The Uniqueness of Christ in A Post-Plural

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/331843372
The Uniqueness of Christ in a Post-Plural
Book · January 2014
CITATIONS READS
0 469
1 author:
David Muthukumar S.
South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies
24 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Theological Hermeneutics View project
Theological Epistemology View project
All content following this page was uploaded by David Muthukumar S. on 18 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

i
The Uniqueness of Christ

in a
Post-plural World
ii “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD iii
The Uniqueness of Christ

in a
Post-plural World
David Muthukumar S.
2014
iv “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD v
“The Uniqueness of Christ” in a Post-plural World—Published

by the Rev. Dr. Ashish Amos of Indian Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge (ISPCK), Post Box 1585, 1654 Madarsa Road,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
© Author, 2014
To
my pemmy and my mom
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior permission
in writing from the publisher.
The views expressed in the book are those of the author and the publisher takes
no responsibility for any of the statements.
ISBN: 978-81-8465-355-7
Laser typeset by ISPCK, Post Box 1585,

1654 Madarsa Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006
Tel: 23866322, 23866323
e-mail–ashish@ispck.org.in • ella@ispck.org.in
website-www.ispck.org.
Printed at Cambridge Press, Delhi.
Contents
Dedication ... V
Preface ... ix
Prologue ... xix
Abbreviations ... xxv
CHAPTER 1
Parity of Religions:
Cultural-Linguistic Conception ... 1
CHAPTER 2
Particularity of a Religion:
“Final Primacy of Christ” Criterion ... 27
CHAPTER 3
Comparative Dialogue:
Indian Interfaith Commitment ... 61
Epilogue ... 82
Bibliography ... 87
Preface
I
n a globalized world, the tension mounting between
the expressions of plurality and particularity is palpable.
With the onset of relativism as the norm for the
postmodern communities, pluralism is espoused as the
highest ideal in all spheres of human life. Also, the once
distinct spheres of culture, religion and nationality are under
constant attack from the ramifications of globalization, as
the boundaries are blurred and the world is increasingly
becoming the proverbial “melting-pot”. The ethical, cultural
and religious values are relativized, and any claim to
exclusivity is treated with disdain. However, on the other
side, individual cultures, religions and rising nationalistic
feelings are on a warpath, to preserve their individual identity.
Innumerable racial, cultural, religious and economic conflicts,
happening around the world are signs of this escalating
tension between relativizing pluralization and the struggle
for particularity.
In India, Hindu nationalistic feelings are on the rise and
other religions, particularly Christianity and Islam are
x “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD PREFACE xi
suspiciously looked upon as anti-national. Globalization overlooked.1 The underlying rationale is that Christ’s
induced “de-culturalization” or the hegemonic “mono- particularity is perceived to be an “imperialistic” imposition
culturalization” is perceived as a Western ploy to destabilize on other faiths and hence has to be entirely discarded.
the Hindu cultural heritage. Unfortunately, the association However, for many Indian Christians, such particular faith
of Christianity with the West creates a feeling of distrust claims are central to their understanding of Christian faith.
against Indian Christianity. Though only a minority section It is the opinion of the author that discarding these unique
among the Hindus fully subscribes to such notions, the faith claims that are characteristic of Christian faith
feelings of wariness are widespread among the majority expressions may not create the intended cordiality between
religious community. The author’s personal experience while religions; rather, the tension between such relativization and
working with a Christian NGO in the Northern parts of particularity will prove self-defeating.
India attests to this fact. At several places, the author had This thesis will explore this problem in terms of post-
to experience unwelcoming attitudes from the locals, because liberal/post-pluralist methodologies that make use of a
of his “Christian” identity. This thesis is a part of the cultural-linguistic approach. The cultural-linguistic approach
intellectual reflections of the author, in the face of this attempts to overcome this predicament by retaining the
prejudice against Indian Christianity among the majority traditional claims of a given religion within a multi-faith/
religious community. multi-confessional context by using linguistic categories.2
Within the Indian milieu, Christianity exists in a pluralistic Cultural-linguistic models perceive all religious expression
context. The issue of interfaith relationships, that is, dialogue to be constituted by cultural and linguistic factors, such that
with neighboring faiths, is fundamental to Indian Christian each religion is a linguistic/semiotic system defined by its
self-understanding. However, current Indian interfaith internal grammar and rules of expression, thereby conceding
exchanges that are aimed toward establishing cordiality a possibility for holding on to the particular claims of a
between Christianity and other religions are dominated by religion within each religious system. George Sumner, an
methodological approaches that tend to downplay the Anglican Missiologist, who uses George Lindbeck’s cultural-
particularity of Christ. The pluralistic methodologies linguistic model, coined the phrase “post-pluralist approach”.
currently employed within contemporary Indian Christian Sumner develops his proposal as a response to pluralism by
theology tend to downplay the particularity of Christ – formulating this post-plural methodology, which is an
“Theo-centricity” is substituted for Christology – and hence offshoot of Lindbeck’s Postliberal theology. Sumner tries
the claims concerning Christ’s uniqueness, as expressed in to establish Scripture as a “master template” for the rule of
the traditional theological and doctrinal formulations, are “final primacy”; defining the “final primacy of Christ” as
xii “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD PREFACE xiii
the unchanging grammar of the Christian religious/linguistic considered. A full-fledged Christology is beyond the scope
system.3 In other words, the “final primacy of Christ” of this thesis. The concepts of “Hybridity” and “Third
signifies the traditional faith claims made for the person Space” in cultural-linguistic categories will be used to evaluate
and work of Christ as revealed in the Scripture and which and identity a viable model for interfaith dialogue.4This thesis
constitutes the core of Christian faith system. Thus, the will employ them to explore the possibility of a creative
distinctiveness of Christianity is centered on this final interaction between faith communities. If “the final primacy
primacy as particularity, and hence needs to be preserved. of Christ” can be preserved while exploring the possibility
Sumner’s concepts of “post-plural” and “final primacy of of engaging neighboring faiths in a non-imperialistic manner,
Christ” are employed in this thesis with necessary it will ensure that other religions’ unique claims can also be
qualifications. This application will be expanded further, to preserved in their interactions with Christianity. Toward this
locate a methodology that retains the particular claims for aim, Francis Clooney’s comparative dialogue between Advaita
Christ, while yielding due space to neighboring faith’s Vedanta and Thomas Aquinas’ Passion of Christ will be
particular claims within interfaith dialogue. considered.
