View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
1/25
ComparativeTheologyinSearchofaHermeneuticalFramework
MarianneMoyaert
Introduction
Comparative theology is presented as a genuinely adequate
wayto
understand
and
appreciate
the
otherness
of
the
religious
otherwithout losing sight of ones own identity. The proponentsofcomparative theology regard itas the futureof theology:Any theology inany tradition that takes religiouspluralismseriouslymusteventuallybecomecomparativetheology(Tracy1987:454).Still,upuntiltodaycomparativetheologyremainsamarginalandnotwidelyunderstooddisciplinewithintheologicalstudies(Nicholson2005:191).Evenmorestrongly,itisbeing criticized asbeing a deeply ambiguous discipline(Nicholson2007:229), lackinga clear scientific framework. Itshermeneutical presuppositions especially remain underdevel
oped.
Thiscontributionaimstoovercomethiscritiquebysketching the original research profile of the comparative theologyprojectmoreclearly.Inthefirstpart,Iwillsituatecomparativetheologywithin thebroader theological landscape,and in thesecondIwilldevelopahermeneuticalframeworkforcomparative theology.To thatend, Iwillbriefly explore itsmainhermeneutical presuppositions.Next, Iwill further elaborate onthesepresuppositionsbyplacingthemwithinPaulRicoeursinterpretation theory. Iwill point out possible interconnectionsbetween the comparative theology project andRicoeurs hermeneuticalphilosophy.Indoingso,IwillarguethatRicoeurs
texthermeneutics
can
function
as
the
methodological
frame
workcomparativetheologyneeds.
SituatingComparativeTheologywithintheBroaderTheologicalLandscape
Theoriginalityofcomparativetheologyshowsitselfindialogueandinconfrontationwithalreadyexistingpositions.Inthefollowing,Iwillfirstlookattheclassicaltheologyofreligionsand
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
2/25
162 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
explaininwhatsensecomparativetheologypresentsitselfasanalternative to thesocalledsoteriologicalapproach toreligiousdiversity.Next,Iwillexploretherelationbetweencomparativetheologyandpostliberaltheology.Ithasbeenarguedthatcomparativetheologyisfoundedonthegroundworkofpostliberalism (Knitter2002:177). Idispute thispoint,arguing thatcomparative theology displays its newnesspreciselywhere itdepartsfrompostliberalism.Boththeologicalprojectshaveaverydifferentappreciationofreligiousdiversity.Whereaspostliber
alismembraces
an
intratextual
hermeneutics,
comparative
theo
logycanbeunderstoodintermsofintertextuality.
ComparativeTheologyanditsRelationtotheTheologyofReligions
Christiansarebeingchallengedtodaytoreflectonthequestionofhowtheirfaithcommitmentrelatestothecontemporarysituation of religiousdiversity.Theologians respond to this challengebyconsideringthetheologicalmeaningofreligiousdiversity.ThewholeofChristian theologyof religions turnsonsoteriologicalquestions (Merrigan1999:339).What is thenatureand function of nonChristian religious traditions in light of
Christianfaith
in
the
salvific
character
of
the
life,
death,
and
re
surrectionofJesusChrist?AreallreligionsvalidinGodseyesall equally effective inputtingpeople in contactwith theDivine?DoesGodregardotherreligionsasacurseorablessing?Inresponsetothesesoteriologicalquestionsthethreefoldtypology of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism has emerged.TheexclusivistmodelproposedthatonlyChristianscanattainsalvation. Inclusivismacknowledges that,although it ispossiblefornonChristianstobesaved,Christisalwaysinvolvedin this soteriological process. The pluralist view regards religioustraditionsasdifferent,moreorlessequal,salvificpathstoultimate reality.Upuntil today,proponentsof thissoteriologicalapproachare involved inanongoingdebateon thequestionofwhichoneofthesemodelssucceeds informulatingthemost appropriate theological answer to the challenge of religiousplurality. Ido notwant to repeat thisdebate,but Idowant todrawattention to the fact that thisdiscussiondefinesopenness for the religiousotheror the lack thereof in soteriological terms (SchmidtLeukel2005:161).Hence, thedepiction
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
3/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 163
ofexclusivismasclosed,inclusivismashalfopen,andpluralismasopen.
In recent literatureonecannotean increasingdissatisfactionwiththetheologyofreligions.Thecriticismreadsthatthesoteriologicalapproachamountstoaperversionofthevirtueofopenness. The threefold typology asks Christian questionsandsuggestsChristiananswers.Consequently,ittendstodresstheotherreligioustraditionsinitsownterms:
eitheronebaptizestheotherreligionsandclaimsthatthey
areimplicit
versions
of
ones
own
or
one
develops
aphilo
sophical standpoint fromwhich one claims tobe able to
evaluateallthereligions.(Placher1989:144)
More often than not, these models are abstract designs,developedwithout reference toanyparticular religious tradetion other than theChristian (Clooney 1993: 194).Within theframeworkofsoteriologywhat thereligiousotherasserts,values,practices, andhopesdoesnot seem tobe of real import,andthevoicesofthosewhoarebeingdiscussedareabsentfromthe conversation (Fredericks 2002: 15).Many theologians feelthat the soteriological threefold scheme is both insulting
(Placher1989:
145)
and
patronizing
(Barnes
2002:
15):
the
reli
gious other is understood without being heard. The soteriologicalfixationiscontrarytohermeneuticalopenness.
Comparative theology presents itself as an alternative totheclassicsoteriologicalapproach,avoiding thehermeneuticalbiasesoftheclassicaltheologyofreligions.First,itmovesawayfrom apriori theological interpretation schemes thatdisregardtheselfunderstandingofreligioustraditions.Next,itrejectsthetheologicalassumptionofaglobal,metaperspectiveonreligionthat(implicitly)claimstoknowotherreligionsbetterthantheirownadherents,
whetheras
the
vain
products
of
human
presumption,
as
in
Barths exclusivism, as various expressions of anonymous
Christianity,asinRahnersinclusivism,orasvariousforms
ofRealitycenteredness,as inHickspluralism. (Nicholson
2009:619)
Rather,comparative theologyclaims thatcomprehension (hermeneutics)precedesjudgement.Third,itsetsouttounderstand
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
4/25
164 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
themeaningoftheChristiantraditionbyexploringitinlightoftheteachingsofotherreligioustraditions.
Likecomparativereligion,itsharestheintentionofunderstandingotherreligions in themostobjectiveand fairmindedmannerpossible.Itaimsatarticulatingaviableunderstandingofthe other inwhichtheencountered other isnotmanufactured to the comparativists prejudices and expectations(Clooney1993:7). Insteadofsolvingtheproblemofreligiousdiversitywithatheologicalmetanarrative,comparativetheo
logyaccepts
that
learning
from
the
other
entails
disturbing
ex
periencesofalienation,disenchantment,and friction (Clooney2001:165).Theother is theonewhodoesnot fit intoourpreconceptions andwho challengesus to leave the realm of theknown.Comparativetheologyisnotthedomainofgeneralistsbut ratherof thosewilling toengage indetailed study, tentativelyandover time (Clooney2001:164).Thisdetailedstudyentailsprimarilyaclosereadingofstrangereligioustexts.
