȱ1988ȱandȱWinklerȱ2008c.ȱ
13
trueȱforȱreflectionsȱonȱreligion.ȱBecauseȱofȱthis,ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ
theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ representationȱ isȱ intensified,ȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ justȱ
aboutȱ fairȱ depictionsȱ butȱ aboutȱ givingȱ anȱ opinion,ȱ takingȱ reȬ
sponsibility,ȱ confrontingȱ historyȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ guilt,ȱ and,ȱ finally,ȱ
makingȱmodifications.14ȱThisȱisȱsomethingȱonlyȱparticipantsȱcanȱ
do.ȱHereȱcomparativeȱtheologiansȱgetȱdownȱtoȱworkȱwhenȱtheyȱ
insistȱonȱbeingȱtheologiansȱandȱconsistentlyȱbearingȱresponsibilȬ
ityȱinȱtheirȱownȱchurches.ȱ
DiscourseȱonȱtheȱRationaleȱofȱaȱTheologyȱofȱReligions,ȱ
notȱaȱBlindȱAlleyȱ
WhatȱenablesȱtheologyȱtoȱactȱnotȱonlyȱpartiallyȱandȱorientedȱtoȬ
wardȱparticipantsȱ–ȱinȱotherȱwordsȱpolemicallyȱandȱapologeticȬ
allyȱ–ȱbutȱalsoȱrespectfullyȱtowardȱothersȱandȱyetȱwithoutȱabanȬ
doningȱitsȱstandpointsȱasȱinȱreligiousȱstudies?ȱTheologyȱofȱreliȬ
gionsȱrespondsȱtoȱtheseȱquestions.ȱItȱaccountsȱforȱChristianity’sȱ
stanceȱ towardȱ otherȱ religionsȱ andȱ thusȱ forȱ itsȱ ownȱ selfȬunderȬ
standing.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ doesȱ notȱ assumeȱ aȱ depreciaȬ
toryȱ butȱ ratherȱ aȱ positiveȱ relationshipȱ toȱ otherȱ religions.ȱ Thisȱ
fundamentalȱ prerequisiteȱ needsȱ aȱ thoroughȱ theologicalȱ rationaleȱ
andȱ –ȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ theȱ overwhelmingȱ counterȬtraditionsȱ –ȱ aȱ
convincingȱ theologicalȱ justification.ȱ Theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ
mustȱcarryȱoutȱthisȱrationalȱdiscourse.ȱ
Theologyȱ hasȱ goneȱ throughȱ aȱ changeȱ inȱ thisȱ respectȱ andȱ
theȱchurchȱhasȱgoneȱthroughȱaȱconversion.ȱItȱhasȱmovedȱawayȱ
fromȱextraȱecclesiamȱnullaȱsalusȱ(seeȱBeinertȱ1990;ȱBernhardtȱ1990:ȱ
53ff.;ȱ D’Costaȱ 1986:ȱ 52ff.;ȱ Sullivanȱ 1992).ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ originallyȱ aȱ
paraeneticȱ callȱ toȱ imperiledȱ Christiansȱ butȱ thenȱ mutatedȱ toȱ aȱ
theologicalȱaxiomȱofȱaȱCatholicȱclaimȱtoȱabsoluteȱtruthȱandȱtheȱ
theoremȱ ofȱ damnationȱ inȱ hellȱ forȱ pagans,ȱ Jews,ȱ heretics,ȱ andȱ
ȱ Johnȱ Paulȱ IIȱ lucidlyȱ recognizedȱ thatȱ theȱ newȱ relationȱ toȱ otherȱ
religionsȱ confrontsȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ withȱ itsȱ ownȱ guilt,ȱ which,ȱ
althoughȱtheyȱareȱlecturedȱaboutȱitȱfromȱtheȱoutside,ȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱauȬ
thoritativelyȱ andȱ representativelyȱ confessedȱ onȱ theȱ inside.ȱ Seeȱ Johnȱ
PaulȱIIȱ2001.ȱ
14
schismatics,15ȱ forȱ whomȱ notȱ evenȱ hopeȱ wasȱ allowed,16ȱ i.e.ȱ putȬ
tingȱtheirȱdestinyȱintoȱtheȱhandsȱofȱGodȱthroughȱprayer.ȱ
Butȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ madeȱ aȱ discovery.17ȱ Theȱ Secondȱ
Vaticanȱ Councilȱ nowȱ callsȱ onȱ Christiansȱ toȱ “learnȱ byȱ sincereȱ
andȱ patientȱ dialogueȱ whatȱ treasuresȱ aȱ generousȱ Godȱ hasȱ disȬ
tributedȱ amongȱ theȱ nationsȱ ofȱ theȱ earth”ȱ (Adȱ Gentesȱ [AG]ȱ 11).ȱ
Theȱ Councilȱ hasȱ broughtȱ aboutȱ aȱ revolutionȱ inȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ
theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ towardȱ otherȱ religionsȱ andȱ especiallyȱ toȬ
wardȱJudaism18ȱwithȱitsȱdeclarationȱNostraȱAetateȱ(NA)ȱ(seeȱSieȬ
benrockȱ2005;ȱSinkovitsȱandȱWinklerȱ2006)ȱwhichȱhasȱwithstoodȱ
theȱ crossfireȱ toȱ thisȱ day.19ȱ Yetȱ theȱ Secondȱ Councilȱ didȱ notȱ enȬ
gageȱinȱdiplomaticȱconcessionsȱtoȱtheȱspiritȱofȱtheȱtimes,ȱwhichȱ
oneȱcouldȱeasilyȱdismissȱafterwards,ȱbutȱanchoredȱitsȱtheologyȱ
ofȱreligionȱtoȱtheȱcenterȱofȱitsȱownȱfaithȱandȱidentityȱbyȱmeansȱ
ofȱ aȱ Trinitarianȱ theology.20ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ declarationȱ
doesȱ notȱ beginȱ condescendinglyȱ withȱ aȱ coȬoptingȱ conceptȱ ofȱ
Godȱ (Sanderȱ 2006)ȱ butȱ withȱ theȱ universalȱ solidarityȱ ofȱ allȱ huȬ
mansȱ(NAȱ1.1),ȱwhichȱisȱbasedȱinȱtheȱ“oneȱ…ȱorigin”ȱandȱleadsȱ
toȱtheȱ“oneȱ…ȱfinalȱgoal”ȱ(NAȱ1.2).ȱReligionsȱserveȱtheȱdignityȱ
ofȱ human’sȱ questioningȱ spirit.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ aȱ placeȱ ofȱ truthȱ andȱ
holiness,ȱ whichȱ theyȱ haveȱ received:ȱ “Theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ reȬ
jectsȱ nothingȱ thatȱ isȱ trueȱ andȱ holyȱ inȱ theseȱ religionsȱ …ȱ [their]ȱ
waysȱofȱconductȱandȱofȱlifeȱ…ȱpreceptsȱandȱteachingsȱwhichȱ…ȱ
oftenȱreflectȱaȱrayȱofȱthatȱTruthȱwhichȱenlightensȱallȱmen”ȱ(NAȱ
2.2).ȱ Theȱ truthȱ andȱ holinessȱ isȱ aȱ giftȱ fromȱ theȱ logosȬlikeȱ rayȱ ofȱ
15ȱInȱtheȱDecreeȱforȱtheȱCoptsȱfromȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱFlorenceȱ(1439Ȭ
1445):ȱNDȱ(NeunerȱandȱDupuis)ȱ1351.ȱ
ȱ Popeȱ Piusȱ IXȱ inȱ 1864ȱ inȱ theȱ “Syllabusȱ ofȱ Modernȱ Errors”ȱ NDȱ
16
2917.ȱ
17ȱThusȱtheȱquotationȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱthisȱarticle;ȱseeȱWinklerȱ
2007c:ȱ“MoreȱthanȱTolerance.”ȱ
ȱForȱmoreȱonȱsystematicȱtheologyȱseeȱWinklerȱ2009c.ȱ
18
ȱCf.ȱtheȱcontroversyȱsurroundingȱtheȱJewishȱmissionȱinȱreactionȱ
toȱ theȱ reinstatementȱ ofȱ theȱ Piusȱ Xȱ brotherhood:ȱ Discussionȱ groupȱ
“JewsȱandȱChristians.”ȱ
truth.ȱ Theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ urgesȱ itsȱ believersȱ toȱ theȱ recogȬ
nition,ȱ preservationȱ andȱ promotionȱ (!)ȱ ofȱ theȱ “goodȱ things,ȱ
spiritualȱ andȱ moral,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ socioȬculturalȱ values”ȱ (NAȱ
2.3)ȱ thatȱ oneȱ canȱ accordinglyȱ findȱ inȱ otherȱ faiths.ȱ Theȱ giftsȱ ofȱ
God,ȱtheȱspiritualȱgoodsȱ(bonaȱspiritualia)ȱareȱalsoȱgivenȱtoȱotherȱ
religions,ȱ theȱ giftȱ thatȱ Heȱ Himselfȱ is.ȱ Godȱ revealsȱ Himselfȱ toȱ
themȱthroughȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit.ȱTheirȱlifeȱinȱtruthȱandȱholinessȱisȱaȱ
lifeȱfromȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱfollowingȱsentenceȱwithȱ
theȱproclamationȱofȱChristȱasȱtheȱway,ȱtruth,ȱandȱlifeȱ(NAȱ2.2)ȱisȱ
byȱnoȱmeansȱaȱcontradictionȱofȱthisȱMagnaȱCartaȱforȱtheologyȱofȱ
religionsȱ butȱ theȱ logicalȱ contextȱ ofȱ aȱ Trinitarianȱ theological21ȱ
argumentation!ȱ
Godȱ asȱ sourceȱ andȱ goal,ȱ theȱ Christȱ logosȱ asȱ theȱ fountainȬ
headȱofȱtruth,ȱandȱtheȱgiftȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱformȱtheȱTrinitarȬ
ianȱ criteriaȱ ofȱ aȱ Catholicȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religions.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ theȱ
measuresȱ ofȱ aȱ theologicalȱ appreciationȱ ofȱ otherȱ religionsȱ andȱ
constituteȱ strongȱ groundsȱ forȱ theȱ legitimacyȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ
theology.ȱ
Comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ alternativeȱ toȱ aȱ theologyȱ
ofȱ religionsȱ fallenȱ intoȱ difficultiesȱ becauseȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ reliȬ
gionsȱ isȱ anȱ explanatoryȱ discourseȱ forȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ
(Winklerȱ2009b).ȱComparativeȱtheologyȱandȱtheȱtheologyȱofȱreȬ
ligionsȱhaveȱdifferentȱtasksȱandȱareȱmutuallyȱrelated.ȱTheȱtheoȬ
logyȱofȱreligionsȱmustȱbeȱableȱtoȱargueȱtheȱpotentialȱequalityȱofȱ
religiousȱ traditionsȱ andȱ theȱ constitutivityȱ ofȱ religiousȱ differȬ
encesȱ forȱ theȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ respectiveȱ faith.ȱ ComparȬ
ativeȱtheologyȱventures,ȱwithȱthisȱencouragement,ȱintoȱtheȱconȬ
creteȱandȱdetailȬorientedȱfieldȱofȱreflectionȱandȱexperienceȱofȱreȬ