This research is only an attempt to identify a viable I. Definition of Key Terms
method that will acknowledge the religious plurality as well
1. Particularity
as the particular claims within individual religious system. It
Particularity refers to the unique claims of a religion –
aims to provide a basic framework for interfaith interaction
theological, doctrinal formulations - that could be either
while retaining the particular claims of participating religions.
complimentary or contradictory to other religious claims.5
This thesis intends to build on Lindbeck’s cultural-
linguistic model, using it as a general framework for moving 2. Plurality
toward a positive Indian Christian response to religious Plurality refers to the existence of multiple religious systems
plurality. Lindbeck’s discussion of Wittgenstein’s “language with their competing truth claims in the contemporary world
games,” which allows the possibility of identifying religions that need to be acknowledged and addressed for a
as self-consistent linguistic systems will be explored. Also, harmonious coexistence.6
the concept of “final primacy of Christ” (term borrowed
3. Final Primacy of Christ
from George Sumner) will be defined afresh and affirmed
Sumner defines the final primacy as a kind of “deep structure
using Hans Frei’s narrative reading of the Scripture. Only
beneath a variety of competing and often conflicting claims”
the aspect of “the final primacy of Christ” as the central
of theological reflections within Christianity.7 It is a “pattern”
affirmation for coherent Christian faith expression will be
that is common to all Christian theological reflections despite
xiv “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD PREFACE xv
the variety of expressions. The final primacy of Christ 6. Hybridity and Third Space
essentially signifies the traditional faith claims made for the Homi Bhabha is acknowledged as the authority on
person and work of Christ as revealed in the Scripture and “hybridity” and “third space” categories.9He has developed
hence constitutes the core of the Christian faith system. his concept of hybridity from literary and cultural theory to
describe the construction of culture and identity within
4. Cultural-Linguistic Model
conditions of colonial antagonism and inequity.10For Bhabha,
Lindbeck defines the cultural-linguistic model as “an outlook
hybridity is the process by which “the colonial governing
that stresses the degree to which human experience (religious
authority undertakes to translate the identity of the colonized
experience) is shaped, molded and in a sense constituted by
(the Other) within a singular universal framework, but then
cultural and linguistic terms.”8 The cultural-linguistic method
fails to produce something familiar but new.”11Bhabha
accommodates varied religious expressions and their
contends that a new hybrid identity emerges from the
competing faith claims by conceiving them as languages
interweaving of elements of the colonizer and colonized,
that coexist and interact with each other. The analogue of
challenging the “validity and authenticity of any essentialist
linguistic/semiotic systems allows religions to be defined in
cultural identity”.12Bhabha then posits hybridity as a form
their multiplicity while also emphasizing their distinctiveness.
of “liminal or in-between space”, where the “cutting edge
5. Post-pluralist Method of translation and negotiation” occurs, and he terms this
George Sumner derives the Post-pluralist method from the threshold space ‘the third space’.13Bhabha hopes that it is in
cultural-linguistic model of George Linkbeck’s Post-liberal this space “that we will find those words with which we can
theology. Sumner attempts to answer the challenges of speak of Ourselves and Others. And by exploring this ‘Third
pluralistic understanding that denies the possibility of unique Space’, we may elude the politics of polarity and emerge as
Christian witness in a missional context. The author is the others of ourselves”.14 These hybridity and third space
borrowing this “post-pluralist” idea to use it in the Indian concepts that are used to explain the interchanges between
context that incorporates the cultural-linguistic concepts of cultures and languages will be employed in this thesis, in an
postliberalism, to define religions as linguistic/semiotic ad hoc manner to evaluate and understand the interactions
systems with their internal grammars and hence the between diverse religions. Third space provides the ideal
possibility of their inter-dialogue on the pattern of inter- platform where religions as linguistic/semiotic system can
linguistic/cultural transactions. come together for mutual exchanges without the danger of
imperialism while retaining their unique claims to facilitate
a fructifying dialogue.
xvi “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD PREFACE xvii
Endnotes 8
George A. Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a
1
Samartha warned about the “exclusive claims that seek to suppress Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 34.
plurality”. See Stanley J. Samartha, One Christ, many religions: toward a 9
Though HomiBhaba has conceptualized these categories in terms
revised Christology (Orbis Books, 1991) p. 6. of post-colonial reflections, “hybridity” and “third space” are widely
2
Cultural-linguistic approach emphasizes the way in which human used in other fields, especially in the linguistic field. This thesis uses
experiences, including religious experiences are”shaped, molded and such an application in the context of interfaith dialogue. Also, Kate
in a sense constituted by cultural and linguistic factors”. See George Crehen argues that hybridity is active in almost all forms of human
A. Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age contact. See Kate Crehan, Gramsci, Culture and Anthropology, (Berkeley:
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984, pp.1-35. University of California Press:2002)
3
See George R.Sumner, The First and the Last: the claim of Jesus Christ 10
Meredith, “Hybridity in the Third Space,” 2.
and the claims of other religious traditions, (New York Wm. B. Eerdmans 11
Meredith, “Hybridity in the Third Space,” 2 citing Papastergiadis,
Publishing, 2004), pp. 2-35. N. (1997).Tracing Hybridity in Theory. Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-
4
Bhabha defines hybridity as a form of “liminal or in-between Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism.Werbner, P. &Modood.,
space”, where the diverse cultures interact to create a new hybrid T. London, Zed Books: 257-281.
identity; this threshold space, where the translation and negotiation 12
Meredith, “Hybridity in the Third Space,” 2.
between cultures occurs, is termed as”third space.” (Homi K. Bhabha, 13
Meredith, “Hybridity in the Third Space,” 2 citing Rutherford, J.
Location of culture (Abingdon: Routledge, 1994)Hybridity is a concept
(1990).The Third Space: Interview with HomiBhabha. Identity, Community,
being used in the cultural and linguistic fields as a means of locating
Culture, Difference. J. Rutherford. (London: Lawrence and Wishart,
a “third space” for dialogical interaction. See Paul Meredith, “Hybridity
1990), 207-221.
in the Third Space:Rethinking Bi-cultural Politics in Aotearoa/New
Zealand” (presented at the TeOruRangahau Maori Research and
14
Elizabeth Laragy, Imperial Archive: Key Concepts in Postcolonial Studies,
Development Conference, Massey University, July 7, 1998), 2, online: citing BillAshcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin. Eds. The Post-
http://lianz.waikato.ac.nz/PAPERS/paul/hybridity.pdf. (accessed on 07/ Colonial Reader. London: Routledge, 1995. p. 183, http://www.qub.ac.uk/
11/2011). schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/key-concepts/Hybridity.htm accessed on 01/
10/2010.
5
This definition is my own; however, it reflects a general
understanding within theology. See R. Rashkover, “The Scandal of
Particularity”,CrossCurrents59: 4 2009)100–103;R. M.Catalano,
“Reclaiming Particularity: Reflections on “Reclaiming the Center: A
Jewish–Christian Conversation”. CrossCurrents, (59: 3, 2009) 118–122.
6
See Peter A. Lillback, “Pluralism, postmodernity, and religious
liberty: the abiding necessity of free speech and religious convictions
in the public square,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44, no. 1 (December
1, 2009): 26-56.
7
Sumner, The first and the last, 16.