Unlike comparative religion, comparative theology remainsa theologicalproject.Thedetailed studyofother traditionshappensbecauseofacommitmenttoGod.Inopeningup
to
the
religious
other
in
and
through
a
detailed
study
of
his
texts,oneachievesafullerknowledgeofGod(Clooney2001:7).Clooney emphasizes the unfinished nature of comparativetheology,notasfactbutinprinciple.Thetheologicalreflectionsthat follow fromdetailed comparisons can onlybe tentativeandshouldnotbetakenasprecludingwhatwillbelearnedinfurther experiments (Clooney 2001: 164). Comparative theology is an ongoing and neverending conversational process:particular comparisons yield particular insights, insights thatmightbe revised in the future under the influence of otherparticular comparisons. In thisway, comparative theology remainspresystematicandpredogmatic.Itdoesnothavethe
ambitionof
leading
up
to
adefinite
theology
of
religions
(Clooney 2008: 176). Thosewho are looking for clearcut answers to clearcutquestions are likely tobedisappointed, formany questions will be left open after indepth study untilmorecommentarialworkhasbeendone,bymoretheologians,over amuch longerperiod of time (Clooney 2008: 184).Theonlyacceptabletheologyofreligionswillbeaposteriori,constructedfromthegroundup.
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
5/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 165
ComparativeTheologyanditsSocalledIndebtednesstoPostliberalism
In his book Introducing Theologies of Religions, Paul Knittersituates comparative theologyunder theumbrella ofwhathecallstheacceptancemodel.ThismodelgrewupduringthelasttwodecadesofthetwentiethcenturybothasachildofitstimesandasareactiontotheinadequaciesofothermodelsforaChristiantheologyofreligions(Knitter2002:173).Insketchingtheprofileoftheacceptancemodel,Knitterclaimsthatitrelies
on
the
ground
breaking
and
foundation
laying
work
of
GeorgeLindbeck,whohas launched thismodel and soon attracted a wide following of other theologians and ordinaryChristianbelievers(Knitter2002:177).Knitterherebysuggeststhatcomparativetheology,thoughnotdependentonit,isindebtedtopostliberalismanditsculturallinguistictheoryofreligion. At the very least, it resonateswith postliberalismsgroundwork.
Although there are indeed certain resonances betweenpostliberalism and comparative theology,Knitters categorizationstrikesmeasunfortunate.Itdetractsfromthefreshnessof
thecomparative
theology
project.
Postliberalism
and
compara
tive theology share a deep concern for religious particularities;however,theirhermeneuticaloutlookandtheologicalassumptionsdifferfundamentally.Itisworthexploringtheirrelationfurther,sincethiswillallowustooutlinethenoveltyofthecomparativetheologyprojectfurther.
Underpinningpostliberalism isa theory thatunderstandsreligions tobe analogous to languages and cultures. For thisreason,Lindbeck,who first formulated this theoryof religion,talksaboutaculturallinguistictheoryofreligion.Religionisacomprehensive cultural and/or linguistic framework that en
ables
the
description
of
reality,
the
formulation
of
convictions,
andtheexperienceofreligiousfeelings.Eachreligionhasaspecificvocabulary,which isbothdiscursive andnondiscursive,aswellasagrammardetermininghowthatvocabularycanbemeaningfullyused(Lindbeck1984:33).Becomingreligiousisalongprocessofinteriorization,inwhichpeopleacquirethereligiouslanguageandlearntoperformthereligiouspracticesandrituals inanappropriateway.Onlywhenpeoplespeakareligiouslanguageandacquireparticularreligiousskillsdoesitbe
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
6/25
166 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
comepossibleforthemtohavecertainexperiences.Fromthisitfollowsthat
adherentsofdifferent religionsdonotdiversely thematize
thesameexperience,rathertheyhavedifferentexperiences.
Buddhistcompassion,ChristianloveandFrenchrevolu
tionaryfraternit are not diversemodifications of a single
humanawareness,emotion,attitude,orsentiment,butare
radically (i.e., from the root)distinctwaysofexperiencing
and being oriented toward self, neighbor, and cosmos.
(Lindbeck1984:
40)
Evenifreligionsemploythesamecategories,suchasGod,love,peace,orjustice, thesewordsmean somethingdifferent,preciselybecausetheyderivetheirmeaningfromtheparticularreligion inwhich they function. If there are similarities andcommonalities between the religions, then these are merelysuperficial (Lindbeck 1997: 433).Religions are incommensurable. Lindbeck also concludes that religions are incomparable,forthereexistsnocommon frameworkwithinwhichtocomparethem(Lindbeck1984:49).
The culturallinguisticmodel focuseson the interplaybe
tweendoctrinal
grammar
and
aspecific
vocabulary
from
which
aparticularfaithcommunitydrawsitsidentity.Tounderstanda religion,oneneeds tounderstand this interplay.Meaning isimmanent,derivedfromthewayaspecificlanguageisusedinaparticulartradition.TodeterminethemeaningofGod implies investigating theway it functions within the ChristianreligionandhowitshapesChristianrealityandexperience.Onlyby a detailed familiaritywith the imaginative universe inwhich acts are signs can one comprehend and describe themeaning of these acts for the adherents of a religion (Geertz1975:130).
In
addition
to
the
cultural
linguistic
model,
Lindbeck
de
velopsan intratextual theology. Intratextualitymeans thatonesetsouttoexplainandanayzetheworldoutsidethetextbywayofintratextualcategories.Lindbeckspeaksinthisperspectiveofthemetaphorofabsorption:
Itisthetextsotospeak,whichabsorbstheworld,ratherthan
theworldthetext.Ascripturalworld...isabletoabsorbthe
universe. It supplies the interpretive framework within
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
7/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 167
which believers seek to live their lives and understand
reality.(Lindbeck1984:118)
ForChristians, thismeans that theywillnot read theBible inlightofcontemporarychallenges,questions,orexperiencesbutwillreadcontemporarychallenges,questions,andexperiencesinlightoftheBible.Intratextualtheologyaffirms
first, that everyhumanly conceivable reality canbe trans
lated (or redescribed) in thebiblicaluniverseofdiscourse
with a gain rather than a loss of truth or significance,
whereas,second,
nothing
can
be
translated
out
of
this
idiom
intosomesupposedly independentcommunicative system
withoutperversion,diminutionorincoherenceofmeaning.
