A Constructive Vision of Christian Comparative Theology

Introduction

The traditional theology of religions in the form of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism
has serious limitations in terms of acknowledging the religious diversity in the human
societies. The “imperialistic” notion of exclusivism, or the “condescension” of inclusivism
that claims to know other religions better than their adherents and the “totalizing” pluralism
that levels all differences between religions and thus negating their particularity, has only
allowed Christians believers to escape their responsibility to deal with religious diversity. In a
context like that India, where Christians are minority, an alternative approach that takes
religious diversity seriously and also that can facilitate interfaith dialogue has to be identified.
In this search, I am proposing the “comparative theology” method as a viable alternative that
takes religious diversity seriously and also enables fostering inter-religious harmony and
crosslearnings. In this paper will evaluate the comparative theology model as proposed by
Francis Clooney and Frederick James and then proceed to construct a “didactic-apologia”
model.

What is Comparative Theology

Before we proceed, we need to define the contours of comparative theology. Clooney defines
comparative theology as the act of “faith seeking understanding” that allows an individual to
root herself in one’s home tradition while venturing to learn from one or more other
traditions. Frederick identifies this as a “correlative study” that studies other texts, traditions,
practices, and dialogue with its practitioners to facilitate further correlation with one’s own
tradition. John Thattamnil, an Indian-American theologian notes that comparative theology as
a new advancement in the theology of religions can facilitate inter-faith learning and
communion. As comparative theology is seeking to nudge a theologian to seek resources
beyond one’s own tradition, by venturing into another tradition for crosslearning purposes, it
will eventually clear prejudices against another religion while allowing the theologian to
appreciate one’s own tradition. I believe such comparative theology approach can facilitate
India-Christians to engage Hindu religious texts, traditions and practices and foster concord
between the religious communities.

Facets of Comparative Theology

Comparative theology has several features that distinguish it from other interreligious
approaches. But, in my opinion, two of the facets of comparative theology are vital. One is its
explicit “autobiographical” nature and the other is its unambiguously “confessional” aspect.

Autobiographical Nature

Every theologian is located in one’s national, racial, class, gendered context and this
context defines the theological, epistemological priorities of that individual. Comparative
theology acknowledges this fact as it emerges from such contextual constructions and hence
allows one to identify oneself in such particularities. This allows the theologian to have
reasonable defense for one’s preferences and articulations. Clooney also identifies himself as
an “Irish-American Catholic, belonging to the Society of Jesus community, who started
learning Sanskrit and Hindu religious literature as a Catholic Christian. This autobiographical
account situates Clooney in his particularity and gives legitimation for this conceptions.
 David Muthukumar S.

I also would like to identify myself so that my situatedness will define and clarify my
preferences and articulations. I am a Indian Christian who accepted Christ from a Hindu
background in my early teens. Thus, my entire childhood was spent as a practicing Hindu and
my conversion to Christianity was a gradual intellectual process as I was fascinated by the
Christian notion of Incarnation as God coming down to earth in search of humanity. This
realization struck a nerve in me and as I learnt and reflected on it, I came to adopt
Christianity as my religion. My approach to comparative theology, in terms of selecting the
other religious partner, the texts and reflections will be defined by this autobiographical
account.

Confessional Aspect

Both Clooney and Fredericks acknowledge the confessional nature of comparative

theology. They identify the Anselmian fides quarens intellectum as the starting point of
comparative theology that roots the individual within the confessional settings. Fredericks
also notes that comparative theology as a correlational study allows the theologian to proceed
from one’s confessional starting point to enter in to another religious tradition. This
confessional aspect sets comparative theology from comparative religions approaches, that
claim to have a disinterested study of other religions. Clooney also affirms the “spiritual
nature” of such confessionally oriented comparative theology.

Now, having sketched the basic outline of a comparative theological method, let us proceed
to construct a “didactic-apologia” method, that uses the comparative theology framework to
learn and reflect on one’s cross-religious ventures. It is didactive because comparative
theology has the potential to learn from the parallels across religious boundaries and also it is
apologetic, because one is provided with additional resources to defend and coherently
present one’s faith as a result of this crosslearning.

Didactic Dimension

Clooney and Frederick adequately emphasize the intention of learning in the comparative
theological enterprise. They note that as we commit to seriously learn the other religious text,
traditions and dialogue with the practitioner of that religious tradition, we will overcome our
prejudices and finally able to identify ourselves in our hidden dimensions. This is an
important aspect of the comparative reading.

Apologetic Dimension

Also important is the apologetic dimension of the comparative theology. It not only
challenges us to revise our tradition, it also demands that we articulate our faith coherently in
the light of the new learnings. Both Clooney and Frederick acknowledges this apologetic
dimension of comparative theology. But as Nicholson notes, the apologetic dimension in
Clooney and Frederick’s presentation is dormant. Rather, Clooney advocates that we should
anticipate a “tentativeness” in terms arriving at conclusions in our comparative reading. He
also points to a “marginality” of the theologian as she enters into another religious tradition
she will soon find herself moved to the border between the two religions and possibly seek a
“multiple-religious belonging.”
This will be problematic notion for me as an Indian-Christian who has accepted
Christianity from Hindu milieu. Any such notions of liminality will signal an identity crisis
and tentativeness cannot be maintained. Nicholson also notes that the tentativeness proposed
 David Muthukumar S.

by Clooney is postponing the inevitable as the impossible balancing of the “irreconcilable

differences” will denote either a compromise to the commitment to one’s home tradition or
overtly acceding to the “openness” to the other religion. This tentativeness has to be
overcome if comparative theology has to be applied in the Indian interfaith context.
I am proposing the “didactic-apologia” model that balances this “irreconcilable
differences” by not postponing them but by taking them head-on. What I am prosing is that
while we seek to identify the parallel dimensions between the religious traditions we should
also be open to the possibility of encountering “cognitive dissonances” as George Lindbeck
has claimed that some religious concepts are “untranslatable” between religious traditions.
With this awareness of encountering “irreconcilable differences” we should enter into the
other religious tradition. While we seek to learn from the parallels we should also
acknowledge such instances of “cognitive dissonances”. And when we return back to our
home tradition while we seek to reevaluate our home traditions based on the crosslearning,
we should also meet instances of such dissonances head-on. This awareness of differences
can provide us the “contrasting principle” to coherently present our faith. For example, a
study on the reincarnation in Hinduism using a Hindu religious text and then a reflection on
Christian conception of resurrection can enable us to present more forcefully and
convincingly. But, the crosslearnings should be done only on the merit of the other religious
tradition and we should not read polemically.

Conclusion

Comparative theology, as it takes other religions seriously by seeking to learn from

their texts, traditions, and dialogue provides a viable alternative to interfaith dialogue,
especially in the context of India. As we saw, comparative theology has these two powerful
facets of unapologetically autobiographical and confessional nature. This allows the
theologian to stay faithful to one’s tradition. While we saw Clooney and Frederick’s proposal
adequately presents the didactic element across religious traditions through the parallel
dimensions in the text and the religious phenomena, it is proposing a “tentativeness” to avoid
the tension between openness and commitment. But, we saw this will not meet our
requirement and hence we constructed a “didactic-apologia” model that seeks to learn and
also takes advantage of the “cognitive dimensions” by using it to enhance one’s own
understanding and presentation of the home tradition. Such a comparative theology can
provide a better platform for Indian interfaith relations.