ligions:ȱ theȱ formationsȱ ofȱ discourseȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ sideȱ influenceȱ
thoseȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ andȱ viceȱ versa.ȱ Becauseȱ ofȱ this,ȱ bothȱ fieldsȱ
haveȱ theȱ obligationȱ toȱ interconnectȱ andȱ notȱ toȱ becomeȱ separȬ
ated.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
19
ȱForȱmoreȱdetailȱseeȱWinklerȱ2007a:ȱ179ff.;ȱWinklerȱ2009b:ȱ175ff.ȱ
20
21ȱSeeȱaȱsummaryȱofȱTrinitarianȱtheologicalȱessaysȱwithȱaȱcompreȬ
hensiveȱbibliographyȱinȱBernhardtȱ2005:ȱ219ff.ȱ
IntrareligiousȱDialogue:ȱAȱSpiritualȱStanceȱ
VaticanȱIIȱdidȱnotȱjustȱaffirmȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱinȱ
otherȱ religionsȱ andȱ fileȱ thisȱ withȱ theȱ tradition’sȱ dogmaticȱ maȬ
terials.ȱTheȱChurchȱalsoȱenteredȱintoȱaȱnew,ȱqualitativelyȱdifferȬ
entȱ realm.ȱ Nostraȱ Aetateȱ hasȱ theȱ Latinȱ titleȱ “deȱ habitudine,”ȱ
meaningȱ theȱ newȱ positionȱ thatȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Churchȱ wasȱ adopȬ
tingȱ towardȱ otherȱ religions.ȱ Aȱ spiritualȱ responseȱ toȱ otherȱ reliȬ
gionsȱ andȱ notȱ justȱ aȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ theologicalȱ argumentationȱ
correspondsȱ withȱ theȱ bonaȱ spiritualia,ȱ theȱ spiritualȱ lifeȱ inȱ theseȱ
religions.ȱ Aȱ spiritualȱ stanceȱ isȱ nowȱ neededȱ (Winklerȱ 2008b)!ȱ
Withȱaȱspiritualȱattitude,ȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱconductȱaȱdiscretioȱspirȬ
ituum,ȱ i.e.ȱ aȱ spiritualȱ discrimination,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ necesȬ
saryȱ toȱ entrenchȱ oneselfȱ behindȱ apologeticȱ prejudicationsȱ orȱ
takeȱrefugeȱinȱindifference.ȱ
Theȱ optionȱ ofȱ respectȱ forȱ othersȱ inȱ theologyȱ ofȱ religionsȱ
callsȱforȱaȱ“newȱspirituality”ȱ(SchmidtȬLeukelȱ2004).ȱItȱdoesȱnotȱ
simplyȱ emergeȱ fromȱ aȱ theoreticalȱ decision,ȱ deductive,ȱ asȱ itȱ
were,ȱbutȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱnurturedȱbyȱconcretelyȱencounteringȱothȬ
erȱreligiousȱfaithsȱinȱveryȱdiverseȱways,ȱbeginningȱwithȱresearchȱ
inȱ religiousȱ studies,ȱ interreligiousȱ dialogue,ȱ friendships,ȱ
throughȱritualsȱandȱart,ȱtoȱexperiencesȱinȱanotherȱreligion’sȱspirȬ
itualityȱandȱspiritualȱpraxis.ȱAsȱindispensableȱasȱtheseȱexternalȱ
encountersȱ are,ȱ theyȱ remainȱ onȱ theȱ outsideȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ
supportedȱbyȱanȱinternalȱstanceȱandȱanȱinnerȱdialogue.ȱOnlyȱinȱ
thisȱ wayȱ isȱ internalȱ participationȱ inȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ othersȱ
possibleȱ(Dupuisȱ2006,ȱ2004).ȱ
Raimonȱ Panikkarȱ coinedȱ theȱ phraseȱ intrareligiousȱ dialogueȱ
toȱ describeȱ thisȱ (Panikkarȱ 1978).ȱ Givenȱ theȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ esȬ
tablishingȱaȱdoctrinalȱsynthesisȱbetweenȱtwoȱreligionsȱ–ȱHinduȬ
ismȱ andȱ Christianityȱ inȱ Panikkar’sȱ caseȱ –ȱ orȱ thatȱ thereȱ areȱ inȬ
deedȱ actualȱ incommensurabilitesȱ separatingȱ twoȱ traditions,ȱ
Panikkarȱ buildsȱ onȱ thisȱ innerȱ dialogue.ȱ Hisȱ modelȱ ofȱ interȬ
pretation,ȱ gainedȱ fromȱ anȱ intuitiveȱ andȱ mysticȱ levelȱ ofȱ experiȬ
ence,ȱ isȱ theȱ triuneȱ cosmotheandricȱ principleȱ (Panikkarȱ 1973,ȱ
1993,ȱ 1999)ȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ Christophanyȱ (Panikkarȱ 2006:ȱ
191ff.)ȱofȱtheȱwholeȱuniverse.ȱDialogueȱresultsȱinȱanȱinnerȱtransȬ
formation,22ȱ butȱ itȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ presupposesȱ thisȱ willingness,ȱ atȱ
leastȱ implicitly,ȱ whichȱ isȱ indispensableȱ forȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ
logy.ȱ
InterreligiousȱDialogueȱfromȱCommunionȱtoȱAffiliation:ȱ
DoubleȱBelongingȱ
Comparativeȱ theologyȱ livesȱ fromȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theologiansȱ enȬ
gageȱ withȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ respectfullyȱ andȱ particiȬ
pantȬorientedȱ andȱ withȱ aȱ clearȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theirȱ standpoint,ȱ solidȱ
theologicalȱreasoningȱandȱaȱspiritualȱstanceȱinȱorderȱtoȱpracticeȱ
theologyȱ inȱ dialogueȱ withȱ it.ȱ Diverseȱ socialȱ formsȱ areȱ usedȱ forȱ
thisȱ exchange.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ isȱ theȱ intenseȱ personalȱ dedicationȱ
thatȱ someȱ individualsȱ haveȱ whenȱ theyȱ anchorȱ themselvesȱ inȱ aȱ
secondȱreligionȱsoȱfarȱthatȱoneȱcanȱspeakȱofȱaȱdoubleȱbelonging.ȱ
Suchȱ biographiesȱ ofȱ individualȱ interreligiouslyȱ giftedȱ peopleȱ
fromȱ whomȱ theologicalȱ reflectionsȱ haveȱ arisenȱ areȱ exceptions,ȱ
whichȱshouldȱnotȱdisguiseȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱsubjectȱhasȱbecomeȱ
widelyȱ relevant,ȱ becauseȱ intraȬȱ andȱ interreligiousȱ dialogueȱ areȱ
inseparableȱ fromȱ eachȱ otherȱ andȱ areȱ mutuallyȱ intertwined.ȱ Iȱ
haveȱ emphasizedȱ theȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ asȱ theȱ prerequisiteȱ forȱ
theȱsecond.ȱWhoeverȱentersȱintoȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱdiverseȱformsȱ
ofȱinterreligiousȱdialoguesȱorȱinterreligiousȱtheologicalȱdebatesȱ
willȱnotȱbeȱableȱtoȱavoidȱquestionsȱofȱtheirȱownȱpersonalȱtransȬ
formationȱandȱmodificationȱofȱtheirȱownȱpositionȱofȱfaith.ȱ
Theȱ wellȬknownȱ examples,ȱ Hugoȱ EnomiyaȬLasalle,ȱ Henriȱ
Leȱ Saux/Swamiȱ Abhishikt¬nanda,ȱ Bedeȱ Griffiths,ȱ Raimonȱ PanȬ
ikkar,ȱandȱFrithjofȱSchuon,ȱbearȱwitnessȱtoȱtheȱexistentialȱstrugȬ
gleȱforȱtheirȱcalling.ȱTheyȱareȱnotȱonlyȱandȱprimarilyȱfoundingȱ
fathersȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ theology;ȱ theyȱ are,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ extremeȱ
singularityȱofȱtheirȱbiographies,ȱratherȱmodelsȱforȱaȱveryȱfundaȬ
ȱ Theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ Panikkar’sȱ approachȱ are,ȱ inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ whereȱ
understandingȱandȱacceptanceȱareȱtooȱcloseȱtoȱeachȱotherȱandȱtooȱlittleȱ
spaceȱ remainsȱ forȱ incommensurabilitiesȱ andȱ theȱ discretioȱ mentionedȱ
above.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ easilyȱ underestimateȱ theȱ cumbersomeȱ differencesȱ ofȱ
beliefsȱunderȱtheȱimpressionȱofȱaȱcommonȱfaith.ȱ
22
mentalȱquestionȱofȱreligiousȱbelonging23ȱthatȱaȱlargeȱnumberȱofȱ
peopleȱ andȱ scholarsȱ doingȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ areȱ currentlyȱ
askingȱ themselves.ȱ Theȱ keyȱ conceptȱ ofȱ hybridityȱ inȱ culturalȱ
studiesȱhasȱreachedȱreligiousȱbelongingȱandȱhasȱbeenȱobservedȱ
inȱtheȱsociologyȱofȱreligionȱandȱreligiousȱstudiesȱforȱyears.ȱTheȱ
churchesȱ haveȱ difficultiesȱ withȱ theȱ phenomenon,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ
theȱcaseȱofȱaȱtheologianȱorȱotherȱrepresentativeȱfromȱtheirȱownȱ
ranks.ȱForȱthisȱreason,ȱtheȱemergingȱdiscourseȱcanȱcontributeȱtoȱ
objectification.ȱ
Catherineȱ Cornilleȱ ofȱ Bostonȱ Collegeȱ hasȱ publishedȱ aȱ
highlyȱregardedȱvolume24ȱinȱwhichȱsheȱusesȱherȱcriticalȱanalysisȱ
toȱsort,ȱorganize,ȱandȱclassifyȱtheȱphenomenaȱandȱthusȱincreaseȱ
awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ highlyȱ diverseȱ realitiesȱ subsumedȱ underȱ theȱ
termsȱdoubleȱandȱmultipleȱreligiousȱbelongingȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱ
andȱ toȱ honeȱ theȱ termȱ systematicallyȱ onȱ theȱ other.ȱ 1)ȱ Strictlyȱ
speaking,ȱsheȱfindsȱtheȱtermȱselfȬcontradictory,ȱsinceȱitȱassumesȱ
thatȱ religionsȱ seeȱ themselvesȱ asȱ comprehensiveȱ horizonsȱ ofȱ
meaningȱ andȱ thereforeȱ insistȱ onȱ undividedȱ belongingȱ fromȱ
