God as Ground, Singularity, and Relation

This chapter is the culmination of the book. What previous chapters called for—the integration of theology of religious diversity, comparative theology, and constructive theology—this chapter performs. It offers a new constructive theology of the trinity, a theology of the trinity that is worked out with the help of Hindus and Buddhists. Such a theology is simultaneously a way to think about religious neighbors, a way of learning from those neighbors, and a way to reimagine the divine life. Specifically, this chapter advocates an account of God/ultimate reality as ground, singularity, and relation. Although these features of the divine life can be discerned across traditions, this chapter argues that certain strands of particular traditions focus on one account of ultimacy at the relative expense of others. But this degree of focus is precisely what makes interreligious learning possible, necessary, and rewarding.

This Is Not a Conclusion

This chapter recapitulates the argument of the book but extends it by showing that the book is also a sustained argument against postures of religious isolationism and self-sufficiency and for religious conviviality. The chapter argues that if one is to be truly open to the mystery of the infinite, one must be vulnerable to the mystery of the neighbor. If one is to move ever more fully into the divine life, one must move toward the neighbor in receptivity and love. No pilgrimage to God apart from a pilgrimage toward the holiness of one’s neighbor. Inside and outside, yours and mine, are relative not absolute categories. “Religions” are not ontologically reified and isolated; they are distinct but not separate.

No One Ascends Alone

This chapter surveys and assesses major contemporary versions of pluralist and particularist theologies of religious diversity including those of John Hick, David Ray Griffin, and Mark Heim. While finding commendable elements in each, the chapter argues for a relational pluralism derived from the work of Roland Faber and Catherine Keller. Central to the work of this chapter is the challenge to accounts of “religion” which tend to homogenize out difference and accounts of “religions” which tend to reify traditions over against each other. Even positive pluralist accounts that seek to speak of the different religions as valid paths up the same or even different mountains often fail to recognize just how deeply intertwined religious traditions are. Relational pluralism, by contrast, rightly recognizes that religious traditions have always emerged in relation and that their ongoing flourishing will continue to require relational encounter.

Defining the Religious

This chapter takes on the following tasks. First, it contends that genealogy of religions does not dispel the possibility of advancing new theories of the religious. Genealogical inquiry can provide a clearing in which new critically self-conscious definitions of the religious can be deployed because here is no doing without the category altogether. Second, this chapter offers a definition of the religious that attempts to avoid the kinds of reifications that have plagued theories that have not passed through the turbulent waters of the genealogical project. To be religious is to seek comprehensive qualitative orientation by means of interpretive schemes and therapeutic regimes assembled from the always fluid repertoires of religious traditions. Because religious traditions have always been composed of contested and fluid repertoires, no religion is a reified self-identical and static something that admits of no porosity and thus forestalls interreligious learning.

Comparative Theology After Religion?

This chapter employs genealogy of religion, critical race theory, and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka Buddhism to call into question the way in which uninterrogated notions about “religion” and “religions” compromise theologies of religious diversity. At the heart of the argument is the claim that both the categories “religions” and “races” were invented to reify traditions and peoples over against each other and to develop hierarchies of valuation. Reification is the precondition for ranking, and where there is reification there can be no learning. These reifications persist and complicate and compromise theologies of religious diversity and comparative theology. If Christian theology is to take up the project of interreligious learning, then a variety of extant theories of religion must be called into question. Nevertheless, the chapter concludes that there is no way to simply jettison “religion” and “religions.” These categories must be given new meaning.

The Limits and Promise of Exclusivism and Inclusivism

This chapter surveys major exclusivist and inclusivist theologies of religious diversity. The central question that the author brings to bear in assessing any theology of religious diversity is, “Does this theory make interreligious learning possible?” The author proposes four major criteria: 1) The difference without incommensurability criterion: does this theology of religious diversity affirm that traditions are genuinely different such that real learning is possible but not so different as to be incommensurable? 2) The truth criterion: does this theology of religious diversity affirm that at least some strands of other traditions grant access to religious truth? 3) The critical theory of religion criterion: does this theology of religious diversity offer a sophisticated theory of religion that makes interreligious learning possible? 4) The intrinsic religious interest criterion: can I be interested in another tradition’s own religious ends, while remaining a member of my own? The author shows that when theologies of religious diversity fail, they do so most often because of an inadequate theory of religion. The author also shows that, surprisingly, even some exclusivist leave room for interreligious learning.

Religious Difference and Christian Theology

This chapter introduces and frames the argument for the entire book: Christian theology must understand religious diversity as promise rather than as problem. The chapter then proceeds to lay out conceptually what was articulated allegorically in the introduction, namely that theology of religious diversity, comparative theology, and constructive theology must be integrated. The chapter defines the scope and tasks of each of these three subfields within theology and puts them into conversation. The chapter argues that it is not enough to merely think about others; we must instead think with religious others and think through what is so learned. In sum, we ought not give an account of the other without being transformed by the other through interreligious learning.

The Hospitality of Receiving

This chapter demonstrates that interreligious learning is not just a desirable project to be pursued by academics alone. Interreligious learning has taken place prominently in public life and with world transforming significance. The circuit of learning between M. K. Gandhi, his teachers, and other black leaders of the American Civil Rights movement is an exemplary instance of interreligious learning and the virtue of interreligious receptivity. By taking a brief look at this momentous engagement across religious traditions and the profound transformations generated by this auspicious instance of interreligious learning, this chapter shows that constructive theology through interreligious learning has already transpired to great public good.

Introduction: Revisiting an Old Tale

This chapter introduces, reformulates, and defends the old Indian allegory of the blind men and the elephant to argue that, despite critiques, it remains a valuable tool for thinking about religious diversity. Appealing to John Hull, theologian of blindness, the book reformulates the ancient tale as one about blindfolded men and the elephant. After reformulating the tale, the author puts it to new uses. He argues that theology of religious diversity is the work of accounting for why there are so many different accounts of the elephant, comparative theology is the work of actually walking over to another side of the elephant, and constructive theology is the venture of actually redescribing the elephant in light of the other two tasks. This chapter argues that all three tasks must be done together.