(Lindbeck1997:429)
Thetheologianismostlyconcernedwithintrasystematiccoherenceratherthanwithconnectingtotruthclaimsorexperiencesbeyondthedefinedbordersofhisculturallinguisticcommunity(Holland2006:75).
Toacertainextent,comparativetheologycouldagreewiththe central culturallinguistic thesis that meaning is immanent.Comparativetheologytoo,searchesforthemeaningofre
ligiousbeliefs
by
turning
to
their
concrete
embedding
(Stosch
2007:510).Onlybybecomingdeeplyandholisticallyengagedinatradition,doesitbecomepossibletounderstandandevaluateareligioustextofanother tradition.Learning the languageof another religious tradition isprerequisite tounderstandingstrange religious texts. Clooney also advocates reading religious texts alongwith their formal traditional commentaries,theirrelatedscripturesandinlightofnormativereligiouspractice.(Clooney1990:30).
AccordingtoClooney,however,thehistoryofreligionsisfarmessier thanLindbecksculturallinguisticmodelacknowl
edges.Lindbeck
tends
to
absolutize
the
differences
between
the
religions.Heseesreligionsasindependent,selfinterpretingincommensurablesemioticsystemsandpayspracticallynoattention to the overlaps and commonalitiesbetween thedifferentreligiouslanguages(Slater1995:69;Ruparell1995:62).Theoutcomeof the culturallinguistic theory isa reifiedviewof religion, leading to theundervaluationof interreligious theology.Over against a reifiednotionof religion,Clooney emphasizes
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
8/25
168 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
that ones religion changes in response to the encounterwithotherreligions.
Verylittleofimportanceincontentbelongssolelytoany
one theological traditionorevenonereligion,even ifsuch
conceptsand themes,asone conceives them inactual cir
cumstances, remaindeeply rooted in theparticularities of
specifictraditions.(Clooney2001:8)
Thehistoryofreligionsisahistoryofencounter,interaction,interrelation,synthesisandconflict,adaptationandrejection,exclusion
and
inclusion.
Whereas postliberalism claims that religions do nomorethan simply talkpast one another,Clooney is convinced thatreasoncanprovidea framework fordialogueamongreligioustraditions(Schmalz2003:135).
Thecommonfeaturesofhumanreasoningmakeitpossible
forbelievers inmanydifferent traditionsat least tounder
standoneanotherandpossibly toagreeon topics suchas
thenatureofGod, thepossibility thatGodmightbecome
embodied, and the idea that God speaks to humans in
particular words. If faith is articulated in reasonable
termsand
defended
reasonably,
then
that
reasoning
pro
videsasharedtheologicalground,andintelligentdisagree
mentsbecomepossibleinaninterreligiouscontext.(Cloon
ey2001:89)
Theology itself is a human and religious activity common tomanytraditions.
Thewaysofcomparativetheologyandpostliberalismpartontheprincipleofintratextuality,whichseemstoimplyasectariantendencyatoddswiththedialogicalattitudeofcomparativetheology.Thissectariantendencyrevealsitselfinthemetaphorofabsorptionespecially,whichLindbeckusestoillustrate
whathe
means
by
intratextuality.
[This metaphor] worryingly suggests a rather unilateral
process whereby the world has nothing to offer to the
Churchanddoesnotinanywaydisruptandchallengethe
narrative traditionsof theChurch, itsreadingandpractice
ofscripture.(DCosta2005:142).
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
9/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 169
The principle of intratextuality negates the potential creativepower and theological meaning of extratextual experiencesandinsights.ClooneyacceptsLindbeckspositionthat
ChristiansmustalwaysreadtheworldinChrist,finding
itsmeaninginhisdeathandresurrection,andmustinsome
wayventure theclaim that thismeaningpertains toevery
humanbeing as the single, allembracing horizon for hu
manexperience.(Clooney1990:38)
However,healsoemphasizes that thecomparative theologiantakes
on
avulnerable
and
open
posture:
strange
religious
texts
challengeand influenceChristiantexts.According toClooney,the nonChristian is not a problem tobe solved [intratextually], but rather a possibility that has been given to us(Clooney 1990: 38).Clearly,Clooney does not associate comparisonandencounterwiththepossibilityoflossofmeaningalthoughhedoesrecognizethispossibilityheemphasizesratherthecreativetheologicalpotentialityofencounteringthereligiousother.Hebelievesstronglyinthepossibilityofcrossfertilization and transformation through theological comparisonandexpresses thehope that comparative theologywillwiden
ourtheological
horizons
and
our
spiritual
outlook
(Stosch
2008:
512). Comparative theology entails a rereading of one theologicaltraditioninlightofanother.Thisrereadingconstitutesanewcreativecontextoutofwhichcreative theological insightscanemerge.Comparativetheologyisthuspicturedasacreativeexperimentaltheologicalprocessinwhichthedialoguepartnersaremutuallyenriched.Lindbecksdichotomybetweenthetext(Bible) and the world is overstated. Intratextuality and extratextuality arenot simplyopposed toone anotherbut creativelyandconstructivelyimplyoneanother(Goh2000:237).Inviewofthis,Iwouldwanttoarguethatcomparativetheology
is
actually
a
form
of
intertextual
theology.
TowardsaHermeneuticalFrameworkforComparativeTheology
Comparative theology is a hermeneutical enterprise aimed atunderstanding the otherness of the religious other.However,fundamentalideassuchasacreativeintertext,thetransformativepoweroftext,alienationandunsettlement,defamiliarization, imagination and reconstruction (Lambelin 2008: 67) are
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
10/25
170 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
notreflecteduponwithinamethodologicalframework.Clooneyactuallyadmitsthatheisnotthatinterestedintheories.Heeven seems to reconcilehimselfwith thepossibility thatwhatheandothersaredefactodoingisnotpossibletheoretically:
manypeoplethemselvesarealreadyengagedinclosermore
intensely configured exchanges to which settled meaning
cannotbe easily assigned or denied. Properly or not such
peoplehave crossed religiousboundaries so as to form af
fectiveattachments thatare intelligent, liable toaffirmation
andprovocative
of
changes
in
their
way
of
living.
This
af
fectiveconnectionrootedinpracticeisenormouslyimportant
andconvincing,evenifintheorythecomparativeprocessis
flawed, the learning incomplete, and the consequences il
logicalandunwarranted.(Clooney2005:36768)
Comparative theology attempts to shun frameworks andconstructs of interest of genuinedialogue (Hanson 2006: 89).Theories are treatedwith suspicion.Comparative theologiansdonotstandalonewith theirsuspicion.Since thepostmodernturn,relianceonfoundationalismhasbeenrefuted.Theideaisthatwe shouldnot stressnavigationasmuchas thejourney
itself(Stiver
2003:
170).