theirȱfollowers.ȱItȱfollowsȱthatȱthereȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱvaryingȱdegreesȱ
ofȱ drawingȱ near,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ narrowerȱ senseȱ thereȱ canȱ beȱ noȱ
multipleȱbelonging.ȱ2)ȱAȱsubjectiveȱstatementȱandȱpersonalȱexȬ
perienceȱofȱbelongingȱtoȱanȱadditionalȱreligionȱareȱnotȱsufficientȱ
forȱ belonging;ȱ rather,ȱ belongingȱ dependsȱ uponȱ mutualityȱ andȱ
thusȱ objectiveȱ recognition.ȱ Selectiveȱ sympathyȱ doesȱ notȱ estabȬ
lishȱbelongingȱbyȱaȱlongȱshot.ȱ3)ȱAnotherȱreductionȱisȱadoptingȱ
theȱotherȱreligionȱprimarilyȱinȱitsȱfunctionalȱorȱritualisticȱaspectsȱ
andȱ puttingȱ theȱ doctrinalȱ dimensionȱ last.ȱ 4)ȱ Multipleȱ religiousȱ
belongingȱ harmsȱ spiritualȱ ripeningȱ becauseȱ itȱ preventsȱ comȬ
pleteȱsurrenderȱtoȱoneȱreligionȱandȱinsteadȱraisesȱtheȱegoȱasȱtheȱ
criterion,ȱwhichȱcountersȱspiritualȱgrowth.ȱ
ȱ Insteadȱ ofȱ theȱ currentlyȱ abundantȱ literatureȱ Iȱ pointȱ toȱ theȱ
conferenceȱ transcript:ȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ 2008;ȱ seeȱ
Winklerȱ2009b:ȱ182ff.ȱ
23
ȱ Seeȱ Cornilleȱ 2002,ȱ 2008a,ȱ 2008b.ȱ Cf.ȱ Gortȱ etȱ al.ȱ 1992;ȱ Giraȱ andȱ
Scheuerȱ2000;ȱPhanȱ2003,ȱ2004;ȱSchoenȱ1996,ȱ2000.ȱ
24
Besidesȱ Cornille’sȱ illuminativeȱ analyses,25ȱ theȱ lastȱ thesisȱ
harborsȱconsiderableȱproblems.ȱOneȱcanȱadmittedlyȱagreeȱwithȱ
Cornilleȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ dangerȱ ofȱ endlesslyȱ searchingȱ andȱ
avoidingȱtheȱintractableȱandȱchallengingȱaspectsȱofȱeveryȱfaith.ȱ
Gettingȱtoȱknowȱanotherȱreligionȱdoesȱnotȱpermitȱusingȱitȱasȱaȱ
quarryȱtoȱbeȱmined.26ȱHowever,ȱherȱidealȱviewȱmissesȱtwoȱotherȱ
phenomena.ȱ Firstȱ ofȱ all,ȱ herȱ thesisȱ suffersȱ fromȱ tooȱ highȱ anȱ
identificationȱ ofȱ religionȱ andȱ transcendentȱ reality,ȱ whichȱ callsȱ
forȱ undividedȱ surrender,ȱ and,ȱ second,ȱ sheȱ disregardsȱ convinȬ
cingȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ practicedȱ belongingȱ (Leȱ Sauxȱ
2005;ȱ HackbarthȬJohnsonȱ 2003).ȱ Theȱ reflectionsȱ ofȱ aȱ comparaȬ
tiveȱ theologicalȱ methodologyȱ inȱ particularȱ haveȱ developedȱ aȱ
sensibilityȱ forȱ howȱ theseȱ pathsȱ inȱ twoȱ orȱ moreȱ religiousȱ tradiȬ
tionsȱcanȱbeȱundertakenȱresponsibly.ȱ
OrderȱofȱDiscourse,ȱMoreȱthanȱComparativeȱ
Theȱ termȱ comparativeȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ isȱ aȱ
theologyȱthatȱcomparesȱreligions,ȱsimilarȱtoȱcomparativeȱreligiousȱ
studies.ȱSinceȱcomparingȱbelongsȱtoȱourȱeverydayȱactivitiesȱandȱ
theȱbasicȱoperationsȱofȱallȱsciences,ȱitȱisȱassumedȱtoȱbeȱaȱsimpleȱ
process.ȱHowever,ȱthatȱwhichȱsoundsȱtrivialȱandȱisȱusedȱdailyȱisȱ
ofȱ considerableȱ methodologicalȱ complexity.ȱ Iȱ willȱ stateȱ theȱ
seeminglyȱsimpleȱprerequisitesȱforȱaȱcomparison.ȱConsiderableȱ
questionsȱareȱraisedȱinȱapplyingȱthisȱtoȱtheologicalȱproceedingsȱ
(Schenkȱ 1990;ȱ Schenkȱ andȱ Krauseȱ 2001).ȱ 1)ȱ Theȱ entitiesȱ toȱ beȱ
comparedȱ(comparata)ȱmustȱbeȱdefined,ȱsinceȱaȱcomparisonȱcanȱ
existȱonlyȱifȱtheȱcomparataȱshowȱbothȱcommonȱaspectsȱasȱwellȱasȱ
differences;ȱ thusȱ thoseȱ aspectsȱ thatȱ areȱ incomparableȱ andȱ opȬ
positesȱareȱexcluded.ȱThatȱis,ȱaȱcomparisonȱisȱimpossibleȱifȱtheȱ
comparataȱonlyȱhaveȱeitherȱopposingȱorȱcommonȱcharacteristics.ȱ
2)ȱAȱcomparativeȱrelationshipȱ(tertiumȱcomparationis)ȱmustȱbeȱinȬ
25ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ mostȱ recentȱ studyȱ byȱ Cornilleȱ (2008b)ȱ withȱ theȱ
provokingȱtitle,ȱTheȱImȬpossibilityȱofȱInterreligiousȱDialogue,ȱwhichȱisȱdiȬ
rectedȱagainstȱassumptionsȱtakenȱwithȱallȱtooȱmuchȱlevity.ȱ
26ȱBettinaȱBäumer,ȱwhoȱhasȱlivedȱforȱoverȱfourȱdecadesȱinȱIndiaȱinȱ
faithfulȱcontinuityȱandȱhasȱfoundȱbelongingȱinȱHinduism,ȱemphasizesȱ
this.ȱSeeȱBäumerȱ2007.ȱ
dicated.ȱ 3)ȱ Thenȱ theȱ comparisonȱ canȱ beȱ carriedȱ out.ȱ CompariȬ
sonsȱresultȱfromȱtheȱinterplayȱofȱanȱanalyticȱ(descriptionȱofȱcomȬ
parata,ȱ empirical)ȱ andȱ syntheticȱ procedureȱ (findingȱ commonȱ
qualitiesȱandȱdifferences,ȱideational).ȱ4)ȱTheȱlogicȱofȱcomparisonȱ
isȱ influencedȱ byȱ science,ȱ inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ andȱ assumesȱ thatȱ theȱ
cognizingȱ andȱ comparingȱ subjectȱ isȱ oppositeȱ theȱ objectȱ toȱ beȱ
comparedȱwithȱit.ȱ5)ȱAȱcomparisonȱisȱresultȬoriented:ȱsomethingȱ
newȱ emerges.ȱ 6)ȱ Epistemologically,ȱ bothȱ comparataȱ needȱ notȱ beȱ
equatedȱ onȱ theȱ sameȱ scale,ȱ butȱ instead,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Leibniz,ȱ
comparisonsȱhaveȱtheȱpurposeȱ“thatȱfromȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱ
oneȱtheȱotherȱcanȱbeȱknown”ȱ(SchenkȱandȱKrauseȱ2001:ȱ667).ȱ7)ȱ
Comparingȱdoesȱnotȱfollowȱanyȱsyllogisticȱmechanismȱbutȱfallsȱ
intoȱtheȱrealmȱofȱestheticsȱ(aísthesis)ȱandȱthereforeȱcallsȱforȱ“witȱ
andȱ acumen”ȱ (Schenkȱ andȱ Krauseȱ 2001:ȱ 679)ȱ inȱ findingȱ similarȬ
ities.ȱ
Likeȱaȱwholeȱrangeȱofȱacademicȱfieldsȱ(comparativeȱliteraȬ
ture,ȱ comparativeȱ philosophy,ȱ etc.)ȱ theȱ scientificȱ studyȱ ofȱ reliȬ
gionȱandȱespeciallyȱtheȱphenomenologyȱofȱreligionȱareȱdevotedȱ
toȱcomparing.ȱWithȱtheȱcrisisȱofȱtheirȱmethodologyȱandȱtheirȱenȬ
tireȱ researchȱ design,ȱ practicallyȱ allȱ classicȱ topoiȱ inȱ religiousȱ
studiesȱ haveȱ beenȱ discussedȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ culturalȱ turn.ȱ Theȱ
borderȱ betweenȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ andȱ theologyȱ hasȱ remainedȱ
unchanged.ȱ Despiteȱ complexȱ interferences,ȱ theȱ comparataȱ areȱ
clearlyȱ separatedȱ andȱ differentiatedȱ fromȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ underȬ
standingȱinȱtheȱscientificȱstudyȱofȱreligions.ȱ
Thisȱ isȱ differentȱ inȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Itȱ isȱ distingȬ
uishedȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱtheȱcomparisonȱofȱtheologies,ȱbutȱitsȱsubjectȱ
isȱalsoȱbyȱdefinitionȱinvolvedȱinȱatȱleastȱoneȱofȱtheȱcomparataȱandȱ
involvedȱ inȱ othersȱ inȱ varyingȱ degrees.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ tertiumȱ
comparationisȱisȱnotȱdeterminedȱbyȱbutȱtakesȱonȱformȱduringȱtheȱ
process.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reasonȱ theȱ logicȱ ofȱ comparisonȱ isȱ subjectȱ toȱ
suchȱformidableȱmodificationsȱthatȱelucidationȱofȱaȱpossibleȱorȬ
derȱofȱdiscourseȱinȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱisȱnecessary.ȱ
Theȱ pioneersȱ ofȱ theȱ newerȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ menȬ
tionedȱ aboveȱ followedȱ theȱ methodologicalȱ considerationsȱ ofȱ
religiousȱstudiesȱofȱtheirȱtimeȱforȱtheȱmostȱpartȱandȱaccordinglyȱ
workedȱ onȱ itsȱ developmentȱ personally.ȱ Keithȱ Ward,ȱ W.C.ȱ
Smith,ȱ Ninianȱ Smart,ȱ andȱ othersȱ wantedȱ toȱ relativizeȱ theȱ preȬ
dominanceȱ andȱ autarchyȱ ofȱ Christianȱ occidentalȱ theologizingȱ
thatȱ wasȱ takenȱ forȱ grantedȱ byȱ lookingȱ withȱ fascinationȱ atȱ theȱ
largeȱ incidenceȱ ofȱ relatedȱ ideasȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ religion.ȱ Theȱ
discussionȱ onȱ methodologyȱ firstȱ becameȱ intensifiedȱ inȱ theȱ
youngerȱ generation,ȱ firstȱ andȱ foremostȱ throughȱ Robertȱ CumȬ
mingsȱ Nevilleȱ (Nevilleȱ 2000a,ȱ 2000b;ȱ Clooneyȱ 2007b,ȱ Winklerȱ
2008c:ȱ132ff.).ȱHisȱmainȱfocusȱinȱhisȱthreefoldȱconceptȱofȱlogicȱofȱ
comparisonȱ isȱ toȱ findȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ comparisonȱ throughȱ processȱ
(Nevilleȱ 2007,ȱ 2009).ȱ Theȱ firstȱ identificationȱ ofȱ aȱ comparativeȱ cateȬ
goryȱ mustȱ beȱ vagueȱ andȱ comprehensiveȱ andȱ mustȱ beȱ openȱ toȱ