Prologue
“I
ndian Christian”, as an identity criterion is
problematic in the present context in India. This
is because of the general perception among some
that “Indian” is essentially a “Hindu” identity, and more so
“Christian” is necessarily “Western”. Not only for the
Christians, but one seldom hears someone being called
“Indian Muslim”; either the single identity of being “Indian”
or “Muslim” stands. This could not be just because of the
fact that the words “Indian” and “Hindu” are perceived to
be coterminous as they are from the same root-word “Sind”
or “Indus”, the river that gave the territorial mark to the
“outsiders” - the invading Islamic tribes of the medieval
times who gave the name “Hindus” to the inhabitants of
this land. As a matter of fact, India is perceived as a
religiously pluralistic society, where major world religions –
Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism originated, and Judaism,
Christianity and Islam found a home, since antiquity. Yet
the religious identity, especially Christian and Muslim
identities, remain problematic, as the historical notions of
“Islamic invasion”, European Colonization and the
xx “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD PROLOGUE xxi
subsequent spread of Christianity are perceived by the of alien-ness among the indigenous religious communities,
majority community as “non-Indian”. This is despite the which was further aggravated by the implementation of
fact that India has the second largest Muslim population on denominalization patterns within the Indian churches. Thus,
earth and Christian communities exist among Indian the Indian Christian communities were unmoored from the
populace since the beginning of the past Millennium. Indian community identity due to the missionaries’
Hence we infer that, amidst the existing plurality of identification with the imperialistic ideology of the colonizers
religions in India, Christianity (also Islam) is widely perceived - that was mono-religious in content with its relative disregard
as an “encroachment”. While Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, for indigenous religious expressions. As Stanley Samartha
and numerous other religious sects and communities retain observes, during this period, “the plurality of religions and
their respective religious characteristics along with their cultures in the world was regarded as a bump on the road
Indian identity, Christianity seems to stand out as an un- to be flattened out in the interest of Christianity and Western
sewed patch on the mosaic-fabric of Indian religious plurality. culture”.2
Yet, for the Indian Christians, the composite identity of Hence, the concerns of religious plurality and
“Indian-Christian” is essential as they are Indian citizens interreligious relationships, that were absent in the earlier
who chose to follow the way of Jesus Christ as revealed in period form the pivotal points of contact for any attempt
the Holy Scripture in distinction from a fellow Indian who to reestablish Indian-Christian identity. Parity among all
follows the Hindu Dharma. religions and scope for uninhibited interreligious
Any feasible solution, in the direction of establishing relationships should be the guiding parameters for such an
Christian identity for Indian believers, should address the enterprise. Yet, considering the past few decades of
issue of Christianity being perceived as “non-Indian” because interreligious relationship experiences, a third parameter, as
of its association with the European colonizers. European a touchstone factor for the other two parameters has to be
missionaries brought the Christian faith to India, (as extant brought into the equation. This third and decisive parameter
Indian Christian communities lay dormant) through their has to address the caveat of not being absorbed into a
fervent zeal for the gospel and concern and love for the “melting-pot” of religions; but maintaining the distinct
people in India. But more often, this concern and love was identity of individual religions. Such particularity in identity
tainted by the Western imperialistic outlook. Paul Knitter for any religion is constitutive of its traditional faith claims,
notes, this “concern and love that exists, not [as] between practices and symbolic expressions which ought to be
friends but between a doctor and his [or her] ailing patient.”1 preserved and hence this third parameter has to be employed
This condescending idea of mission engendered a feeling in conjunction with each of the former two factors, to
xxii “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD PROLOGUE xxiii
ensure an authentic outcome of this relation-building extension of post-plural methodology through the use of
endeavor among multiple religions. “Hybridity” and “Third Space” categories and a possible
In the past few decades, there have been some sincere methodical demonstration of interreligious dialogue will be
and serious attempts by Christian theologians to allay the attempted.
feelings of alienation and create concord between Indian Endnotes
Christians and other religious communities in India through 1
Paul F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and
interreligious dialogue. It is the need of the hour to take Global Responsibility (New York: Orbis Books, 1995), 3.
stock of the situation by evaluating the impact of such 2
S. J. Samartha, One Christ- Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology
interreligious relationship efforts, using the aforementioned (Faith Meets Faith Series; Ba: SATHRI, 2000), 3.
parameters. The first chapter will follow the existing
developments being carried out in Indian Christian theologies
toward interfaith relationships and an evaluation will be
made on the basis of the conjunctive engagement of the
parameter of preservation of particular religious identity
with the parameter of parity among world religions. On the
basis of this analysis, an ensuing discussion on the need
and the possibility for a new theological method that does
justice to both the plurality paradigm and the particularity
assertion will be pursued; this discussion will take a trajectory
toward a “post-plural” theological method. In the second
chapter, this post-plural methodology will be extended and
tested for its efficacy to locate the particular identity of
individual religions, specifically of Christianity, within the
context of religious plurality. The criterion of “final primacy
of Christ” - the theological and traditional assertions for
Christ’s divine, salvific purposes – that is unique to Christian
faith expressions will be the principal theme that will be the
central criterion for evaluating the preservation of religious
particularity. The third chapter will continue to analyze this
Abbreviations
Mt. Gospel according to Matthew

Mk. Gospel according to Mark
Lk. Gospel according to Luke
John Gospel according to John
Rom. Epistle to the Romans
Phil. Epistle to the Philippians
Heb. Book of Hebrews
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
ST Summa Theologiae
UMS Uttara Mimamsa Sutras
1
CHAPTER 1
Parity of Religions
Cultural-Linguistic Conception
I. Introduction
T
he concept of religious pluralism to address the
reality of religious plurality is a recent development
in the Western outlook. At least until the pre World-
War II period, Western societies were homogenous
communities and since then modern Western society has
become highly pluralistic due to the influx of immigrants
from the previously colonized countries. By contrast, such
plurality characterized Indian society since antiquity. India
has been home to multiple races, languages, religions, and
cultures since known history. Many of the Indian citizens
who accepted Christianity through the endeavors of Western
missionaries are also part of this plurality. Yet, the
unfortunate event of the historical intersection of European
colonialism and Christian mission has become problematic
for Christian identity in India. The stark reality of religious
plurality can no more be conveniently neglected.