Clooney
is
afraid
that
lingering
too
long in theoreticaldiscussionswilldetract from real interreligioustheology.Consequently,thecomparativetheologyprojectlacks a clearly developed hermeneutical framework inwhichClooney laysout itsmethodologicalprinciples.Onecanat themost findhermeneuticalfingerprintsofvariousauthors,suchasFoucault, Iser, Tracy, Gadamer, etc. (Hanson 2006: 3). This,however,givesasomewhateclectic impression,whichstrengthens the critique of ambiguity levelled at comparative theology.Ifcomparative theology istosucceed inovercoming thiscritiqueamorestronglydevelopedhermeneuticalframeworkis
necessary.
In
a
time
of
transition
in
philosophy
and
in
a
time
of flux in theology, being clear about ones [hermeneutical]commitments and presuppositions continues tobe desirable(Stiver2003:175).
To thatend, Iwillelaborate furtheron someof thehermeneuticalpresuppositions (Hanson 2006: 3) of comparativetheologybyplacing themwithinRicoeurs textualhermeneutics. Thismay seem somewhat surprising after all,Clooneydoesnot refer toRicoeur, andRicoeurdidnot applyhisher
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
11/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 171
meneutics to the area of interreligious dialogue. However, Itend toagreewithJensMatternthat it isalwayspossiblethat,eventhoughanauthormaytreatthechallengeofreligiousandculturaldiversityonlymarginally,histhinkingcanneverthelessimplicitlycontainessentialfoundationsforanexplicitreflection(Mattern 2008: 13).As Iwill show,Ricoeurs textual hermeneutics entails such basic foundations.Many affinities existbetween the hermeneutical presuppositions of comparativetheology and Ricoeurs textual hermeneutics. Especially Ri
coeursemphasis
on
the
productive
notion
of
distanciation
for textual hermeneutics is of the utmost importance. Thisnotion not only opens up religious texts for interreligiousreadings,italsoexplainswhyRicoeur,likeClooney,doesnotregardstrangeencountersintermsofapotentiallossofmeaningbut as a catalyst to discover newmeanings that had notbeenpreviouslythoughtof.
LetmestartthisprocesswithaquotefromClooney:
Religiousliteratureaimsfortheaffectivetransformationof
the reader whopays attention to the clues available in the text.
Readattentively, the religiousclassicproducesand renders
legible
a
particular
instance
a
situation,
opportunity,
chal
lenge,etc. thatbegs forandprovokes interpretiveandaf
fective response thatenable the reader to fit intelligentlyand
affectively into the religious situation thathasbeenpresen
ted.Again,allofthisseemstruewhetherthereaderisamemberof
an intendedreligiousaudience,or isratheranoutsiderwhofinds
herorhiswaytothattraditionthroughtexts.(Clooney2005:307)
What isstrikinghere is (1) the fact thatstrange religious textscanbecomemeaningfulforthereader,whetherheisamemberoftheintendedaudienceoranoutsider;(2)religioustextsprovokeanaffectiveresponsefromthereader;(3)prerequisitefor
this
is
that
the
reader
finds
a
way
to
decode
the
internal
codes
ofthestrangetext.
CrossingBorders:TheSemanticAutonomyofTexts
Comparative theology rests on the assumption that it isbothpossibleandmeaningfultoreadstrangereligioustexts.Textualmeaningcancrossculturalandreligiousborders.Interestinglyenough,Clooneystatesthatcomparativetheologyentailsreadingtextsthatone isnotauthorizedtoread,therebyagainhigh
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
12/25
172 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
lighting the fact thatone isand remainsanoutsider (Schmalz2003:136).
Comparative theologysbasic faith in themeaningfulnessofcrossreligiousreadinggivesrisetoseveralquestions:Whatismeaning?Whodeterminestextualmeaning?Isittheauthor,thereader,thetext?Whatistheretobeunderstoodwhenreadingastrangetext?Whataretheprescriptionsforinterreligioushermeneutics(Christopher2009:409)?Whodeterminesifaninterpretation isacceptable:theauthor,thereader,orthetext it
self?These
questions
point
at
the
necessity
of
athoroughly
elaboratedtexttheory.InhiswellknownessayWhat isaText?Ricoeur set out to develop the groundwork of such a texttheory,answeringsomeofthequestionsformulatedabove.AlthoughRicoeurhasnotreflectedonhistexttheorywithrespectto interreligiousencounters, this text theory canground comparativetheologyasaviableproject.
Central toRicoeurs text theory iswhat theFrenchphilosopher calls the productivenotion ofdistanciation (Ricoeur1998b: 13144).Within the hermeneutical tradition, distanciationisnaturallyseenassomethingtobeovercome,ratherthan
as
something
positive,
let
alone
productive.
The
common
as
sumption is thatbecause texts are distanced fromus, fromour context, from our outlook, they are strange, and thisstrangeness shouldbe resolvedby removing thedistance.Ricoeur nuances this common assumptionby saying that Verfremdung isnot onlywhatunderstandingmust overcomebutalsowhat conditions it (Ricoeur 1998b: 140).As Iwill show,not only does this original line of thought open up religioustextsforinterreligiousreadings,italsoexplainswhyRicoeur,likeClooney,doesnotregardstrangeencounters intermsofapotentiallossofmeaningbutasacatalystfordiscoveringnewmeanings.
Ricoeuremphasizes
first
of
all
that
distanciation
or
Ver
fremdung isnot theproductofmethodologyandhence somethingsuperfluousandparasitical.Rather,itconstitutesthephenomenonofthetextasawrittenwork.Thereisathreefoldsemanticautonomy: inrelation totheauthors intention, inrelation to the economic, social, and cultural circumstances of itsproduction,andinrelationtoitsreceptionbyitsoriginalaudience(Ricoeur1998a:91).
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
13/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 173
First,writingrendersthetextautonomouswithrespecttothe intentionof theauthor (Ricoeur1998a:91):what the textsignifiesno longercoincideswithwhat theauthormeant.RicoeurisreactingheretoRomantichermeneutics(Schleiermacher),which claims that reading a strange text entails reading themindoftheauthor.Tounderstandthetextistounderstandtheintentionoftheauthor.Notonlyhasthehermeneuticaleffortoftryingtoreadthemindoftheauthorprovenunsuccessful,italsoseriouslylimitsthecreativepotentialoftexts.Clooneywould
agreewith
Ricoeur.
He
is
likewise
convinced
that
the
hermen
euticalfocusontheauthor
restricts texts by ordering them to a designated author,
whose intentionsdeterminewhat the texts are allowed to
mean.Authorsareused to confine the encompassing,un
bounded event of language within manageable limits.