modification.ȱTheȱcontentsȱofȱtheȱcomparativeȱcategoryȱfirstȱbeȬ
comeȱ increasinglyȱ definedȱ inȱ theȱ followingȱ specification,ȱ whichȱ
inȱ turnȱ leadsȱ toȱ furtherȱ adjustmentsȱ ofȱ theȱ comparativeȱ cateȬ
gory.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ heȱ developedȱ aȱ detailedȱ analyticalȱ methodȱ inȱ
orderȱ toȱ achieveȱ asȱ fairȱ aȱ portrayalȱ asȱ possibleȱ ofȱ otherȱ theoȬ
logicalȱ concepts.ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ comparativeȱ correlationsȱ areȱ deȬ
scribedȱbyȱcomparativeȱjudgmentsȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱhypotheses.ȱ
Nevilleȱarrivedȱatȱtheseȱthreeȱstepsȱthroughȱhisȱcompetenceȱ
asȱ aȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ scholar.ȱ Theȱ keyȱ theologicalȱ pointȱ beȬ
comesȱ visibleȱ whereȱ heȱ bringsȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ importanceȱ intoȱ
theȱ equationȱ asȱ aȱ selectionȱ criterionȱ forȱ bothȱ theȱ comparativeȱ
contentȱasȱwellȱasȱforȱtheȱcomparativeȱquestionsȱasked.ȱForȱNeȬ
ville,ȱimportanceȱzerosȱinȱonȱbothȱtheȱrepresentativenessȱofȱaȱseȬ
lectionȱ orȱ questionȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ religiousȱ traditionȱ beingȱ
studiedȱ–ȱi.e.ȱtheȱfairnessȱofȱtheȱportrayalȱandȱresearchȱ–ȱasȱwellȱ
asȱonȱtheȱrelevanceȱthatȱanchorsȱidentityȱinȱanȱouterȱreference,ȱ
i.e.ȱ theȱ topologicalȱ characterȱ ofȱ aȱ theologyȱ andȱ itsȱ capacityȱ toȱ
solveȱproblems.ȱTheȱroleȱofȱtheȱparticipantȱperspectiveȱwasȱnotȱ
sufficientlyȱ reflectedȱ upon,ȱ inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ inȱ eitherȱ theȱ idenȬ
tificationȱ orȱ theȱ specificationȱ ofȱ aȱ comparativeȱ category,ȱ whichȱ
isȱnoticeableȱinȱtheȱfurtherȱquestionȱofȱtheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱ
theȱ startingȱ constellationȱ andȱ theȱ goal,ȱ thusȱ betweenȱ theȱ
categoryȱ ofȱ importanceȱ andȱ theȱ comparativeȱ judgment’sȱ claimȱ
toȱ truth.ȱ Inȱ whatȱ senseȱ doȱ comparativeȱ judgmentsȱ haveȱ aȱ norȬ
mativeȱ character?ȱ Onlyȱ whenȱ thisȱ isȱ clarifiedȱ canȱ itȱ beȱ askedȱ
whatȱgoalsȱandȱconsequencesȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱhasȱforȱtheȱ
startingȱsituationȱofȱdenominationalȱtheology,ȱsoȱtoȱsayȱhowȱdeȬ
nominationalȱ theologyȱ willȱ beȱ changedȱ byȱ comparativeȱ theoȬ
logy.ȱ
Neville’sȱ workȱ doesȱ haveȱ meritȱ forȱ theȱ followingȱ reasons.ȱ
1)ȱHeȱarmsȱcomparativeȱtheologyȱwithȱhisȱmethodologyȱagainstȱ
theȱ chargeȱ fromȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ thatȱ itȱ lacksȱ objectivity.ȱ Itȱ canȱ
withstandȱ suchȱ charges,ȱ notȱ leastȱ ofȱ allȱ becauseȱ theȱ sameȱ subȬ
stantialȱ questionsȱ wereȱ putȱ toȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ inȱ theȱ postcoȬ
lonialȱ discussionsȱ afterȱ E.W.ȱ Said’sȱ bookȱ onȱ orientalismȱ (Saidȱ
1978).ȱ 2)ȱ Furthermore,ȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ clearȱ atȱ leastȱ sinceȱ Nevilleȱ
thatȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ cannotȱ continueȱ withȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ
theȱ phenomenologyȱ ofȱ religion27ȱ andȱ substantiatingȱ andȱ reȬ
finingȱ theȱ tablesȱ ofȱ parallelȱ positingȱ withȱ studiesȱ onȱ contents.ȱ
TheȱorderȱofȱtractsȱofȱChristianȱtheologyȱisȱalsoȱonlyȱofȱlimitedȱ
useȱ asȱ anȱ instrumentȱ forȱ classification.28ȱ 3)ȱ Comparativeȱ theoȬ
logy,ȱhowever,ȱfindsȱuniqueȱandȱinnovativeȱordersȱofȱdiscourseȱ
withȱ “witȱ andȱ acumen.”ȱ Clooney’sȱ lifeworkȱ providesȱ anȱ eloȬ
quentȱtestimonialȱtoȱthis.ȱEachȱofȱhisȱbooksȱcontainsȱreflectionsȱ
onȱ andȱ continuationsȱ ofȱ thisȱ exploration.ȱ Doingȱ comparativeȱ
theologyȱisȱaȱprocessȱofȱcreativityȱandȱspontaneity,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱ
reflectedȱfurtherȱinȱtheȱspiritȱofȱNevilleȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱCharlesȱ
Sandersȱ Peirce’sȱ abductionȱ (Nevilleȱ 2008).29ȱ Comparativeȱ theoȬ
logy’sȱdiscoveriesȱcannotȱbeȱinferredȱorȱgainedȱbyȱaȱprocessȱofȱ
reȬinference,ȱ thusȱ neitherȱ deducedȱ norȱ induced,ȱ butȱ theyȱ canȱ
veryȱ wellȱ beȱ abductivelyȱ comprehendedȱ andȱ reviewed.ȱ Anȱ
“epistemicȱinstinct”ȱ(Schärtlȱ2006:ȱ146)ȱforȱestablishingȱsuchȱcreȬ
ativeȱrelationshipȱdevelopsȱthroughȱdivingȱdeeplyȱintoȱanotherȱ
religiousȱ tradition.ȱ 4)ȱ Neville’sȱ methodologyȱ showsȱ somethingȱ
ofȱtheȱinterminabilityȱofȱtheȱprocess.ȱItȱpreservesȱaȱcrucialȱherȬ
meneuticȱ andȱ thusȱ theologicalȱ knowingȱ ofȱ theȱ basicȱ skepticismȱ
regardingȱ theȱ translatability30ȱ ofȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ andȱ beliefsȱ
thatȱoftenȱselfȬcriticallyȱaccompaniesȱClooney’sȱwork.ȱ
ȱ
27ȱ Exemplarilyȱ andȱ comprehensivelyȱ workedȱ outȱ inȱ Vanȱ derȱ
Leeuwȱ1977.ȱ
ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ Germanȱ languageȱ dogmaticȱ soȱ farȱ thatȱ consistentlyȱ
respondsȱ toȱ otherȱ religionsȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ contentȱ andȱ shouldȱ thereforeȱ
notȱbeȱunderestimatedȱfollowsȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱgenreȱinȱitsȱsystematicȱ
structure:ȱBarthȱ2001.ȱSeeȱmyȱreview:ȱWinklerȱ2003.ȱ
28
ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱrecentȱstudyȱbyȱDeuserȱ(2009:ȱ236ff.,ȱ471ff.).ȱ
29
ȱSeeȱtheȱfundamentalȱstudyȱbyȱHintersteinerȱ(2001).ȱForȱfurtherȱ
informationȱseeȱnoteȱ6ȱabove.ȱ
30
PurposeȱandȱGoalȱTimeȱSignatureȱ
Whyȱcomparativeȱtheology?ȱThisȱquestionȱisȱusuallyȱansweredȱ
implicitly,ȱandȱoneȱcanȱdistinguishȱtheȱfollowingȱanswers:ȱ
1) One’sȱ ownȱ intellectualȱ historyȱ andȱ theologyȱ shouldȱ beȱ
ledȱ beyondȱ theȱ confinementȱ toȱ Westernȱ andȱ Christianȱ
traditions.ȱ
2) Otherȱ religionsȱ shouldȱ beȱ freedȱ fromȱ theȱ inferiorityȱ ofȱ
Christianȱ paternalismȱ byȱ showingȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ proȬ
ducedȱequallyȱhighȱstandingȱcontributionsȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱ
historyȱofȱideas.ȱ
3) Otherȱ religiousȱ traditionsȱ shouldȱ beȱ honored/acknowlȬ
edgedȱ notȱ justȱ byȱ religiousȱ studiesȱ andȱ empiricalȱ deȬ
scriptionsȱ butȱ ratherȱ byȱ studyingȱ andȱ discussingȱ theirȱ
theology.ȱ
4) Oneȱcanȱgetȱtoȱknowȱone’sȱownȱbeliefȱbetterȱandȱenrichȱ
itȱthroughȱtheȱdialogueȱwithȱotherȱreligiousȱbeliefȱtradiȬ
tions.ȱ
5) Theȱ doctrinesȱ formedȱ inȱ theȱ traditionsȱ areȱ answersȱ toȱ
enduringȱhumanȱquestions,ȱsoȱthatȱoneȱcanȱnoȱlongerȱafȬ
fordȱtheȱluxuryȱofȱlimitationȱtoȱjustȱoneȱtradition.ȱ
6) TheȱdialogueȱbetweenȱreligionsȱandȱaȱcommonȱtheologȬ
icalȱdiscourseȱare,ȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱreligions’ȱsusceptibilityȱ
toȱviolenceȱ(seeȱHoffȱandȱWinklerȱ2010),ȱtheȱorderȱofȱtheȱ
dayȱ forȱ strengtheningȱ theȱ religions’ȱ resourcesȱ forȱ peaceȱ
forȱtheȱsociopoliticalȱhandlingȱofȱviolenceȱscenarios.ȱ
7) Theȱ globalȱ situationȱ ofȱ worldȱ communicationȱ alsoȱ callsȱ
forȱaȱglobalȱtheologicalȱdiscourse.ȱ
8) TheȱcomebackȱofȱreligionsȱdiagnosedȱinȱtheȱWesternȱinȬ
dustrialȱnationsȱshouldȱbeȱmetȱwithȱaȱseriousȱtheologicalȱ
discourseȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱconcreteȱreligions.ȱ
9) TheȱinterfaithȱexchangeȱofȱspiritualitiesȱshouldȱbeȱcriticȬ
allyȱaccompaniedȱbyȱaȱtheologicalȱgroundingȱandȱreconȬ
textualizationȱ inȱ theȱ respectiveȱ traditionȱ andȱ aȱ theologȬ
icalȱdiscourseȱonȱtheȱtraditions.ȱ
10) Asȱ aȱ respiritualizationȱ andȱ socialȱ acceptabilityȱ ofȱ perȬ
sonalȱprofessionsȱofȱfaithȱprogress,ȱitȱisȱnoȱlongerȱtabooȱ
forȱreligiousȱscholarsȱtoȱcomeȱoutȱasȱbelieversȱandȱtoȱalȬ