2 “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD PARITY OF RELIGIONS 3
II. Religious Plurality –Christian Approaches salvation is limited to those who hear the gospel (fides ex
In the recent past, there have been attempts among Christian auditu) and “confess it in their hearts”; but this hearing and
theologians to reconcile Indian identity with the Christian response can happen either before or after death.3 So, they
religious identity. These theological responses to religious expanded the scope of the gospel’s reach universally and
plurality can be classified into three general categories: a) located the domain of hearing and response within and
Exclusivism b) Inclusivism and c) Pluralism. beyond human life span, but within the proviso of solus
Christus and fides ex auditu clauses.4
A. Exclusivism
The exclusivistic position was the one adopted by the Only from this universal-access position was there a
Western missionaries in their fervent mission enterprises possibility for interfaith dialogue. Yet, while evaluating this
for the salvation of the “heathen”. Following Acts 4.12, version of dialogue, Paul Knitter observes that the
they claimed that the salvation of humankind is only in the exclusivists who “represent the historically dominant
name of Jesus Christ, God’s one and only revelation. Christian view of other religious individuals… advocate a
Hendrik Kraemer’s Christian Message in a Non-Christian Word dialogue with persons of other ways, [and] this dialogue is
(1938) can be considered as the manifesto of the exclusivists understood as an often necessary instrument in working for
in which Kraemer emphasizes the disjunctive relationship the conversion of these peoples.”5 While holding on to the
of Christ with other religions and discredits “fulfillment exclusive claims for salvation, the dialogue is essentially
and mutual appreciation”.1 Among such exclusivist positions, centered on the concern for the conversion of non-
Gavin D’Costa identifies two types: a) Restrictive-access Christians. This model has been heavily criticized for carrying
exclusivists and b) Universal-access exclusivists.2 The former vestiges of “imperialism”. While gauging this response
kind is those who hold that, because of God’s unique against the parameter of parity of all religions, this model
revelation in Christ, all non-Christians and “Christians who utterly fails to acknowledge other religions on equal footing,
are unfaithful” are condemned to damnation. Being assured though the Christian identity is maintained
of God’s final and only revelation in Christ, they designate uncompromisingly. Hence, it could be inferred that this
the “non-believers” - who do not respond to the gospel theological response will not effectively address the
within their life span - to eternal condemnation. This type problematic identification of Christianity with colonial
of understanding made possible only a unilateral, imperialism.
monologue with other religions where Christianity assumes B. Inclusivism
the dominant position. The universal-access exclusivists Inclusivism is an attempt to move from the extreme of
claim that, because of God’s exclusive revelation in Christ, exclusivism, to recognize the parity of other religions. While
not limiting the scope of salvation to only few “believers”, understanding is derived from the core of “Absolute
it attempts to maintain the uniqueness of Christian religion”, the normative understanding is part of the “Utmost
revelation. D’Costa divides the inclusivists into two camps:6 religion” core. Knitter also notes that Hans Küng who
the Structural inclusivists, who hold that Christ alone is the critiques Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christianity”, by
“normative revelation of God” and that there is a possibility condemning the “arrogant domination… [and] absolutism”
of salvation outside the Church; but they claim that this of Christianity and appreciating other religions as “ordinary
salvation that is available “through other religions per se”, is way of salvation”, has finally to say that other religions need
in actuality through Christ only. On the other hand, the to be “critically analyzed” by the “normative revelation in
Restrictive inclusivists concede the possibility of salvation Christ”; Knitter comments on this switch from a constitutive
outside the Church; but they discard the role of other to normative understanding as superfluous that only makes
religions’ epistemological content in God’s salvific purpose other religions as “advent forms”, “previews”, “pathfinders”
and limit “God’s inclusiveness to people and elements of or a praeparatio evangelica for Christianity.10Thus the inclusivism
respective culture;” Thus, the solus Christus element is retained that tried to overcome the barrier of total disregard for
without the fides ex auditu clause.7 Both the groups attempt other religions also succumbs to the inherent tension in
a balancing act that is demanded to maintain the two balancing between the unique claims of Christianity and the
polarities of distinction of Christian faith and salvific validity parity between all religions.
of other religions on par scale. Yet a “bipolarity” is noted
C. Pluralism
and as Alan Race observes,
Pluralism is a phenomenon that seeks to avoid the awkward
On the one hand it accepts the spiritual power and
moment of this balancing act by conceiving the reality of
depth manifest in them [in other faiths], so that they
can properly be called a locus of divine presence. On religious plurality in the void of all scope for unique claims.
the other hand, it rejects them as not being sufficient Samartha contends, “Exclusive claims, that seek to suppress
for salvation apart from Christ, for Christ alone is plurality… are untested in the forum of plurality and
Savior.8 unwilling to risk the enactment of faith in a pluralistic
While commenting on the inclusivistic intent, Knitter society…”11 By repressing the possibility of making particular
observes that it is a move from the constitutive (exclusivism) faith claims and hence a superior notion, pluralism paves a
- “where Christ is the constitutive cause of all salvation” - level ground for the parity of all religions by putting all of
to normative (inclusivism) - “a measurer (sic), a superior or them on equal footing. This uniform standing among all
ideal type, which can function to measure, correct and judge religions was made possible when the German Protestant
others by its own standards…”9 While the constitutive theologian Ernst Troeltsch located the “revelation” aspect
of religious claims within the historical and subjective resources” for the self-expression of those who were earlier
matrix.12 Because of their “situatedness” within the human denied dignity and expression; secondly, it will be a deterrent
cultural and historical sphere, no religion will be allowed to against the “fascistic” imposition of any one religion; thirdly,
make transcendental claims - such as the traditional Christian it provides “alternative visions of reality and ways of life”
claims of superior revelation. Following this path breaking for the people; finally, the availability of multiple religious
idea of pluralistic religions, John Hick proclaimed the resources ensure the feasibility of tackling the modern
Copernican revolution in theology where Christocentrism problems in the human society.16 As an addendum to these
(the Ptolemaic notion of geocentricity) is replaced by socio-religious factors, Samartha also prescribed a model of
Theocentrism (the heliocentricity).13 In Hick’s own words, “bullock cart theologizing” that is well grounded in the
“[the] shift from the dogma that Christianity is at the center everyday realities of Indian masses as against the “helicopter
to the realization that it is God who is at the center, and all theology” of Western origin that “kicks up lot of theological
religions… including our own, serve and revolve around dust and noise.”17 Indigenized faith expressions and their
him.”14 The linguistic concept of “God” was redefined as theological articulation within the pluralistic conception of
the symbol for the signification of “Ultimate Reality” which religions were the emphases of this method.
is common to all religions. By essentializing the notion of Among the Pluralists, D’Costa identifies three types: a)
“God as Ultimate Reality” which was conceived as the Unitary pluralists b) Pluriform pluralists and c) Ethical
“Ultimate Concern” (Tillichian term) of all religions, it was Pluralists.18 Unitary denotes the “single unitary divine being”
possible to unite all religious pursuits. Knitter makes this that is professed in all religions; hence all religions are “equal
shift of focus sharper by contending, “Does not the universal and valid paths to the one divine reality”. Pluriform pluralists
revelation form the basis for the possibility of a common contend that there is a plurality of divine realities and
source and direction for all faiths?” (Italics added)15 By multiple religions signify multiple paths to these realities.
effectively denying the particular revelational claims, and Ethical pluralism argues that all religions contain “certain
universalizing the revelation content, Knitter makes the ethical codes and practices” and religions are to be judged
pursuit of “Ultimate Reality,” the substratum of all religions. “according to the conceptual pictures of divine reality they
According to Samartha, religious pluralism indicate the profess”.19 These three modes of pluralistic conception
reality that multiple religions address the “Mystery of signify the underlying tensions in essentializing the
Ultimate Reality or Sat or Theos” in multiple ways, while revelational content of all religions. “Reality” is perceived
exploring viable answers to the pertinent existential as single by some, multiple by others and some others
questions. Samartha claims four salient contributions of subsume it under the moral domain in the fashion of
religious pluralism: firstly, it “provides spiritual and cultural Kantian ethics. Each religion’s conception of “ultimate
concern” cannot be readily reconciled with the essentialized draws upon the positive contributions of modern,
notion of “Ultimate Reality” and hence the palpable tensions premodern and postmodern conceptualizations and
are present. The universalization of the revelational content categories is required.