(Clooney1987:675)
Clooney states that textualmeaning isnotdeterminedby theauthorbutratherbythetextitself.Thetextyieldsmeaning.Inthissenseithascertainautonomywithregardtoitsoriginalauthor.Themeaningofthetextactuallytranscendstheintentions
ofthe
author.
The
text
possesses
horizons
and
scopes
of
signif
icancewiderthanthosebelongingtoanygivensetofauthors(Clooney 1987: 675). Thanks to the process ofwriting,whatGadamercallsthematterofthetextmayexplode theworldoftheauthor(Ricoeur1998b:139).
Ricoeur not only reflects on the notion of distanciationwithregardtotheauthorsoriginalintentions.Thesemanticautonomyof the textalsoholds true for theoriginalsociologicalculturalandeconomicconditionsof theproductionofthe text(Ricoeur1998a:91).That iswhy thetextopens itself toanunlimited seriesof readings, themselves situated indifferent so
ciocultural
conditions.
The
process
of
distanciation
also
re
movestheaudienceaddressedfromtheoriginalhistoricalandsocialconditions.Textscancrossborders,regardlessofwhetherthelatterarehistorical,culturalorreligious.
Andlast,butnotleast,theemancipationfromauthorialintentionhasaparallelonthepartofthosewhoreceivethetext.Whereasinadialogicalsituation,thevisvisisdeterminedbythecontextofthediscourse,withregardtowrittentextstheaudienceisextendedtoanyonewhocanread.Atextisopentoan
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
14/25
174 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
indefinite number of readers and therefore of interpretation.The texthasauniversalrangeofaddressees (Ricoeur1998c:210). The opportunity formultiple readings is the dialecticalcounterpartofthesemanticautonomyofthetext.
Ricoeurremindsusthatdistanciationisnotsomethingweshouldregret.Onthecontrary,thankstotheprocessofdistanciation,thetextenterstherealmof interpretation.Theautonomoustextisnotahistoricalrelicoranarchaeologicalfossil,butalivingentitywithpotentialrelevanceforcontemporaryread
ers.Thanks
to
its
semantic
autonomy,
atext
can
be
decontext
ualized insuchawaythat itcanalsoberecontextualized.Themost important question is no longerwhat the text used tomeanbutwhatitmeanstoday(Ricoeur1995a:219).
Ricoeurstexttheorychallengestheideathatinsidersaretheonly truepossessorsof their tradition andhence theonlyones authorized to read and interpret their religious texts.Thankstothethreefoldprocessofdistanciation,astrangereligioustextcandiscloseitsmeaningtoattentivereaders,eveniftheydonotbelongtothecommunityforwhichthetextwasoriginallymeant. In view of interreligious hermeneutics, the
importance
of
the
distanciation
of
the
text
should
not
be
under
estimated.Itisactuallypreconditionaltoaninterreligioushermeneutics that presumes that one can also understand thatwhatone isnot, cannotbe,ordoesnotwant tobe (Mattern2008:71).Theprocessofdistanciationmakes strange textsaccessiblebeyondthebordersoftheircultural,religious,andhistorical community.With his notion of distanciation, Ricoeurcounters cultural and religious ethnocentrism and counters amerely intratextual hermeneutics.At the same time, comparativetheologysthrustinintertextualityisvalidated.
TransformationthroughReading
Accordingto
Clooney,
reading
strange
religious
texts
entails
thedisturbing experiences of alienation,disenchantment, andfriction (Clooney 2001: 165).Comparative theology highlightsthecreativepowertextshavetochallenge,interrupt,andtransform the reader.Close readinganddeep learningof religioustextshas imaginative and affective implications. Itoffersnewopportunitiesofunderstandingourselves.AsClooneyputs it,the real fruitsof comparative theologyare tobe found in the
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
15/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 175
living interconnections evenwhile reason isbusyponderingwhethersuchaffectiveexchangeacrossreligiousboundaries ispossibleatall (Clooney2005:389). In theend,deep learningthroughclosereadingopensupnewpossibilitiesofbeingintheworld, theoutcomeofwhich is thatones religious identity istransformed.That iswhy comparative theology is fundamentallyadynamicprocess,whichnotonlypresupposes that thereader is open to newmeaningsbut also that texts possesstransformativepower.
Whencethis
transformative
power
of
religious
texts?
How
can we understand the possibility of redescription throughreading?Comparativetheologyclaimsthattextshavethepower to refigure or transform the reader. But how does thistransformationtakeplace?Whencethepowerofreligioustextsto interruptwhat is familiar and to guide the reader into therealmofthepossible?
Thesearecrucialhermeneuticalquestions,whichagainareanswered through reflectingon theparticularnature of texts.Ricoeuraddressesthequestionofthetransformativepoweroftextsinhistexttheory.Hebelievesstronglyinthepowerofreligious texts to interrupt what is familiar and to guide thereader into the realm of the possible. It is one of the centraltenets of his hermeneutical philosophy. Ricoeur explains thistransformativepoweroftextsinthefollowingway.
Atextisfirstofallalinkinacommunicativechain.Oneoflifesexperiencesisbroughtto language;itbecomesdiscourse.Characteristic of any form ofdiscourse is its referential function: someone says something to someone about something.Discoursealways relates to an extralinguistic reality.Ricoeurdistinguishesbetween two forms of discourse: oral discourseandwrittendiscourse.
Inoraldiscoursetheproblemofreferenceisresolvedbythe
ostensivefunction
of
discourse,
in
other
words,
reference
is
determinedby theability topoint to a reality common to
interlocutors. Ifwe cannotpoint to the thingaboutwhich
wespeak,atleastwecansituateitinrelationtotheunique
spatiotemporalnetworkthat issharedbythe interlocutors.
(Ricoeur1998b:141)
Ricoeurconnectstheostensivefunctionofdiscoursebothwithdaily languageandwithscientificdiscourse,which isactually
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
16/25
176 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
inlinewithdaily,descriptivediscourse.Whatisreferredtobelongstotherealmofmanipulableobjects.Heretruthisunderstoodasempiricaltruth,assomethingthatisinprincipleverifiable.
Inwrittendiscourse,thereferentialfunction ismorecomplex than in oral discourse. There is no longer a commonsituationbetween thewriterand the reader.Andat the sametime,theconcreteconditionsfor theactofpointingsomethingoutnolongerexists(Ricoeur1995b:42).Thus,theostensivere
ferentialfunction
is
suspended
within
written
discourse.
A
literary textdoesnot refer to the immediate surroundingcontextas isthecase indialogue, forexample.Rather, itspeaksaboutpossibleworldsinwhichthereadercouldlive.Inwrittendiscourse, thepossibility arises of referring to aworld that isnotgivenintherealmofwhatisknownandfamiliar.Thesuspensionofostensivereferentialityopensthereadertotherealmofwhatisunknownandthestranger.ThatiswhyRicoeurwillneverspeakaboutthehiddenmeaningofthetext,i.e.hiddeninthemindofthewriterorinthestructureofthetext.Hepreferstheideaofmeaningdisclosureinfrontofthetext.Aliterarytext
has
the
capacity
of
unfolding
a
world
in
front
of
itself.