soȱengageȱinȱtheologicalȱdeliberation.ȱ
Someȱ ofȱ theȱ answersȱ occurȱ alone,ȱ someȱ inȱ combination.ȱ
Theyȱcanȱbeȱsimplifiedȱagainȱbyȱdivisionȱintoȱobjectivesȱthatȱareȱ
predominantlyȱdirectedȱtowardȱbroadeningȱone’sȱownȱhorizonsȱ
andȱthoseȱthatȱwantȱtoȱraiseȱtheȱissueȱofȱtheȱforeign.ȱTheȱquesȬ
tionȱ mustȱ beȱ askedȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ groupȱ ifȱ theȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traȬ
ditionsȱareȱnotȱthusȱinstrumentalized,ȱifȱthisȱapproachȱisȱreallyȱ
ableȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ theȱ otherȱ andȱ toȱ graspȱ itȱ inȱ itsȱ intrinsicȱ
valueȱ andȱ itsȱ ownȱ world,ȱ ifȱ theȱ epistemicȱ interestȱ ofȱ useȱ isȱ inȬ
strumentalizedȱ forȱ oneself.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ groupȱ mustȱ beȱ askedȱ
whyȱoneȱshouldȱbeȱconcernedȱwithȱanotherȱreligion,ȱandȱifȱthatȱ
isȱmainlyȱansweredȱpositively,ȱwhyȱthisȱparticularȱreligion,ȱandȱ
notȱanother,ȱisȱnowȱindicated.ȱIsȱthereȱsuchȱaȱthingȱasȱaȱpurelyȱ
museumȱ occupationȱ withȱ aȱ religionȱ orȱ anȱ interestȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ
untoȱ itself?ȱ Isȱ itȱ notȱ aȱ misjudgmentȱ ofȱ religionsȱ fromȱ theȱ veryȱ
outsetȱ toȱ viewȱ themȱ asȱ piecesȱ inȱ aȱ museum,ȱ withoutȱ claimsȱ orȱ
theȱintentȱtoȱinterpret?ȱ
Ifȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ doesȱ notȱ wantȱ toȱ beȱ exposedȱ byȱ
suchȱquestionsȱitȱmustȱproceedȱnotȱjustȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱhavingȱ
moreȱ materialȱ butȱ alsoȱ beȱ moreȱ detailȱ orientedȱ whileȱ clearlyȱ
statingȱitsȱgoals.ȱJustȱasȱtheȱtimeȱofȱdogmaticȱhandbooksȱisȱcomȬ
ingȱtoȱanȱend,ȱtheȱgreatȱreligiousȱhistoriesȱofȱideasȱalsoȱbelongsȱ
toȱ theȱ past.ȱ Comparativeȱ theologyȱ mustȱ orientȱ itselfȱ toȱ realȱ
problemsȱandȱspecifyȱitsȱinterestsȱandȱexpectationsȱofȱsolutionsȱ
asȱaȱstartingȱ pointȱ forȱ discourseȱandȱ notȱ asȱ fixedȱ axioms.ȱ 1)ȱInȱ
thisȱwayȱ one’sȱ ownȱ interestȱinȱlearningȱcanȱ beȱ modifiedȱ intoȱaȱ
trueȱinterestȱinȱtheȱother,ȱorȱthoseȱwhoȱstudyȱotherȱreligionsȱcanȱ
returnȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheirȱownȱstandpoint.ȱ2)ȱThoseȱtheoloȬ
giansȱwhoȱtakeȱtheȱsignsȱofȱtheȱtimesȱseriouslyȱwillȱalsoȱbeȱableȱ
toȱ offerȱ theoriesȱ ofȱ socialȱ relevance,ȱ assumingȱ responsibilityȱ inȱ
theȱfaceȱofȱtheirȱownȱandȱotherȱreligiousȱtraditions.ȱ3)ȱAȱprobȬ
lemȬbasedȱapproachȱhelpsȱtoȱpreventȱmystificationȱofȱone’sȱownȱ
orȱ preciselyȱ anotherȱ tradition.ȱ Theȱ challengesȱ experiencedȱ andȱ
masteredȱbyȱtheȱCatholicȱChurchȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheseȱsignsȱ
ofȱtheȱtime,ȱespeciallyȱinȱVaticanȱII,ȱalsoȱtakeȱplaceȱanalogouslyȱ
inȱtheȱdialogueȱbetweenȱreligions.ȱTheyȱlikewiseȱcauseȱspeechȬ
lessnessȱandȱthusȱanȱincentiveȱforȱfindingȱaȱnewȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱ
faceȱofȱ“joyȱandȱhope,ȱtheȱgriefȱandȱanguishȱofȱtheȱmenȱofȱourȱ
time”ȱ(GaudiumȱetȱSpesȱ1).ȱBothȱtheȱsignsȱofȱtheȱtimeȱasȱwellȱasȱ
theȱ earnestȱ andȱ intensiveȱ encounterȱ ofȱ religionsȱ giveȱ themȱ theȱ
abilityȱtoȱspeakȱupȱinȱtheȱpresentȱworld.ȱ4)ȱAȱfutureȱdogmaticsȱ
willȱ beȱ moldedȱ byȱ comparativeȱ theology.ȱ Newȱ ordersȱ ofȱ disȬ
courseȱ willȱ emergeȱ alongsideȱ theȱ usualȱ tractates.ȱ Voicesȱ fromȱ
otherȱreligiousȱtraditionsȱwillȱbeȱworkedȱintoȱtheȱdiscussionȱonȱ
theȱhistoryȱofȱdoctrineȱandȱdifferentiatedȱanswersȱwillȱbeȱfound.ȱ
5)ȱTheȱtextȬorientedȱresearchȱdesignȱofȱaȱChristianȱcomparativeȱ
theologyȱ mustȱ beȱ expandedȱ toȱ includeȱ oralȱ traditionsȱ andȱ
ethical,ȱritualistic,ȱesthetic,ȱandȱotherȱpractices.ȱThroughȱthisȱenȬ
largementȱ ofȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ discourse,ȱ comparativeȱ theologyȱ beȬ
comes,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ moreȱ justȱ towardȱ otherȱ religiousȱ traȬ
ditions,ȱ inȱ whichȱ reflectionsȱ findȱ differentȱ focalȱ points.ȱ Onȱ theȱ
otherȱ hand,ȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ encounterȱ andȱ learningȱ becomesȱ conȬ
siderablyȱbroader.ȱ(6)ȱReligiousȱpluralism,ȱasȱitȱcanȱbeȱexȬperiȬ
encedȱtoday,ȱandȱtheȱpluriformȱorientationȱofȱcontemporariesȱisȱ
alsoȱ aȱ currentȱ signatureȱ problemȱ thatȱ theologyȱ canȱ faceȱ upȱ toȱ
andȱthusȱshowȱitsȱrationalism.ȱEcclesialȱdogmaticsȱmustȱportrayȱ
itsȱ faithȱ underȱ pluralistȱ conditionsȱ andȱ enterȱ intoȱ partnershipsȱ
ofȱidentityȱwithȱotherȱreligions,ȱbecauseȱitȱisȱcapableȱofȱcriticalȱ
andȱ respectfulȱ discourseȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ reflectionȱ andȱ experiȬ
ence,ȱ whichȱ callsȱ forȱ theȱ diverseȱ spectrumȱ ofȱ religiousȱ andȱ
culturalȱ humanȱ experiences.ȱ Hereinȱ liesȱ theȱ truthȱ ofȱ theȱ lifeȱ
workȱofȱMichaelȱvonȱBrückȱupȱtoȱnow.ȱ
Literatureȱ
Altaner,ȱB.,ȱandȱA.ȱStuiber.ȱ(1980).ȱPatrologie:ȱLeben,ȱSchriftenȱundȱLehreȱ
derȱKirchenväter.ȱ8thȱed.ȱFreiburg/Basel/Vienna:ȱHerder.ȱ
Balthasar,ȱ H.ȱ U.ȱ von.ȱ (1960).ȱ “Merkmaleȱ desȱ Christlichen.”ȱ In:ȱ H.U.ȱ
vonȱ Balthasar.ȱ Verbumȱ Caro:ȱ Schriftenȱ zurȱ Theologieȱ 1.ȱ Einsiedeln:ȱ
JohannesȱVerlagȱ1960.ȱPp.ȱ172Ȭ94.ȱ
Barth,ȱ H.ȬM.ȱ (2001).ȱ Dogmatik:ȱ Evangelischerȱ Glaubeȱ imȱ Kontextȱ derȱ
Weltreligionen.ȱEinȱLehrbuch.ȱGütersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ
Bäumer,ȱB.ȱ(2007).ȱ“InterreligiositätȱundȱSpiritualität:ȱEineȱPerspektiveȱ
‘vonȱinnen’.”ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱFiglȱ(ed.).ȱReligionswissenschaftȱ–ȱInterdisziplinȬ
aritätȱundȱInterreligiosität.ȱSchriftenreiheȱderȱÖsterreichischenȱGeȬ
sellschaftȱfürȱReligionswissenschaftȱ1.ȱVienna:ȱLITȱVerlag.ȱPp.ȱ87Ȭ
95.ȱ
Beinert,ȱW.ȱ(1990).ȱ“DieȱalleinseligmachendeȱKirche.ȱOder:ȱWerȱkannȱ
gerettetȱ werden?”ȱ Schweizerischeȱ Theologischeȱ Zeitschriftȱ 115:ȱ 75Ȭ
78,ȱ264Ȭ78.ȱ
Bernhardt,ȱ R.ȱ (2005).ȱ Endeȱ desȱ Dialogs?ȱ Dieȱ Begegnungȱ derȱ Religionenȱ
undȱihreȱtheologischeȱReflexion.ȱBeiträgeȱzuȱeinerȱTheologieȱderȱReȬ
ligionenȱ2.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱ
(1990).ȱ Derȱ Absolutheitsanspruchȱ desȱ Christentums:ȱ Vonȱ derȱ AufkläȬ
rungȱ bisȱ zurȱ Pluralistischenȱ Religionstheologie.ȱ Gütersloh:ȱ GütersȬ
loherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ
andȱ P.ȱ SchmidtȬLeukelȱ (eds.).ȱ (2008).ȱ Multipleȱ religiöseȱ Identität:ȱ
AusȱverschiedenenȱreligiösenȱTraditionenȱschöpfen.ȱBeiträgeȱzuȱeinerȱ
TheologieȱderȱReligionenȱ5.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱ
Brück,ȱ M.ȱ von.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Einȱ Gesprächȱ mitȱ Michaelȱ vonȱ Brück:ȱ Vonȱ
ErichȱGarhammer.”ȱIn:ȱLebendigeȱSeelsorgeȱ57:ȱ334Ȭ40.ȱ
(2002a).ȱ “Religiousȱ Identityȱ andȱ theȱ Dialogueȱ ofȱ Religions:ȱ UnȬ
derstandingȱ theȱ Socialȱ Constructionȱ ofȱ Alterity.”ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ Cohenȱ
andȱ A.ȱ Heldrichȱ (eds.).ȱ Theȱ Threeȱ Religions:ȱ Interdisciplinaryȱ ConȬ
ferenceȱofȱTelȱAvivȱUniversityȱandȱMunichȱUniversity.ȱMunich:ȱHerȬ
bertȱUtzȱVerlag.ȱPp.ȱ109Ȭ24.ȱ
ȱ
(2002b).ȱ Wieȱ könnenȱ wirȱ leben?ȱ Religionȱ undȱ Spiritualitätȱ inȱ einerȱ
WeltȱohneȱMaß.ȱMünchen:ȱC.H.ȱBeck.ȱ
ȱ(1999).ȱ“InterkulturalitätȱalsȱIdentitätspartnerschaft.”ȱIn:ȱMeditaȬ
tion:ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ christlicheȱ Spiritualitätȱ undȱ Lebensgestaltungȱ 25:ȱ
9Ȭ14.ȱ
ȱ
(1996a).ȱ“GibtȱesȱeineȱinterreligiöseȱHermeneutik?”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱ
TheologieȱundȱKircheȱ93:ȱ284Ȭ308.ȱ