also signifies the subsequent relativization of the particular
III. POSTLIBERALISM, POST-PLURALISM
claims. While measuring the efficacy of pluralism against
the established parameter of religious plurality, pluralism A. What is Postliberal Theology
has attempted to do justice to the parity among religions by Postliberalism is a Western theological movement that
leveling the ground; but on the other parameter of originated in the 1980’s in the United States. Postliberal
preserving Christian identity, pluralism has conceded serious theology movement is a highly variegated movement with
compromises on Christian faith commitments by thoroughly the chief aim of “faithful yet creative retrieval of the
universalizing the revelational content and depriving religions Christian tradition.”20 Hans Frei and George Lindbeck are
in general and Christianity in specific, of any scope for the two leading figures of the postliberal movement. George
particular faith claims. Hence, a well intended effort to Hunsinger notes that postliberalism seeks for a “paradigm
address the issue of alienation of Indian Christian shift in which liberalism and evangelicalism are overlapped,
community by surmounting the colonial notion of religious dismantled, and reconstituted on a new and different
superiority, could achieve this only by essentializing all plane.”21The name postliberal is appropriate as Lindbeck
religions’ revelational content and hence denying their himself acknowledges postliberlism as “maintaining some
particularity. relationship to the Kantian liberal tradition – while also
extending well beyond it.”22 Postliberalism involves a critique
In a world that is encountering the paradoxical moment
of modern liberalism by employing the philosophical
of increasing globalization on the one side and
critiques of liberalism propounded by Ludwig Wittgenstein,
parochialization and ghettoization on the other, preserving
Gilbert Ryle and Alastair Macintyre and the sociological
individual religious identity while recognizing the reality of
and anthropological ones made by Peter Berger and Clifford
plurality could be an avenue to address the underlying
Geertz. 23 Lindbeck, considered as the pioneer of the
tensions of identity crises and ensuing violence. This change
postliberal movement propounded the cultural-linguistic
of perspective that happens in the religious domain could
theory in his “pre-theological” argument for theology and
permeate into the society at large and bring healing and
religion and Frei offered cogent arguments for narrative
reconciliation. Religious pluralism has attempted to tread
theology.24 Postliberalism was primarily an ecumenical
this path, but has yielded to the essentializing notion, a
initiative for catholic unity and to facilitate the Church’s
relic of Enlightenment period. A fresh perspective that
witness to society.25 Lindbeck was addressing the issues of
“unity and diversity, continuity and change, identity and purpose and form of life, in both its cognitive and behavioral
difference and reconciliation”, while extending his dimensions.”31According to this notion, “language works or
application to interreligious interactions.26Hunsinger defines functions, or is used in a particular context, to solve a particular
Postliberalism as a “form of tradition-based rationality in problem or clarify a particular utterance.”32 The meaning of
theology for which questions of truth and method are a specific expression depends on its “fruitfulness” or
strongly dependent on questions of meaning, and for which “usefulness” or in its “effective consequences”.33 Lindbeck
questions of meaning are determined by the intratextual also states his reliance upon J.L. Austin’s notion of a
subject matter of Scripture.”27Postliberal theology attempted “performatory” use of language according to which, “a
to answer the questions of religious plurality, particularity religious utterance… acquires the propositional truth of
and interfaith relations through an emphasis on the Scripture, ontological correspondence only insofar as it is a
tradition and the community constituted “meaning” as performance, an act or deed, which helps create that
understanding. It takes seriously the hermeneutical imperative correspondence.”34 This “performatory” use moves the value
that “any sort of knowledge is bound to tradition and that of a religious language to the sphere of concrete practices
it therefore never sees things as they “really” are.”28 within the community. Lindbeck also significantly owes to
the anthropological insights of Clifford Geertz.35 Geertz
B. Non-Theological Influences
used the “worldview/ethos complex” in order to express a
Lindbeck notes that there are several “non-theological”
conception of ”culture” to be understood in terms of
influences that functioned as formative factors for postliberal
“socially instituted sets of practices and institutions in which
conception. As Pecknold observes, the linguistic pragmatism
human beings find themselves caught up in virtue of the
of the Wittgensteinians, Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm-shifting”
very acculturation and socialization that makes them human
work, the cultural and linguistically insightful sociology of
beings.”36 These “worldview/ethos” matrices, serve as
Peter Berger and Clifford Geertz, also the notion of the
“cultural frames” to reveal the world in specific ways.37 A
non-foundationalism were pivotal elements that gave shape
worldview/ethos complex comprises of a set of social
to the postliberal movement.29Wittgenstein conceived the
practices and they are “embodied means of making sense
meaning of language use as “something that is found only
of and coping with one’s environment, perceiving and
in its ordinary use, only in the way it works in a particular
understanding that one comes to in virtue of one’s
language and culture.”30Lindbeck borrows this Wittgenstinian
acculturation into a socially and practically embodied “form
“linguistic pragmatism” in his conception of doctrinal use
of life.”38 Lindbeck’s understanding of religions as linguistic-
as rules. Within the Postliberal conception, “language and
semiotic system substantially derives from Geertz’s
grammar are meaningful when they correspond to the
conception. Lindbeck asserted, “Like a culture or a language,
[a religion] is a communal phenomenon that shapes expressivism,” which “interprets doctrines as non-
the subjectivities of individuals rather than being primarily informative and non-discursive symbols of inner feelings,
a manifestation of those subjectivities.”39 Thus, using attitudes, or existential orientation.”43 The liberal theology
linguistic, sociological and anthropological insights, Lindbeck movement is considered to be the proponent of such a
conceives religion as a “communal phenomenon” and conception of experiential symbolism.44 The modern
attempts to understand the concrete expressions of a faith “liberal” tendency of searching for foundations in a
community in its liturgy, sacraments, rituals and other forms “universal ‘essence’ of human experience” shared by all
as decisive for shaping their religious experiences. Before religions is the primary characteristic of experiential-
arriving at such a conception, Lindbeck evaluates the existing expressivism. This approach privileges the subjective human
religious theories and then proceeds to suggest an alternative. experience. While doing justice to the subjective dimension
of human experience, the “experiential-expressivist”
C. Types of Religious Theories
approach neglects the particularity of each religion, by
Lindbeck identifies three existing theories of religion
leveling out “irreducible differences”.45 Thus, it wipes out
which supply conceptual categories to the exclusivistic,
particular religious identities. Theological pluralism derives
pluralistic and inclusivistic tendencies toward other religions.