Ricoeur
callsthisthepoeticpowerofthetext.Heobjectstotheideathatreferentialdiscoursestopsatthe
thresholdofpoeticdiscourseorthatpoeticdiscourseonlyrefersto thedeepestandmostpersonal emotionsof the author.Althoughpoeticdiscoursedoesnotaddtoourknowledgeofobjects,thesuspensionofdescriptiveanddenotativediscourseistheconditionofpossibilityforthe
liberationofamoreoriginalreferentialfunction,whichmay
becalledsecondorderonlybecausediscoursethathasade
scriptive function has usurped the first rank in daily life,
assistedinthisrespectbyscience.(Ricoeur1995a:222)
Poeticdiscoursedoesnotrefertotheworldofmanipulableobjects;rather,itreferstothemanywayswebelongtotheworldbeforeweopposeourselvestothingsunderstoodasobjectsthatstandbeforeasubject.Heretruthisatstake,nottruthunderstood in termsofadequatio intellectusat rembut truthasmanifestation, in the sense of lettingbewhat shows itself.Whatshows itself is each time the proposing of aworld, aworldwherein I can project my own most possibilities (Ricoeur
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
17/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 177
1995a:223).Whatmustbe interpretedinatextispreciselythetype of beingintheworld unfolded in front of the text(Ricoeur1998b:141).Throughreadingtextsnewpossibilitiesofbeingintheworldareopenedup.Thus,textsnotonlyhavethepotentialtoexplodetheworldoftheauthor,theyalsohavethepotentialtoredescribetheworldofthereader.Everydayrealityis metamorphosed by what could be called the imaginativevariations(Ricoeur1995c).
Ricoeurstextualhermeneuticsbacksupcomparativetheo
logysclaim
that
reading
strange
religious
texts
can
be
enrich
ing.Ricoeurs textual hermeneutics explains how theworldscultural and religious classics canexpansively figure richandfullprojectionsofanotherwayofbeingintheworldthatliberateswhat isessentialby suggestingwhat ispossible.Readingstrangereligioustextsisanopportunitytoentertheworldofthe other and explore the possibilities they present.As such,theyhelpustoseeourselves,others,andoursituationsintermsofaworld thatwemight inhabit. In thisregard textshave thepowertorefigureandtransformtheworldofthereader.
ComparativeTheologyandtheHermeneuticalArc
Religiousliterature
aims
for
the
affective
transformation
of
the reader who pays attention to the clues available in the text(Clooney2005:307).Clooneyisconsciousofhowdemandingitis to understand and appropriate strange religious texts. Hepoints to the fact that readers have certain obligations to thestrange textandexpresses theseobligations inethical language.Thereaderistodojusticetothetextandtobewareofthehermeneuticalpitfallsofprojection.
Toavoidhineininterpretierung,understandingastrangetextimpliesaclosereading.Thecomparativetheologian
mustachieveacertaindistancefromherorhisownstarting
point,in
order
to
learn
from
another
tradition
by
under
standingitonitsownterms,andinawaythatcanneverbe
entirelypredicatedontheexpectationsofoneshometradi
tion,because it reformulates those expectations regarding
thehometradition.(Clooney1993:7)
Theappropriateattitudeofthereader isoneofsubmissionrather than somesortofconsumeristminingof texts in service of a preconceived agenda neglectful of the texts own
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
18/25
178 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
purposes (Clooney 2008: 8). The relation between text andreaderiscomparabletothatofateacherandhisstudent.Textseducatetheirstudents.Thereisaclearasymmetry.Forwhatatextmeansalwaysprecedes,exceeds,andeven supersedes itsreaders(Clooney2008:9).Understandingthetextimpliesacertainselfeffacementbeforethetext;patience,perseveranceandimagination (Clooney2008:13).Only thenwill itbepossibleforthereadertobedrawnintotheworldofthetext.
Comparativetheologyentailsahermeneuticalprocessthat
isquite
similar
to
Ricoeurs
well
known
theory
of
interpreta
tion. The latter consists of three phases, a first nave understanding, critical analysis, and appropriation, which Ricoeuralsocalls thehermeneuticalarc.Tounderstanda textrequirespassing through these three phases.The hermeneutical arc isdrivenby a dialecticbetween understanding and explaining:explainingmore tounderstandbetter.This, so it seems, isexactlywhat Clooneywould endorsewhen he says that closereadingleadstodeeplearning.
The firstphaseof thehermeneuticalarc isapreliminary,precriticalreading.Inthisphase,thereaderapproachesthetext
from
his
own
perspective.
Every
reader
is
always
first
and
fore
most someonewhose identity is formedby a linguistic tradition,aculturalcontext,ahistoricalbackgroundandareligiouscommitment.Everyreaderispartlydeterminedbyhiscultural,religious,historicalbackground.Theprocess of interpretationstarts from there.Every readerguesses at themeaningof thetext,basedontheassumptionofacommunityofmeaning.Ricoeuralsocallsthisanavereading:itisaninterpretationthatis contentwith the immediatemeaning that comes tomindwhenreadingthetextforthefirsttime.Itisreadingatextasifexegesisdoesnotexist.Here theeffectsofcultureandcontextarefullymanifested;theydeterminethespacewithinwhichthe
readermakes
the
text
his
text.
That a strange text appeals to the reader and that thereader can already understand something of it is due to thehorizonofthereader.However,thisfirstnaivereadingneedstobechecked,validated,and,ifneedbe,correctedtoprecludethereaderfromprojectinghisowncultural,religious,orhistoricalbackgroundintothetext.Agoodinterpreteravoidsreadinghisor her own presuppositions into the text.Understanding im
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
19/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 179
plies following the inner dynamic of a text. For thatRicoeurclaims thenecessityof a second criticalphase,whichhe callslexgsesavante,whichsetsouttoexplainthetextinamorescientificway.The scientific readingplaces the text at adistance(Ricoeur1993:28):itsgoalisobjectiveobservation.Criticalanalysistreatsthetextasastudyobjectinthehandsofthereader.Thelattercanmakeuseofseveralmethodstodecodetheworldof the text: the historicalcritical method, literary criticism,structuralism,evenpsychoanalysis.Whatevermethod isused,
criticalanalysis
anecessary
phase
in
the
hermeneutical
process.
Itallows the reader to transcenda superficialand toogeneralfirstreadingofastrangetexttoacloseanddeepreading.Understandingthemeaningofastrangetextdemandssuchaconfrontationwith the objectivityof the text.The alternative ismeresubjectivism:onereadswhatonewants.