(1996b).ȱ ”Keineȱ Erneuerungȱ ohneȱ Wagnis:ȱ Spiritualitätȱ undȱ dieȱ
KircheȱderȱZukunft.”ȱLutherischeȱMonatshefteȱ35:ȱ8Ȭ11.ȱ
ȱ
(1994a).ȱ “Einheitȱ derȱ Religionenȱ alsȱ Herausforderungȱ fürȱ dasȱ
Christentum.”ȱLebendigeȱSeelsorgeȱ45:ȱ31Ȭ37.ȱ
(1994b).ȱ “Kommunikationȱ undȱ Kommunionȱ desȱ Christentumsȱ
mitȱanderenȱReligionen.”ȱDiakoniaȱ25:ȱ102Ȭ10.ȱ
ȱ
(1992).ȱ Religionswissenschaftȱ undȱ interkulturelleȱ Theologie.ȱ In:ȱ
EvangelischeȱTheologieȱ52:ȱ245Ȭ61.ȱ
(1991).ȱTheȱUnityȱofȱReality:ȱGod,ȱGodȬExperienceȱandȱMeditationȱinȱ
theȱHinduȬChristianȱDialogue.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ
(1986).ȱEinheitȱderȱWirklichkeit:ȱGott,ȱGotteserfahrungȱundȱMeditationȱ
imȱhinduistischȬchristlichenȱDialog.ȱMunich:ȱChr.ȱKaiserȱVerlag.ȱ
(1979).ȱ Möglichkeitenȱ undȱ Grenzenȱ einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen.ȱ
TheologischeȱArbeitenȱ38.ȱBerlin:ȱEvangelischeȱVerlagsanstalt.ȱ
andȱ W.ȱ Lai.ȱ (2001).ȱ Buddhismȱ andȱ Christianity:ȱ Aȱ Multiculturalȱ
HistoryȱofȱTheirȱDialogue.ȱTransl.ȱPhyllisȱJestice.ȱFaithȱMeetsȱFaith.ȱ
Maryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ
andȱ J.ȱ Werbick.ȱ (eds.).ȱ (1994).ȱ Traditionsabbruch:ȱ Endeȱ desȱ ChrisȬ
tentums?ȱWürzburg:ȱEchter.ȱ
Burrell,ȱ D.B.ȱ (1993).ȱ Freedomȱ andȱ Creationȱ inȱ Threeȱ Traditions.ȱ Notreȱ
Dame:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress.ȱ
(1986).ȱ Knowingȱ theȱ Unknowableȱ God:ȱ IbnȬSina,ȱ Maimonides,ȱ AquiȬ
nas.ȱNotreȱDame:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress.ȱ
Clooney,ȱFrancisȱX.ȱSJ.ȱ(2008a).ȱBeyondȱCompare:ȱSt.ȱFrancisȱdeȱSalesȱandȱ
SriȱVedantaȱDesikaȱonȱLovingȱSurrenderȱtoȱGod.ȱWashington,ȱD.C.:ȱ
GeorgetownȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ
(2008b).ȱ Theȱ Truth,ȱ theȱ Way,ȱ theȱ Life:ȱ Christianȱ Commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ
ThreeȱHolyȱMantrasȱofȱtheȱSrivaisnavaȱHindus.ȱLouvain:ȱPeeters.ȱ
(2007a).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheology.”ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱWebster,ȱK.ȱTanner,ȱandȱ
I.ȱTorranceȱ(eds.).ȱTheȱOxfordȱHandbookȱofȱSystematicȱTheology.ȱOxȬ
fordȱHandbooksȱinȱReligionȱandȱTheology.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniȬ
versityȱPress.ȱPp.ȱ653Ȭ69.ȱ
(2007b).ȱ“ErklärungȱderȱArbeitsgruppeȱ‘KomparativeȱTheologie’ȱ
derȱ Americanȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Religionȱ (AAR).”ȱ [Statementȱ forȱ theȱ
ComparativeȱTheologyȱGroupȱforȱtheȱAAR.ȱGivenȱonȱ18ȱNovemȬ
berȱ2006ȱatȱtheȱAARȱMeetingȱinȱWashingtonȱD.C.].ȱIn:ȱSalzburgerȱ
TheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:140Ȭ52.ȱ
(2005).ȱDivineȱMother,ȱBlessedȱMother:ȱHinduȱGoddessesȱandȱtheȱVirȬ
ginȱMary.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ
(2001).ȱ Hinduȱ God,ȱ Christianȱ God:ȱ Howȱ Reasonȱ Helpsȱ Breakȱ Downȱ
theȱBoundariesȱbetweenȱReligions.ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress.ȱ
(1998).ȱ Hinduȱ Wisdomȱ forȱ Allȱ God’sȱ Children.ȱ Maryknoll:ȱ Orbisȱ
Books.ȱ
(1996).ȱSeeingȱThroughȱTexts.ȱDoingȱTheologyȱamongȱtheȱSrivaisnavasȱ
ofȱSouthȱIndia.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ
(1993).ȱTheologyȱAfterȱVedanta:ȱAnȱExperimentȱinȱComparativeȱTheoȬ
logy.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ
(1990).ȱ Thinkingȱ Ritually:ȱ Rediscoveringȱ theȱ PĀrvaȱ MÎm¬ms¬ȱ ofȱ JaiȬ
mini.ȱVienna:ȱDeȱNobiliȱResearchȱPublications.ȱ
Cornille,ȱ C.ȱ (2008a).ȱ “Mehrereȱ Meister?ȱ Multipleȱ ReligionszugehörigȬ
keitȱ inȱ Praxisȱ undȱ Theorie.”ȱ In:ȱ R.ȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ P.ȱ SchmidtȬ
Leukelȱ (eds.).ȱ Multipleȱ religiöseȱ Identität:ȱ Ausȱ verschiedenenȱ
religiösenȱ Traditionenȱ schöpfen.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zuȱ einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ
Religionenȱ5.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱPp.ȱ15Ȭ32.ȱ
(2008b).ȱ Theȱ ImȬpossibilityȱ ofȱ Interreligiousȱ Dialogue.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ
Crossroads.ȱ
(ed.).ȱ (2002).ȱ Manyȱ Mansions?ȱ Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belongingȱ andȱ
ChristianȱIdentity.ȱFaithȱMeetsȱFaith.ȱNewȱYork:ȱOrbis.ȱ
D’ȱ Costa,ȱ G.ȱ (1986).ȱ Theologyȱ andȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism:ȱ Theȱ Challengeȱ ofȱ
OtherȱReligions.ȱOxford:ȱBlackwellȱPublishers.ȱ
Deuser,ȱ H.ȱ (2009).ȱ Religionsphilosophie.ȱ Berlin/Newȱ York:ȱ Walterȱ Deȱ
Gruyter.ȱ
Drobner,ȱH.R.ȱ(2004).ȱLehrbuchȱderȱPatrologie.ȱFrankfurt:ȱPeterȱLang.ȱ
Duffy,ȱS.J.ȱ(1999).ȱ“AȱTheologyȱofȱtheȱReligionsȱand/orȱaȱComparativeȱ
Theology?”ȱHorizonsȱ26:ȱ105Ȭ15.ȱ
Dupuis,ȱ J.ȱ (2006).ȱ Towardȱ aȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religiousȱ Pluralism.ȱ
Maryknoll:ȱOrbis.ȱ
(2004).ȱ “Renewalȱ ofȱ Christianityȱ throughȱ Interreligiousȱ DiaȬ
logue.”ȱ Bijdragen:ȱ Internationalȱ Journalȱ inȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ Theologyȱ
65:ȱ131Ȭ43.ȱ
Fredericks,ȱJ.L.ȱ(2003).ȱ“TheȱCatholicȱChurchȱandȱtheȱOtherȱReligiousȱ
Paths.ȱ Rejectingȱ Nothingȱ thatȱ isȱ Goodȱ andȱ True.”ȱ Theologicalȱ
Studiesȱ64:ȱ225Ȭ54.ȱ
(1999).ȱFaithȱamongȱFaiths:ȱChristianȱTheologyȱandȱNonȬChristianȱReȬ
ligions.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ
(1995).ȱ “Aȱ Universalȱ Religiousȱ Experience?ȱ Comparativeȱ TheoȬ
logyȱ asȱ anȱ Alternativeȱ toȱ aȱ Theologyȱ ofȱ Religions.”ȱ Horizonsȱ 22:ȱ
67Ȭ87.ȱ
Gesprächskreis.ȱ(2009).ȱ“JudenȱundȱChristenȱbeimȱZentralkomiteeȱderȱ
deutschenȱ Katholiken.”ȱ Neinȱ zurȱ Judenmissionȱ –ȱ Jaȱ zumȱ Dialogȱ
zwischenȱJudenȱundȱChristen.ȱ9ȱMarch.ȱ
Gira,ȱD.,ȱandȱJ.ȱScheuer.ȱ(2000).ȱVivreȱdeȱplusieursȱreligions:ȱPromesseȱouȱ
illusion.ȱ Collectionȱ Questionsȱ ouvertes.ȱ Paris:ȱ Lesȱ Editionsȱ deȱ
l’Atelier.ȱ
Gort,ȱ J.D.ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (eds.).ȱ (1992).ȱ Onȱ Sharingȱ Religiousȱ Experience:ȱ PossiȬ
bilitiesȱ ofȱ Interfaithȱ Mutuality.ȱ Currentsȱ ofȱ Encounterȱ 4.ȱ AmsterȬ
dam/GrandȱRapids:ȱEditionsȱRodopi/W.B.ȱEerdmans.ȱ
HackbarthȬJohnson,ȱ C.ȱ (2003).ȱ Interreligiöseȱ Existenz:ȱ Spirituelleȱ ErfahrȬ
ungȱ undȱ Identitätȱ beiȱ Henriȱ Leȱ Sauxȱ (O.S.B.)ȱ /ȱ Swamiȱ AbhishikȬ
t¬nandaȱ (1910Ȭ1973).ȱ Europäischeȱ Hochschulschriftenȱ 23/763.ȱ
Frankfurtȱet.al.:ȱPeterȱLang.ȱ
Hintersteiner,ȱN.ȱ(2007a).ȱ“InterculturalȱandȱInterreligiousȱ(Un)TransȬ
latibilityȱ andȱ theȱ Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ Project.”ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ HinterȬ
steinerȱ(ed.).ȱNamingȱandȱThinkingȱGodȱinȱEuropeȱToday.ȱCurrentsȱ
ofȱEncounterȱ32.ȱAmsterdam/NewȱYork:ȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ465Ȭ91.ȱ
(2007b).ȱ “Wieȱ denȱ Religionenȱ derȱ Weltȱ begegnen?ȱ Dasȱ Projektȱ
derȱKomparativenȱTheologie.”ȱSalzburgerȱTheologischerȱZeitschriftȱ
11:ȱ153Ȭ74.ȱ
(2003).ȱ “Dialogȱ derȱ Religionen.”ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Figlȱ (ed.).ȱ Handbuchȱ ReliȬ
gionswissenschaft:ȱReligionenȱundȱihreȱzentralenȱThemen.ȱInnsbruck/ȱ
Vienna/Göttingen:ȱTyrolia/Vandenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht.ȱPp.ȱ834Ȭ52.ȱ
ȱ
(2001).ȱ Traditionenȱ überschreiten:ȱ Angloamerikanischeȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ
interkulturellenȱ Traditionshermeneutik.ȱ Mitȱ einemȱ Vorwortȱ vonȱ
RobertȱJ.ȱSchreiter.ȱVienna:ȱwuvȱUniversitätsverlag.ȱ
Hoff,ȱG.M.,ȱandȱU.ȱWinklerȱ(eds.).ȱ(2010).ȱReligionskonflikte:ȱZurȱlokalenȱ