from this theory, which emphasizes the pluralistic existence
1) Cognitive-Propositionalism “emphasizes the cognitive
of religions while relegating the particular claims. 3) The
aspects of religion and stresses the ways in which Church
third approach is a hybrid form of the former two theories,
doctrines function as informative propositions or truth
which was propounded by the ecumenically minded Roman
claims about objective realities.”40 Pecknold calls this as a
Catholic theologians.46 The aspects of both the cognitively
“premodern tendency” that shows “excessive confidence in
propositional and the expressively symbolic dimensions were
the foundations of human reason.” As the objective realities
merged to form a “two-dimensional outlook” to compensate
are claimed to be known without any mediation
for the limitations of these individual theories. Karl Rahner
(foundationalism), Cognitive-propositionalism understands
and Bernard Lonergan are the prominent theologians who
“truth claims after the manner of a naïve realism in which
followed this method. While this theory is comparatively
statements and words refer to reality in a direct way.”41 The
better equipped to account for “both the variable and
“objective” aspect is privileged over the “subjective” and
invariable aspects of religious traditions”, it could not
thus it does “violence to the whole subjective dimension of
cogently bind the two theories together. And Lindbeck notes,
doing descriptive justice to the truth.”42 This type of theory
“Even at their best, as in Rahner and Lonergan, they resort
forms the basis for the exclusivistic tendencies in theology
to complicated intellectual gymnastics and to that extent
as discussed earlier. 2) A second approach is “experiential-
are unpersuasive.” Lindbeck identifies this theory with the constituted by cultural and linguistic forms.”50 This “cultural-
inclusivistic tendencies in theology which unsuccessfully linguistic” conception of religions as languages is derived
attempt to balance the plurality and particular claims. from Wittgenstein’s “forms of life”:
Having analyzed the existing religious theories for their Just as a “language game” is correlated with a form of
limitations, Lindbeck attempts to formulate a new theory life, and just as a culture has both cognitive and
behavioral dimensions, so it is also in the case of a
based on modern philosophical, linguistic and sociological religious tradition. Its doctrines, cosmic stories or myths,
insights that will synergize the strength of the former and ethical directive are integrally related to the rituals
theories. He finds the solution in “understanding religions it practices, the sentiments or expressions it evokes,
as resembling languages and semiotic systems.”47 the actions it recommends, and the institutional forms
it develops.51
D. The Cultural-Linguistic Approach and
Instead of emphasizing the differences by overlooking the
Conception of Religion
similarities or by negating the differences by essentializing
Aided by the new developments in anthropological,
experiences, cultural-linguistic understanding shifts the focus
sociological and philosophical studies, Lindbeck formulates
of attention to the concrete practices of the faith community.
a cultural-linguistic approach that defines religions “as
Lindbeck defines a religion as an “external world” (verbum
comprehensive interpretive schemes, usually embodied in
externum) that molds and shapes the self and its world,
myths or narratives and heavily ritualized, which structures
rather than an expression or thematization of a preexisting
human experience and understanding of self and world”.48
self or of preconceptual experiences.”52 According to this
Lindbeck says,
understanding, “to become religious involves becoming
A religion can be viewed as a kind of cultural and/or
skilled in the language, the symbol system of a given religion;
linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety
of life and thought. It is not primarily an array of to become a Christian involves learning the story of Israel
beliefs about the true and the good (though it may and Jesus well enough to interpret and experience oneself
involve these) or a symbolism expressive of basic and one’s world in its terms.” “Religions like languages are
attitudes, feelings, or sentiments (though these will be what we use to identify and describe that which is most
generated). Rather, it is similar to an idiom that makes
possible the description of realities, the formulation of
important in the universe, organizing forms of life.53 Hence
beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings religion is conceived as “idioms, culture for the construing
and sentiments.49 of reality and the living of life.”54
Lindbeck’s “cultural-linguistic” model emphasizes the fact This conception of religions as individual linguistic/
that “human experience is shaped, molded and in a sense semiotic system maintains the plurality of religions while
also striving not to abandon their particularity.55 The modern rather how to be religious in such and such ways… Ritual,
liberal quest for a common “essence” of different religious prayer and example are normally much more important.”62
experience is discarded, and the “postliberal” movement And religious doctrines are not to be conceived as
seeks “concrete descriptions of lived reality by attending “descriptive of objective state of affairs, nor symbolizations
particularly to those practices that constitute the life of the of a pre-existing and pre-conceptual religious experience”
church.”56 By following a non-essentialist approach to but as “rules governing a semiotic system which makes
religions that abandons all notions of universal “core” or possible both the experience of reality and the symbolization
“essence” of all religions, it “affirm[s] and attend[s] to the of religious experiences.”63 Doctrines should represent the
material specificities and irreducible differences among “actual practices of native speakers”, while mutually
religions, rather than trying to “dissolve” them into a single influencing such first-order practices.64 In other words,
commonality.”57 Within the cultural-linguistic understanding, doctrines are primarily descriptive of the way Christians
the external aspects of a religion are not derived from live and speak the language of scripture. Thus, Lindbeck
subjective experiences, rather it is the subjective experiences successfully identifies religions as multiple instances of
of the individual which are a derivative of the verbum linguistic/semiotic systems that are characterized by their
externum.58 “By reversing the relation between “internal and internal “forms of life”.
external dimensions of religion”, the cultural-linguistic
E. Comprehensive Interpretive Scheme and World
approach appears similar to the cognitivist-propositionalist Absorption
theory for which “external (i.e., propositionally statable) In his attempt to uphold the particularity of individual
beliefs are primary.”59 However the new approach curtails
religious expressions, Lindbeck defines religions as
the “intellectualism” associated with the former. “comprehensive interpretive schemes,” that are “embodied
Lindbeck contends that “the complex relationship in myths or narratives… which structures human experience
between language and culture must be shaped by the and understanding of self and world”.65 Following Geertz
“semiotic universe encoded in holy writ”; the scriptural conception of “worldview/ethos” matrices, that serve as
narrative plays a central role in “shaping ecclesial identity “cultural frames” to reveal the world in specific ways, each
and witness.”60 For an individual to become religious means religion is a worldview/ethos matrix that shapes the lives
in a way that he or she has to become culturally or of the individual members within the religious community.