Clooneywould agreewithRicoeur.What the latter callscriticalanalysisor exgse savante,Clooneycalls close reading.Clooney acknowledges that this close reading is a highlydemanding, intellectualprocess, requiring various critical skills,such as language learning, aswell as cultural, linguistic, andhistoricalstudies.Inthissense,thecriticalworkofcomparativetheologycanalsoberegardedasaformoftextualexegesisthatalsousesseveralcriticalmethods,suchasliterarycriticismandthehistoricalcriticalmethod (Schebera2003:15).Comparativetheologiansneedto
take seriously whole texts, notmerely select ideas or the
moreinterestingpartsoftexts;weneedtonoticethespecific
characteristicsof thewhole literarydocumentsbeforeus in
any given instance, genre,manner ofwriting, and the in
tentionsof theauthor (andredactor)are intrinsic toa texts
significance, inaddition toany thesesorconceptsproposed
inside the text. Strategies for the use of poetry, scriptural
citations,anecdotes,
allusion
to
divine
and
human
spiritual
exemplars, rebukes toopponentsandappeals to readers to
take the teaching to heart in practicalways these are all
substantivedimensionsofwhatwearereadingandwhat is
tobeunderstood,requiringofussomesimilarlycomplexre
sponse.(Clooney2008:6)
Without critical analysis, readerswould projectmeaning intothetextratherthantheotherwayaround.Closereadingisthe
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
20/25
180 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
way to deepermeaning. In this process of close reading, thereader fulfils the role of a commentator,highlighting the factthathispersonalandsubjectivecommitmentsarebracketed.
Critical analysis isbut one step in the process towardstransformation;itis,however,anecessarystep.Certainly,whenreligioustextsarereadacrossreligiousborders,thiscriticalanalysis and commentary proves its importance for theologianstrying tomake senseof the religiousother.However, readerswho regard thephaseof criticalanalysisas the finalhermen
euticalstage,
reduce
the
text
to
adead
body
to
be
dissected.
The
text loses itspotential tospeak, tochallenge, toyieldmeaningfor a current audience. Itbecomesmeaningless. After goingthrough thephaseofcriticalanalysis (explanation), the readerneedstoaskthequestion:Whatdoesthistextmeanformetoday?Thisquestion is central to the lastphaseof thehermeneuticalarc,namelythatofappropriation,whichactualizesthemeaningofthetextforthepresentreader(Ricoeur1998d:158).Appropriation is the ontological grounding of interpretation inlivedexperience.Onlywhenatextisappropriateddoesitrealize itspoeticpower to transform the reader.Nowheredoes
Ricoeur
state
this
more
clearly
than
in
the
following
passage:
ByappropriationIunderstandthis:thattheinterpretationofatext culminates in the selfinterpretation of a subject whothenceforth understands himself better, understands himselfdifferently or simplybegins to understand himself (Ricoeur1998d:158).Itisnotamatterofimposingourfinitecapacityforunderstandingonthetextbutofexposingustothetextandreceivingfrom itanenlargedself.Sounderstandingisquitedifferent from that inwhich the subjectpossesses thekey to theconstitution of the text. Rather, it seems that the reader isconstitutedbythetext.Ricoeurputsitasfollows:asareaderIfindmyselfbylosingmyself.Themovementtowardlistening
requiresgiving
up
(desaissement)
the
human
self
in
its
will
to
mastery, sufficiency, and autonomy (Ricoeur 1995a: 224).Ricoeuralsospeaksaboutladpossessiondusoinarcissique[thedispossession of the narcissistic self] (Ricoeur 1976: 94).Understandingmeans tounderstand oneself in front of the text.Or,asClooneywouldputit,beingtaughtbyastrangetextentailsundergoingaspiritualprocessthatchangesthereaderandperhapsrevealsGodinanunexpectedway.
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
21/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 181
Conclusion
Thepasthasnotonlytaughtushowappealingitistorelatetoaprojectedotherbutalsohowdevastatingformsofinterreligioushineininterpretierung can become. At the very least, they hypothecateinterreligiousdialogue.Inanoriginalandrefreshingway,comparative theology setsout toovercome thisproblemby addressing the religious other asOther. It distances itselffrom thesoteriologicalfixationoftheclassicthreefoldscheme:exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism.Over against aprioritheological
generalizations,
comparative
theology
places
ade
tailedstudyofthereligioustextsofotherreligions.Moreover,itisconvincedthatthesetextshavethepowertochallenge,interrupt,andtransformoutsiderswhoundertakeaclosereadingof these texts. In thisway, comparative theology dissociatesitselffromthepostliberalprincipleofintratextuality.Comparative theology emphasizes the reflective practice of beingeducatedanewthroughanewcombinationofmaterials,drawnfrommore than one traditionwhich are then tobe read together,inaprocesswhich(gradually)fashionsanewliteracy(Clooney1993:19899).
However,the
originality
of
the
comparative
theology
pro
jectisthreatenedbyitslackofascientificframework.Clooneyssuspicion of theories does not help to take away the aura ofambiguitysurroundingcomparativetheology.Manyofitshermeneutical presuppositions need further elaboration. In thiscontribution I have argued that comparative theologians canfind an ally in Ricoeurs textual hermeneutics. I have highlightedseveralresonancesbetweenthehermeneuticalassumptionsof comparative theologyon theonehand andRicoeurshermeneuticalphilosophyon theother.Ricoeurcanprovideahermeneuticalframeworkforthecomparativetheologyproject,
thereby
giving
the
latter
more
credibility.
This
contribution
shouldbereadasafirststepinthedevelopmentofamoresystematic hermeneutical framework for comparative theology.Moreworkinthisdirectionisneeded.
Bibliography
Barnes,M. (2002).Theology and theDialogue ofReligions.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
22/25
182 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
Christopher,D.(2009).InterreligiousReadingandSelfDefinitionfor
Raimon Panikkar and Francis Clooney. Journal of Ecumenical
Studies44:40931.
Clooney,FrancisX.SJ.(2008).TheTruth,theWayandtheLife:Christian
Commentary on the Three HolyMantras of the Srivaisnava Hindus.
ChristianCommentariesonNonChristianSacredTexts.Louvain:
Peeters
(2006).FrancisXavier,and theWorldWe (DontQuite)Share.
In: Francis X. Clooney SJ (ed.). Jesuit Postmodern: Scholarship,
Vocation,and
Identity
in
the
21st
Century.
Oxford:
Lexington
Books.
Pp.15780.
(2005). PassionateComparison: The Intensification ofAffect in
Interreligious Reading of Hindu and Christian Texts. Harvard
TheologicalReview98:370.