Topographieȱ einesȱ Globalisierungsphänomens.ȱ Salzburgerȱ theologiȬ
scheȱStudienȱ–ȱinterkulturellȱ5.ȱInnsbruck/Vienna:ȱTyroliaȱ
JohnȱPaulȱII.ȱ(2001).ȱ“SchuldbekenntnisȱundȱVergebungsbitteȱamȱErstȬ
enȱFastensonntagȱ2000ȱinȱSt.ȱPeterȱinȱRom.”ȱIn:ȱH.H.ȱHenrixȱandȱ
W.ȱ Krausȱ (eds.).ȱ Dieȱ Kirchenȱ undȱ dasȱ Judentumȱ 2:ȱ Dokumenteȱ vonȱ
1986Ȭ2000.ȱ Veröffentlichungȱ imȱ Auftragȱ derȱ Studienkommissionȱ
Kircheȱ undȱ Judentumȱ derȱ Evangelischenȱ Kircheȱ inȱ Deutschlandȱ
undȱderȱArbeitsgruppeȱfürȱFragenȱdesȱJudentumsȱderȱÖkumeneȬ
Kommissionȱ derȱ Deutschenȱ Bischofskonferenz,ȱ Paderborn/GütȬ
erslohȱ2001.ȱPp.ȱ151Ȭ56.ȱForȱtheȱEnglishȱsee:ȱhttp://www.vatican.ȱ
va/jubilee_2000/jubilevents/events_day_pardon_en.htm.ȱ
Kippenberg,ȱ H.G.ȱ (1997).ȱ Dieȱ Entdeckungȱ derȱ Religionsgeschichte:ȱ ReliȬ
gionswissenschaftȱundȱModerne.ȱMunich:ȱC.H.ȱBeck.ȱ
andȱ K.ȱ vonȱ Stuckrad.ȱ (2003).ȱ Einführungȱ inȱ dieȱ ReligionswissenȬ
schaft:ȱGegenständeȱundȱBegriffe.ȱMunich:ȱC.H.ȱBeck.ȱ
Leȱ Saux,ȱ H.ȱ (Swamiȱ Abhishikt¬nanda).ȱ (2005).ȱ Innereȱ Erfahrungȱ undȱ
Offenbarung:ȱ Theologischeȱ Aufsätzeȱ zurȱ Begegnungȱ vonȱ Hinduismusȱ
undȱ Christentum.ȱ Mitȱ einerȱ Einführungȱ vonȱ Jacquesȱ Dupuis,ȱ S.J.ȱ
Ed.ȱbyȱC.ȱHackbarthȬJohnsonȱetȱal.ȱTransl.ȱfromȱFrenchȱandȱEngȬ
lishȱbyȱC.ȱHackbarthȬJohnson.ȱSalzburgerȱtheologischeȱStudienȱ–
interkulturellȱ2.ȱInnsbruck/Vienna:ȱTyrolia.ȱ
Nehring,ȱ A.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Welttheologieȱ oderȱ Religionswissenschaft?ȱ Zurȱ
Bedeutungȱ vonȱ W.C.ȱ Smithȱ inȱ derȱ postkolonialenȱ KulturdebatȬ
te.”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱReligionswissenschaftȱ13:ȱ45Ȭ59.ȱ
(2003a).ȱ Orientalismusȱ undȱ Mission:ȱ Dieȱ Repräsentationȱ derȱ tamilȬ
ischenȱ Gesellschaftȱ undȱ Religionȱ durchȱ Leipzigerȱ Missionareȱ 1840Ȭ
1940.ȱWiesbaden:ȱHarrassowitz.ȱ
(2003b).ȱ“Religion,ȱKultur,ȱMacht.ȱAuswirkungenȱdesȱkolonialenȱ
Blicksȱ aufȱdieȱKulturbegegnungȱamȱBeispielȱIndiens.”ȱZeitschriftȱ
fürȱMissionwissenschaftȱundȱReligionswissenschaftȱ87:ȱ200Ȭ17.ȱ
Neville,ȱ R.C.ȱ (2009).ȱ “Philosophischeȱ Grundlagenȱ undȱ Methodenȱ derȱ
Komparativenȱ Theologie.”ȱ In:ȱ R.ȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ K.ȱ vonȱ Stoschȱ
(eds.).ȱ Komparativeȱ Theologie:ȱ Interreligiöseȱ Vergleicheȱ alsȱ Wegȱ derȱ
Religionstheologie.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zuȱ einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionenȱ 7.ȱ
Zürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱ
(2008).ȱRitualȱandȱDeference:ȱExtendingȱChineseȱPhilosophyȱinȱaȱComȬ
parativeȱContext.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ
(2007).ȱ “Theȱ Roleȱ ofȱ Conceptsȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ Crossculturalȱ ComparȬ
ativeȱ Theology.”ȱ In:ȱ N.ȱ Hintersteinerȱ (ed.).ȱ Namingȱ andȱ Thinkingȱ
GodȱinȱEuropeȱToday.ȱCurrentsȱofȱEncounterȱ32.ȱAmsterdam/Newȱ
York:ȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ513Ȭ29.ȱ
(2006).ȱOnȱtheȱScopeȱandȱTruthȱofȱTheology:ȱTheologyȱasȱSymbolicȱEnȬ
gagement.ȱNewȱYork:ȱT&TȱClark.ȱ
ȱ
(ed.).ȱ(2001a).ȱTheȱHumanȱCondition.ȱForewordȱbyȱPeterȱL.ȱBerger.ȱ
Theȱ Comparativeȱ Religiousȱ Ideasȱ Projectȱ 1.ȱ Albany:ȱ Stateȱ UniȬ
versityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ
(ed.)ȱ (2001b).ȱ Religiousȱ Truth.ȱ Forewordȱ byȱ Jonathanȱ Z.ȱ Smith.ȱ
Theȱ Comparativeȱ Religiousȱ Ideasȱ Projectȱ 3.ȱ Albany:ȱ Stateȱ UniȬ
versityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ
(ed.)ȱ (2001c).ȱ Ultimateȱ Realities.ȱ Forewordȱ byȱ Tuȱ Weiming.ȱ Theȱ
Comparativeȱ Religiousȱ Ideasȱ Projectȱ 2.ȱ Albany:ȱ Stateȱ Universityȱ
ofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ
ȱ(2000a).ȱBostonȱConfucianism:ȱPortableȱTraditionȱinȱtheȱLateȬModernȱ
World.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ
(2000b).ȱ “Interkulturelleȱ Verständigungȱ undȱ dieȱ realeȱ MögȬ
lichkeitȱ religiöserȱ Wahrheit.”ȱ In:ȱ T.ȱ Schreijäckȱ (ed.).ȱ Religionȱ imȱ
Dialogȱ derȱ Kulturen.ȱ Forumȱ Religionspädagogikȱ interkulturellȱ 2.ȱ
Münster/Hamburg/London:ȱLit.ȱPp.ȱ15Ȭ22.ȱ
(1991).ȱBehindȱtheȱMasksȱofȱGod:ȱAnȱEssayȱtowardȱComparativeȱTheoȬ
logy.ȱAlbany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress.ȱ
Neuner,ȱJ.,ȱandȱJ.ȱDupuisȱ(eds.).ȱ(1992).ȱTheȱChristianȱFaithȱinȱtheȱDocȬ
trinalȱ Documentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Catholicȱ Church.ȱ 5thȱ ed.ȱ London:ȱ Harperȱ
Collins.ȱ
Panikkar,ȱR.ȱ(2006).ȱChristophanie:ȱErfahrungȱdesȱHeiligenȱalsȱErscheinungȱ
Christi.ȱTransl.ȱRuthȱHeimbach.ȱFreiburg/Basel/Vienna:ȱHerder.ȱ
(1999).ȱ Gott,ȱ Menschȱ undȱ Welt:ȱ Dieȱ DreiȬEinheitȱ derȱ Wirklichkeit.ȱ
Petersberg:ȱViaȱNova.ȱ
ȱ
(1993).ȱ Theȱ Cosmotheandricȱ Experience:ȱ Emergingȱ Religiousȱ ConȬ
sciousness.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ
(1978).ȱTheȱIntrareligiousȱDialogue.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ
ȱ
(1973).ȱTheȱTrinityȱandȱtheȱReligiousȱExperienceȱofȱMan.ȱMaryknoll:ȱ
OrbisȱBooks.ȱ
Phan,ȱ P.ȱ (2004).ȱ Beingȱ Religiousȱ Interreligiously:ȱ Asianȱ Perspectivesȱ onȱ
InterfaithȱDialogue.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ
(2003).ȱ “Multipleȱ Religiousȱ Belonging:ȱ Opportunitiesȱ andȱ ChalȬ
lengesȱforȱTheologyȱandȱChurch.”ȱTheologicalȱStudiesȱ64:495Ȭ519.ȱ
Sabbatucci,ȱD.ȱ(1988).ȱ“KulturȱundȱReligion.”ȱIn:ȱH.ȱCancik,ȱB.ȱGladiȬ
gow,ȱ andȱ K.ȬH.ȱ Kohlȱ (eds.).ȱ Handbuchȱ religionswissenschaftlicherȱ
Grundbegriffe.ȱ Volȱ 1.ȱ Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne:ȱ W.ȱ Kohlhammer.ȱ
Pp.ȱ43Ȭ58.ȱ
Said,ȱE.W.ȱ(1978).ȱOrientalism.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPantheonȱBooks.ȱ
Sander,ȱHansȬJoachimȱ(2006).ȱ“DerȱeineȱGottȱderȱJuden,ȱChristenȱundȱ
Muslimeȱ undȱ seineȱ Heterotopienȱ derȱ Machtȱ –ȱ derȱ unmöglicheȱ
Lebensraumȱ desȱ religiösenȱ Dialogs.”ȱ In:ȱ J.ȱ Sinkovitsȱ andȱ U.ȱ
Winkler.ȱ (eds.).ȱ Weltkircheȱ undȱ Weltreligionen:ȱ Dieȱ Brisanzȱ desȱ
Zweitenȱ Vatikanischenȱ Konzilsȱ 40ȱ Jahreȱ nachȱ Nostraȱ Aetate.ȱ SalzȬ
burgerȱtheologischeȱStudienȱ–ȱinterkulturellȱ3.ȱInnsbruck/Vienna:ȱ
Tyrolia.ȱPp.ȱ45Ȭ65.ȱ
Schärtl,ȱ T.ȱ (2006).ȱ “Derȱ religiöseȱ Glaubeȱ imȱ Windschattenȱ desȱ WisȬ
sensbegriffs?ȱAnfragenȱanȱdenȱEntwurfȱAlvinȱPlantingas.”ȱIn:ȱT.ȱ
Kampmannȱ andȱ T.ȱ Schärtlȱ (eds.).ȱ Derȱ christlicheȱ Glaubeȱ vorȱ demȱ
AnspruchȱdesȱWissens.ȱMünster:ȱAschendorff.ȱPp.ȱ87Ȭ146.ȱ
Schenk,ȱ G.ȱ (1990).ȱ “Vergleich.”ȱ In:ȱ H.J.ȱ Sandkühlerȱ (ed.).ȱ Europäischeȱ
Enzyklopädieȱ zuȱ Philosophieȱ undȱ Wissenschaften.ȱ Vol.ȱ 4.ȱ Hamburg:ȱ
F.ȱMeiner.ȱPp.ȱ698Ȭ701.ȱ
Schenk,ȱG.,ȱandȱA.ȱKrause.ȱ(2001).ȱ“Vergleich.”ȱIn:ȱJ.ȱRitterȱ(ed.).ȱHisȬ
torischesȱ Wörterbuchȱ derȱ Philosophie.ȱ Vol.ȱ 11.ȱ 4thȱ ed.ȱ Basel:ȱ
Schwabe.ȱPp.ȱ677Ȭ80.ȱ
SchmidtȬLeukel,ȱ P.ȱ (2009).ȱ Godȱ Beyondȱ Boundaries:ȱ Aȱ Christianȱ andȱ
PluralistȱTheologyȱofȱReligions.ȱTransl.ȱKarolinaȱWeening.ȱLondon:ȱ
SCMȱPress.ȱ
(2005).ȱ Gottȱ ohneȱ Grenzen:ȱ Eineȱ christlicheȱ undȱ pluralistischeȱ TheoȬ
logieȱderȱReligionen.ȱGütersloh:ȱGütersloherȱVerlagshaus.ȱ
(2004).ȱ “Eineȱ neueȱ Spiritualitätȱ fürȱ eineȱ religiösȱ pluraleȱ Welt.”ȱ
Concȱ40:ȱ552Ȭ559.ȱ
ȱ
(1997).ȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen.ȱ Probleme,ȱ Optionen,ȱ Argumente.ȱ
Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Fundamentaltheologieȱ undȱ Religionsphilosophieȱ 1.ȱ
Neuried:ȱArsȱUna.ȱ
Schoen,ȱ U.ȱ (2000).ȱ Menschȱ seinȱ inȱ zweiȱ Welten:ȱ BiȬIdentitätȱ inȱ Sprache,ȱ