linguistically competent by internalizing a “set of skills by This “semiotic comprehensiveness” which Lindbeck
practice and training.”61 The primary knowledge is not about attributes to the Christian interpretive scheme, is “one
the religion, nor that the religion teaches such and such, but instance of a broader set of family resemblances that are
shared by most major world religions and many an account of the way the world is, that is reasonable and
nonreligious worldviews.”66 He also claims that such religious true.”70 Lindbeck contends that some do this job “more
worldviews/ethos generally make comprehensive truth successfully than others”. He proceeds to formulate a
claims about the way the world ultimately is. Citing Lindbeck, method of “adjudicating between these schemes”; He writes:
Springs remarks, The reasonableness of a religion is largely a function
Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc., along of its assimilative powers, of its ability to provide an
with “secular” worldviews, such as Marxism, Atheism, intelligible interpretation on its own terms of the
Liberalism, among others, either explicitly propose or various situations and realities adherents encounter. The
imply some account or basic claims about the nature religions we call primitive regularly fail this test when
of reality, personhood, and social life. Logically confronted with major changes, while the world
speaking, only one such comprehensive set of claims religions have developed greater resources with this
can be true.67 vicissitude.71
Lindbeck continues to remark that such claims to By applying the Wittgensteinian “linguistic pragmatism”
worldview/ethos by different religions need to be evaluated concept, religious practices are “judged on their ability to
for their validity, within each one’s cultural linguistic embody the logic of the scriptures in the church, e.g.,
framework. He contends that religions may be compared through catechesis, scripture study, prayer, preaching,
according to their “categorical adequacy”. sacraments etc.”72 As the meaning is constituted by the
Adequate categories are those which can be made to efficacy of the community practices, a religious system
apply to what is to be taken to be real, and which should provide sufficient categories to express the “logic of
therefore make possible, though they do not guarantee the Scripture”. Thus Lindbeck proposes a conception of
propositional, practical and symbolic truth. A religion “assimilative success” to compensate for the “anomalies”
that is thought of as having such categories can be
that emerge within a religious system as a basic criteria for
said to be “categorially true”.68
determining “the reasonableness and plausibility” of religions
Religions being “schemes for the perception of reality… as a comprehensive interpretive scheme.73 But the implication
they are either adequate or inadequate tools for dealing with of this position is to concede the “irreconcilability of
the divine reality and its activity in the world.”69 Lindbeck’s different religious worldviews (if one claim is true, then
“cultural-linguistic” alternative turned its focus upon the the other is false),” and also the “mutual untranslatability”
“irreducible differences” between different interpretive of such conceptual schemes. In the propositional-
comprehensive schemes, and thus, the unavoidability of cognitivism, descriptions are considered true because they
exclusive truth claims. Religions as comprehensive univocally correspond to reality, while the experiential model
interpretive schemes should “make sense of reality and offer makes truth a matter of symbolic efficacy - how effectively
they communicate the experience of the divine; but in of this scriptural universe’s “absorption” of the world is
cultural linguistic approach, “truth is a function of our that of imperialism of Christian comprehensive interpretive
concepts being adequate to what is ‘ultimately real’”. scheme over other schemes. Auerbach wrote,
Lindbeck introduces a fixed criterion for the evaluation of The world of the Scripture stories is not satisfied with
religious claims through the universal worldview/ethos claiming to be a historically true reality, it insists that
conception; at the same time he also acknowledges its it is the only real world, is destined for
autocracy…All other scenes, issues, and ordinances have
provisional use and thus betraying ambiguity.
no right to appear independently of it, and it is promised
Lindbeck applies his notion of “categorial adequacy” that all of them, the history of all mankind, will be
to the community practices of Christianity and concludes: given their due place within its frame, will be
subordinated to it.”77
Every humanly conceivable reality can be translated
(or redescribed) in the biblical universe of discourse The “reasonableness, plausibility, and continued
with a gain rather than a loss of truth or significance confirmation” of a particular scheme depends upon its
whereas, second, nothing can be translated out of this perceived success in ”encompassing all discourses within its
idiom into some supposedly independent
communicative system without per version, scriptural world.”78 Pecknold remarks that this “one-way
diminution or incoherence of meaning.”74 relationship of “absorbing” is at worst a kind of
Lindbeck continues to propose an “intratextual” totalitarianism.”79 Lindbeck’s later attempts to overcome this
methodological rigidity by “referring to the general features
understanding of Scripture by which the Christian
of worldviews as a range of family resemblances…exert[s]
“community recognizes Scripture as the basic source of
norms for its living and speaking”.75 Scripture, as the little explanatory power”.80 Thus by walking a tight line on
the methodological front, Lindbeck has succumbed to the
ultimate worldview/ethos originator should pervade and
trap of “methodological pitfall.”81
govern all the social practices of Christian “comprehensive
interpretive scheme.”Lindbeck calls this conception of IV. Conclusion
Scripture as “intratextual” because it “redescribes reality The existing Christian theological responses to the reality
within the scriptural rather than translating Scripture into of religious plurality – exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism
extra-scriptural categories;” He says, “It is the text so to – are found to be lacking on either the parameter of plurality
speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world, the or particularity. Lindbeck’s alternate conception of religions
text.”76 Jason Spring observes that this claim brings “the as linguistic/semiotic systems attempts to maintain the
full scope and force of Lindbeck’s project… into focus.” plurality of religions as individual idioms while also striving
Citing Erich Auerbach, Springs cautions that the implication to maintain their particularity. Yet, on account of Lindbeck’s
further description of religions as “comprehensive 9

Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name?: A Critical Survey of Christian
interpretive categories” and his attempt to evaluate them Attitudes Toward the World Religions (New York: Orbis Books, 1985),
133.
on the basis of a premeditated adequacy criterion becomes 10
Knitter, No Other Name?, 134.
problematic. Lindbeck manages to preserve the uniqueness 11
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, 6.
of Christian faith by disallowing the “translatability” of 12
Ernst Troeltsch, “The Place of Christianity among the World
Christian higher truths into any other idioms. This propels
Religions”, in John Hick and Brian Hebblethwaite, eds.,Christianity
Christianity to the top of the pecking order, but at the cost and Other Religions: Selected Readings (2nd ed.; Oneworld, 2001), 12–13.
of not affirming the claims for particularity of other John Hick, Myth of God Incarnate (1st ed.; Westminster John
13
religions. Hence, this post-plural conception has to be Knox Pr, 1977), 131.
extended in order to locate a method for maintaining the 14
Hick, Myth of God Incarnate, 131.
particularity of Christianity that will avoid the 15
Knitter, No Other Name?, 209.
“methodological pitfall” of “categorial schemes” and also 16
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, 9.
the imperialistic conception of Christian faith articulations. 17
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, 131–136.
Lindbeck’s colleague and also another eminent figure of 18
D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 6.
postliberal theology - Hans Frei’s “narrative reading” of 19
D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 9–18.
the Scripture suggests an alternative. James Fodor, “Postliberal Theology”, in David F. Ford, ed.,
20
Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology since 1918 (Third.;

Endnotes Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 229.
Narendra Singh, Christian Theology of Religions: Recovering Dialectical
1 21
George Hunsinger, “Postliberal Theology” Kevin J. Vanhoozer,
Method (Bangalore: SAIACS Press, 2005), 53. ed., Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (New York: Cambridge
Gavin D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions
2 University Press, 2003), 44.
in the Theology of Religions (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 7. 22
C.C. Pecknold, Transforming Postliberal Theology: George Lindbeck,
3
D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 7. Pragmatism and Scripture (New York: T&T Clark Int’l, 2005), 24.
4
23
Pecknold, Transforming Postliberal Theology, 24.
5
Knitter, One Earth Many Religions, 27.