(2001).HinduGod,ChristianGod:HowReasonHelpsBreakDownthe
BarriersbetweenReligions.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
(1996).SeeingthroughTexts:DoingTheologyamongtheSrivaisnavas
ofSouthIndia.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
(1995). Current Theology:Comparative Theology: aReview of
RecentBooks(19891995).TheologicalStudies56:52150.
(1993).
Theology
after
Vedanta:
An
Experiment
in
Comparative
Theo
logy.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
(1990).WhentheReligionsBecomeContext.TheologyToday47:
3038.
(1987). Why the Veda has no Author: Language as Ritual in
EarlyMimamsaandPostmodernTheology.Journalof theAmer
icanAcademyofReligion55:65984.
DCosta,G. (2005).Theology in thePublicSquare:Church,Academyand
Nation.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.
Dupuis,J. (1997). Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism.
NewYork:OrbisBooks.
Fredericks, J. (2002). Buddhists and Christians: Through Comparative
Theologyto
Solidarity.
New
York:
Orbis.
(1995).AUniversalReligiousExperience:ComparativeTheology
asanAlternativetoaTheologyofReligions.Horizons22:6787.
Garcia,L.M. (2008). OnPaulRicoeur and theTranslation Interpre
tationofCulture.ThesisEleven94:7287.
Goh,J.K.(2000).ChristianTraditionToday:APostliberalVisionofChurch
and Word. Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs 28.
Louvain:Peeters.
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
23/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 183
Hanson,R.(2006).TheHermeneuticsofComparativeTheology.Paper
presented at the Engaging Particularities Conference, 2006;
BostonCollege.
Holland,S. (2006).HowDoStoriesSaveUs?AnEssayon theQuestion
with theTheologicalHermeneuticsofDavidTracy inView.Louvain:
Peeters.
Knitter,P.F.(2002).IntroducingTheologiesofReligions.Maryknoll:Orbis
Books.
Lambelin,J. (2008).AnsweringDiscursiveDestiny: IntegratingCul
turaland
Religious
Diversity
in
Theological
Method.
Intercultural
andComparativeTheologyasPossibilities forFraming Interreli
giousDialogue?Ph.D.Dissertation,FacultyofTheology,Catholic
UniversityLouvain.
Lindbeck,G.A. (1997). TheGospelsUniqueness: Election andUn
translatability.ModernTheology13:42350.
(1984).TheNatureofDoctrine:ReligionandTheologyinaPostliberal
Age.Philadelphia:WestminsterPress.
Mattern,J. (2008).Zwischen kulturellerSymbolik andallgemeinerWahr
heit. Paul Ricoeur interkulturell gelesen. Nordhausen: Traugott
Bautz.
Merrigan,T.(1999).ForUsandforOurSalvation:TheNotionofSal
vationHistoryintheContemporaryTheologyofReligions.Irish
TheologicalQuarterly64:33948.
Mudge,L.S.(1980).PaulRicoeuronBiblicalInterpretation.In:L.S.
Mudge (ed.). Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: For
tress.Pp.140.
Nicholson,H. (2009). Reunification ofTheology andComparison.
JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion77:60946.
(2007).ComparativeTheologyafterLiberalism.ModernTheology
23:22951.
(2005).ACorrelationalModelofComparativeTheology.Journal
ofReligion85:191213.
Pellauer,D.
(1990).
Narrative
Identity
and
Religious
Identity.
In:
R.
DetweilerandW.G.Doty(eds.).TheDaemonicImagination:Biblical
TextandSecularStory.Atlanta:ScholarsPress.
Placher,W.(1989).UnapologeticTheology:AChristianVoice inaPlural
isticConversation.Louisville:JohnKnoxPress.
Ricoeur,P. (2006).OnTranslation.Thinking inAction.Oxford:Rout
ledge.
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
24/25
184 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE
(1998a).HermeneuticsandCritiqueofIdeology.In:P.Ricoeur.
Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language,Action
and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.
61100.
(1998b).TheHermeneuticalFunctionofDistanciation.In:P.Ri
coeur. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language,
ActionandInterpretation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Pp.13144.
(1998c).TheModeloftheText.In:P.Ricoeur.Hermeneuticsand
theHuman
Sciences:
Essays
on
Language,
Action
and
Interpretation.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Pp.197222.
(1998d) What is aText? Explanation andUnderstanding. InP.
Ricoeur,HermeneuticsandtheHumanSciences:EssaysonLanguage,Action and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Pp.14564.
(1996). Reflections on aNewEthos for Europe. In:R.Kearney
(ed.).PaulRicoeur:TheHermeneuticsofAction.London:Sage.Pp.3
13.
(1995a). NamingGod. In:P.Ricoeur. Figuring theSacred:Reli
gion, Narrative and Imagination.Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Pp.
217
36.
(1995b). Philosophy and Religious Language. In: P. Ricoeur.
Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative and Imagination.Minnea
polis:FortressPress.Pp.3547.
(1993) Hermneutique:Les finalitsde lexgsebiblique. In:
D.BourgandA.Lion(eds.).Labibleenphilosophie:Approchescon
temporaines.Paris:EditionsduCerf.Pp.2851.
(1976).InterpretationTheory:DiscourseandtheSurplusofMeaning.
FortWorth:TexasChristianUniversityPress.
(1971).Esquissede conclusion. In:X.LeonDufour (ed.).Ex
gseethermneutique.Paris:Seuil.Pp.28595.
Ruparell,S.T.(1995).AMethodologyforInterreligiousTheologizing:
Towardan
Interstitial
Theology.
ARC:
The
Journal
of
the
Faculty
of
ReligiousStudies23:5874.
Schebera,R.(2003).ComparativeTheology:ANewMethodofInter
religiousDialogue.DialogueandAlliance17:718.
Schmalz,M.(2003).TraditionandTransgressionintheComparative
TheologyofFrancisX.Clooney.ReligiousStudiesReview29:130
36.
7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework
25/25
INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 185
SchmidtLeukel,P.(2005).GottohneGrenzen:Einechristlicheundplural
istische Theologie der Religionen. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlags
haus.
Slater,P.(1995).Lindbeck,HickandtheNatureofReligiousTruth.
StudiesinReligion24:5775.
Stiver,D. (2003). TheologicalMethod. In:J.Vanhoozer (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology. Cambridge: Cam
bridgeUniversityPress.Pp.17085.
Stosch,K.von.(2007).ComparativeTheologyasanAlternativetothe
Theologyof
Religions.
In:
N. Hintersteiner
(ed.).
Naming
and
ThinkingGod inEuropeToday.CurrentsofEncounter32.Amster
dam:Rodopi.Pp.50712.
Tracy,D.(1987).ComparativeTheology.EncyclopediaofReligion.Vol.
14.NewYork:Macmillan.Pp.44655.
Wilhem,J.E. (2004). Hermneutique et traduction: La question de
lappropriationoulerapportdupropreltranger.Meta49:
76876.
Recommended