ReligionȱundȱRecht.ȱMitȱeinemȱGeleitwortȱvonȱAnnemarieȱSchimȬ
mel.ȱÖkumenischeȱStudienȱ11.ȱMünster/Hamburg/London:ȱLIT.ȱ
(1996).ȱBiȬIdentität:ȱZweisprachigkeit,ȱBiȬReligiosität,ȱdoppelteȱStaatsȬ
bürgerschaft.ȱZürich/Düsseldorf:ȱWalter.ȱ
Siebenrock,ȱ R.A.ȱ (2005).ȱ “Theologischerȱ Kommentarȱ zurȱ Erklärungȱ
überȱdieȱHaltungȱderȱKircheȱzuȱdenȱnichtchristlichenȱReligionenȱ
Nostraȱ Aetate.”ȱ In:ȱ P.ȱ Hünermannȱ andȱ B.J.ȱ Hilberathȱ (eds.).ȱ
HerdersȱTheologischerȱKommentarȱzumȱZweitenȱVatikanischenȱKonzilȱ
3.ȱFreiburg/Basel/Vienna:ȱHerder.ȱPp.ȱ591Ȭ693.ȱ
Sinkovits,ȱJ.,ȱandȱU.ȱWinklerȱ(eds.).ȱ(2006).ȱWeltkircheȱundȱWeltreligionȬ
en:ȱDieȱBrisanzȱdesȱZweitenȱVatikanischenȱKonzilsȱ40ȱJahreȱnachȱNosȬ
traȱ Aetate.ȱ Salzburgerȱ theologischeȱ Studienȱ Ȭȱ interkulturellȱ 3.ȱ
Innsbruck/Vienna:ȱTyrolia.ȱ
Smart,ȱN.,ȱandȱS.ȱKonstantine.ȱ(1991).ȱChristianȱSystematicȱTheologyȱinȱaȱ
Worldȱ Context.ȱ Worldȱ Christianȱ Theologyȱ Series.ȱ Minneapolis:ȱ
FortressȱPress.ȱ
Smith,ȱ W.C.ȱ (1993).ȱ Whatȱ isȱ Scripture?ȱ Aȱ Comparativeȱ Approach.ȱ LonȬ
don:ȱSCMȱPress.ȱ
(1989).ȱTowardsȱaȱWorldȱTheology.ȱFaithȱandȱtheȱComparativeȱHistoryȱ
ofȱReligion.ȱMaryknoll:ȱOrbisȱBooks.ȱ
(1963).ȱ“VergleichendeȱReligionswissenschaft:ȱWohinȱ–ȱWarum?”ȱ
In:ȱM.ȱEliadeȱandȱJ.M.ȱKitagawaȱ(eds.).ȱGrundfragenȱderȱReligionsȬ
wissenschaft.ȱWortȱundȱAntwortȱ32.ȱSalzburg:ȱOttoȱMüller.ȱPp.ȱ75Ȭ
105,ȱ239Ȭ56.ȱ
Stosch,ȱ K.ȱ von.ȱ (2008).ȱ “Komparativeȱ Theologieȱ alsȱ Herausforderungȱ
fürȱdieȱTheologieȱdesȱ21.ȱJahrhunderts.”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱKatholischeȱ
Theologieȱ130:ȱ401Ȭ22.ȱ
(2007).ȱ“ComparativeȱTheologyȱasȱanȱAlternativeȱtoȱtheȱTheologyȱ
ofȱReligions.”ȱIn:ȱN.ȱHintersteinerȱ(ed.).ȱNamingȱandȱThinkingȱGodȱ
inȱ Europeȱ Today.ȱ Currentsȱ ofȱ Encounterȱ 32.ȱ Amsterdam/Newȱ
York:ȱRodopi.ȱPp.ȱ507Ȭ12.ȱ
ȱ
(2002).ȱ “Komparativeȱ Theologie.ȱ Einȱ Auswegȱ ausȱ demȱ GrundȬ
dilemmaȱ jederȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionen?”ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ KathoȬ
lischeȱTheologieȱ124:ȱ294Ȭ311.ȱ
Sullivan,ȱ F.A.ȱ (1992).ȱ Salvationȱ Outsideȱ theȱ Church?ȱ Tracingȱ theȱ Historyȱ
ofȱtheȱCatholicȱResponse.ȱNewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress.ȱ
Tracy,ȱ D.ȱ (1987a).ȱ “Comparativeȱ Theology.”ȱ In:ȱ M.ȱ Eliadeȱ (ed.).ȱ Theȱ
EncycolopediaȱofȱReligion.ȱVol.ȱ14.ȱNewȱYork/London:ȱMacmillan/ȱ
CollierȱMacmillan.ȱPp.ȱ446Ȭ55.ȱ
ȱ
(1987b).ȱ Pluralityȱ andȱ Ambiguity:ȱ Hermeneutics,ȱ Religion,ȱ Hope.ȱ
Cambridge:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow.ȱ
Tworuschka,ȱ U.ȱ (2001).ȱ “Selbstverständnis,ȱ Methodenȱ undȱ Aufgabenȱ
derȱ Religionswissenschaftȱ undȱ ihrȱ Verhältnisȱ zurȱ Theologie.”ȱ
TheologischeȱLiteraturzeitungȱ126:ȱ123Ȭ38.ȱ
VanȱderȱLeeuw,ȱG.ȱ(1977).ȱPhänomenologieȱderȱReligion.ȱ4thȱed.ȱTübingȬ
en:ȱMohr.ȱ
Vroom,ȱH.M.ȱ(2001).ȱ“KeithȱWard’sȱComparativeȱChristianȱSystematicȱ
Theolog:ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ andȱ Criticalȱ Appraisal.”ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ InȬ
terreligiousȱDialogueȱ11:ȱ92Ȭ119.ȱ
Ward,ȱ K.ȱ (2003).ȱ “Aȱ Guideȱ forȱ theȱ Perplexed.”ȱ In:ȱ T.W.ȱ Bartelȱ (ed.).ȱ
Comparativeȱ Theology:ȱ Essaysȱ forȱ Keithȱ Ward.ȱ London:ȱ SPCK.ȱ Pp.ȱ
190Ȭ98.ȱ
(2000).ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Community.ȱ Tetralogyȱ inȱ Comparativeȱ TheoȬ
logyȱ4.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress.ȱ
(1998).ȱ Religionȱ andȱ Humanȱ Nature.ȱ Tetralogyȱ inȱ Comparativeȱ
Theologyȱ3.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress.ȱ
ȱ(1996).ȱ Religionȱ &ȱ Creation.ȱ Tetralogyȱ inȱ Comparativeȱ Theologyȱ
2.ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress.ȱ
(1994).ȱReligionȱandȱRevelation:ȱAȱTheologyȱofȱRevelationȱinȱtheȱWorldȱ
Religions.ȱTetralogyȱinȱComparativeȱTheologyȱ1.ȱOxford:ȱClarenȬ
donȱPress.ȱ
(1987).ȱ Imagesȱ ofȱ Eternity:ȱ Conceptsȱ ofȱ Godȱ inȱ Fiveȱ Religiousȱ TradiȬ
tions.ȱLondon:ȱDarton,ȱLongman,ȱandȱTodd.ȱ
Winkler,ȱ U.ȱ (2009a).ȱ “Grundlegungenȱ komparativerȱ Theologie(n):ȱ
KeithȱWardȱundȱRobertȱC.ȱNeville.”ȱIn:ȱR.ȱBernhardtȱandȱK.ȱvonȱ
Stoschȱ (eds.).ȱ Komparativeȱ Theologie:ȱ Interreligiöseȱ Vergleicheȱ alsȱ
WegȱderȱReligionstheologie.ȱBeiträgeȱzuȱeinerȱTheologieȱderȱReligiȬ
onenȱ7.ȱZürich:ȱTheologischerȱVerlagȱZürich.ȱ
ȱ
(2009b).ȱ “Kniendeȱ Theologieȱ –ȱ Eineȱ religionstheologischeȱ BesinȬ
nungȱ aufȱ eineȱ Spiritualitätȱ komparativerȱ Theologie.”ȱ In:ȱ F.E.ȱ
Dobberahnȱ andȱ J.ȱ Imhofȱ (eds.).ȱ Wagnisȱ derȱ Freiheit:ȱ Perspektivenȱ
geistlicherȱTheologie.ȱFSȱPaulȱImhof.ȱStrukturenȱderȱWirklichkeitȱ4.ȱ
Wambach:ȱViaȱVerbis.ȱPp.ȱ162Ȭ98.ȱ
ȱ
(2009c).ȱ “Vonȱ Gotteskindern,ȱ Heidenȱ undȱ Teufelskindern.ȱ ReliȬ
gionstheologieȱ versusȱ Israeltheologieȱ –ȱ einȱ neuerȱ Diskursȱ desȱ
Vergessens?”ȱIn:ȱG.ȱLangerȱandȱG.M.ȱHoffȱ(eds.).ȱDerȱOrtȱdesȱJüȬ
dischenȱ inȱ derȱ christlichenȱ Theologie.ȱ Göttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ &ȱ
Ruprecht.ȱPp.ȱ220Ȭ63.ȱ
(2008a).ȱ“ErwählungskonkurrenzȱzwischenȱJudenȱundȱChristen.”ȱ
SalzburgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ12:ȱ116Ȭ49.ȱ
ȱ
(2008b).ȱ“MissionȱSpiritualitätȱ–ȱdieȱFrömmigkeitȱderȱReligionenȱ
schätzenȱlernen.”ȱDiakoniaȱ39:ȱ445Ȭ49.ȱ
ȱ
(2008c).ȱ “Zumȱ Projektȱ einerȱ Komparativenȱ Theologie.”ȱ In:ȱ G.ȱ
Ritzerȱ(ed.).ȱ“MitȱeuchȱbinȱichȱMenschȱ….”ȱFSȱFriedrichȱSchleinȬ
zer.ȱ Salzburgerȱ theologischeȱ Studienȱ 34.ȱ Innsbruck/Vienna:ȱ TyȬ
rolia.ȱPp.ȱ115Ȭ47.ȱ
(2007a).ȱ “Fürȱ eineȱ pneumatologischeȱ Religionstheologie.”ȱ SalzȬ
burgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:ȱ175Ȭ200.ȱ
ȱ
(2007b).ȱ“Editorial:ȱKomparativeȱTheologieȱderȱReligionen.”ȱSalzȬ
burgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:ȱ137Ȭ39.ȱ
ȱ
(2007c).ȱ“MehrȱalsȱToleranz:ȱDieȱEntdeckungȱdesȱHeiligenȱGeistȬ
esȱinȱdenȱanderenȱKirchenȱundȱReligionen.”ȱIn:ȱR.ȱEggerȬWenzelȱ
(ed.).ȱ Geistȱ undȱ Feuer.ȱ FSȱ Erzbischofȱ Aloisȱ M.ȱ Kothgasser.ȱ SalzȬ
burgerȱ theologischeȱ Studienȱ 32.ȱ Innsbruck/Vienna:ȱ Tyrolia.ȱ Pp.ȱ
397Ȭ430.ȱ
ȱ
(2007d).ȱ“ZentrumȱTheologieȱInterkulturellȱundȱStudiumȱderȱReȬ
ligionenȱanȱderȱUniversitätȱSalzburgȱ–ȱtheologischeȱKonzeption.”ȱ
SalzburgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ11:ȱ58Ȭ73.ȱ
ȱ
(2006).ȱ “Perryȱ SchmidtȬLeukelsȱ christlicheȱ pluralistischeȱ ReliȬ
gionstheologie.”ȱSalzburgerȱTheologischeȱZeitschriftȱ10:ȱ290Ȭ318.ȱ
(2005).ȱ “Dieȱ unwiderrufeneȱ Erwählungȱ Israelsȱ undȱ dasȱ Wahreȱ
undȱHeiligeȱandererȱReligionen:ȱVonȱderȱIsraeltheologieȱundȱReȬ
ligionstheologieȱ zurȱ Pluralismusfähigkeitȱ derȱ Religionenȱ alsȱ inȬ
terreligiöseȱ Kriteriologie.”ȱ In:ȱ R.ȱ Bernhardtȱ andȱ P.ȱ SchmidtȬ
Leukelȱ (eds.).ȱ Kriterienȱ interreligiöserȱ Urteilsbildungȱ Beiträgeȱ zuȱ
einerȱ Theologieȱ derȱ Religionenȱ 1.ȱ Zürich:ȱ Theologischerȱ Verlagȱ
Zürich.ȱPp.ȱ233Ȭ65.ȱ
ȱ
(2003).ȱ “Rezension:ȱ Barth,ȱ HansȬMartin,ȱ Dogmatik:ȱ EvangelȬ
ischerȱ Glaubeȱ imȱ Kontextȱ derȱ Weltreligionen.”ȱ Salzburgerȱ TheoȬ
logischeȱZeitschriftȱ7:ȱ230Ȭ33.ȱ
Yong,ȱ A.,ȱ andȱ G.P.ȱ Heltzelȱ (eds.).ȱ (2004).ȱ Theologyȱ inȱ Globalȱ Context:ȱ
Essaysȱ inȱ Honorȱ ofȱ Robertȱ Cummingsȱ Neville.ȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Tȱ &ȱ Tȱ
ClarkȱInternational.ȱ

What is Comparative Theology?

Transcription

Similar documents

Hans Schafranek Eine unbekannte NS

Ghana@50 âˆ` celebrating the nation

Caracterización de la Calidad de Sedimentos Afectados por