24
6
25
7
26
Singh, Christian Theology of Religions: Recovering Dialectical Method, 71
8 27
George Hunsinger, “Postliberal Theology” in Vanhoozer,
citing Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, (New York:Orbis, Postmodern Theology, 44.
1982). Adonis Vidu, Postliberal Theological Method: A Critical Study (Oregon:
28
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 89.

29
Pecknold, Transforming Postliberal Theology, 17. 45
30
31
Vidu, Postliberal Theological Method, 93.
32
Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine, 32.
33
34
In “Religion as a Cultural System,” Geertz claimed that a group’s
35 51
worldview —”the picture they have of the way things in sheer actuality 52
are, their most comprehensive ideas of order”—at once generates 53
and coheres symbiotically with the ethos of that group, ethos
understood as “the tone, character, and quality of their life, its moral
54
and aesthetic style and mood.” This worldview/ ethos complex 55
provides both a “model of “ reality, as well as a “model for “ how 56
members of the group ought to make their way within reality so
constituted and situated.Jason A. Springs, Toward a Generous Orthodoxy:
57
James Fodor, “Postliberal Theology” in Ford, Modern Theologians,
Prospects for Hans Frei’sPostliberal Theology (New York: Oxford University 230.
Press, 2010), 65. 58
36
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 65. 59
37
38
George A. Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster
39 62
Press, 1984), 27. 63
Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine, 16. Also see Springs, Generous
40 64
Orthodoxy, 66. 65
Vidu, Postliberal Theological Method, 90.Pecknold notes “Under a
41
66
Vidu, Postliberal Theological Method, 66–67.
“propositional-cognitivist” approach to Christian doctrine, the
crusader’s utterance “Jesus is Lord” is “true”, corresponding to
67
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 67. See Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine,
objective reality, regardless as to whether or not the words “fit” the 46.
action of the subject, namely the crusader.” Pecknold, Transforming George A. Lindbeck, Church in a Postliberal Age (ed. James J.
68
Postliberal Theology, 4. Buckley; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), 48.

42
43
Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine, 16. 70
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 68.
44
72
73
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 64 citing; Lindbeck, Church in a
74
Postliberal Age, 231.

CHAPTER 2
75
Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine, 118. Springs notes, “The world
Particularity of a Religion
76
portrayed in the Bible both makes claims about what the world is
really like (a model of ) as well as claims about how Christians
ought to go about being in such a world (a model for ). Scripture “Final Primacy of Christ” Criterion
supplies both the framework within which, and the resources by
which, one deals and copes in the face of reality. These stories make
sense of the things that happen to believers by providing
“spectacles, the lens, through which faith views all reality.” Springs,
Generous Orthodoxy, 66 citingLindbeck, “Scripture, Consensus, and
Community”, in The Church in a Postliberal Age, ed. James J. Buckley, I. Introduction
T
(Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), 211
he writings of Hans Frei are normally categorized
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 69 citing Erich Auerbach, Mimesis
77
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953), p. 15.

into earlier and later periods. In the earlier period,
78
Frei’s writings are alleged to have an emphasis on
the essentialist meaning of the scriptural text, while the later
79
writings consider the influences of cultural and linguistic
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 69 citing; Lindbeck, Church in a
80
Postliberal Age, 235. factors in Scriptural interpretations.1 This “later turn” to

Springs points out, “Lindbeck might cast his account more
81 cultural-linguistic framework by Frei is attributed to the
persuasively, and perhaps more cogently, if he dropped terms like influence of his colleague at Yale, George Lindbeck. Jason
“comprehensive interpretive schemes” and “absorption” altogether.” A Springs in his book Toward Generous Orthodoxy argues
He observes two basic issues with this approach: Firstly, he contends against this rigid categorization, while acknowledging Frei’s
that a “scheme/content dualism appears unnecessary to retain a
conception of the particularity” of different religious claims; Secondly,
qualified use of ordinary language philosophy and cultural
he is not convinced that “the notion of a “scheme” or anthropolog y as useful tools for “theological
‘worldview’” gives any value to the “hermeneutical enrichment and redescription.”2 It is quite evident that Frei kept emphasizing
charitable interpretation that conversations across historical, cultural, the inevitability of “second and third-order reflections” in
and linguistic difference frequently require.”Springs, Generous Orthodoxy,
theology and contended that the use of ‘theological
p.80.
method’” must be in constant “engagement with the biblical
28 “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD PARTICULARITY OF A RELIGION 29
witness”. 3 Frei was not totally averse to the use of abstract categories with an aura of absolute sense about the
philosophical methods in theologizing, but wanted to avoid person and work of Christ is a predicament of the Church.
the awkward position of theology being subsumed by the The difference between acknowledging the transitory nature
“method”. Frei was greatly influenced by the language of Christian theologizing and a claim that the Christian
philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. Frei also used Gilbert comprehensive interpretive scheme absorbs everything else
Ryle’s critique on the “conception of consciousness and inner is a matter of “interpretive humility”.9 Sue Patterson writes,
intentionality” by calling such a conception of an “Frei is adopting a cultural-linguistic approach to preclude
autonomous consciousness as the inner driving force in a the possibility that “realistic narrative” might be taken to
person as “the ghost in the machine.”4 Frei is also indebted constitute a general theory…[and make possible] the primary
to the anthropological insights by Clifford Geertz, which warrant for seeing Jesus as the unsubstitutable ascriptive
helped Lindbeck in formulating his “cultural-linguistic” subject of the gospel narratives…”10
framework. He employed these thinkers’ terms like Frei was averse to designing some grand general theories
“meaning,” “understanding,” ”identity,” and “culture”, or methods. He never abandoned the claim that the biblical
“eclectically and unsystematically in order to make sense of text should play “central normative criterion”, which
the theological claim that God’s revelation comes to us determines the constituting elements of the “Christian world
conceptually”.5 This “ad hoc” approach to methodology of discourse” - practices and institutions.”11 Also he did not
provides a fresh perspective to the criticism against the attempt to describe the Christian world of discourse as
“methodological pitfall” in Lindbeck’s “comprehensive depending on a set of fixed principles directly perceived
interpretive” schematization.6 from the Scripture to which all understanding must
II. Frei’s alternative to “World Absorption” correspond.12 He readily acknowledged that the Scriptural
The point of Frei’s variance from Lindbeck is his accounts are shaped within the cultural and historical
acknowledgment of the normative strength of Scripture by perceptions of the authors.13 Frei conceived that the “testing,
the Church community as “authentic” while conceding that revision, and reinterpretation” of doctrines and beliefs occurs
the “human articulation of it is unavoidably provisional”.7 through a “doctrinal hermeneutical feedback loop” in which
Frei agreed with Barth who said, “The Christian Church “doctrines arise from and point back to the interpretation
does not speak from out of heaven. It speaks on earth and of Scripture”.14 It is in its constant back-and–forth movement
in an earthly way… The meaning and basis of the Christian with Scripture that doctrinal fidelity is confirmed. Thus Frei
message and theology… is not messianism, but rather the is trying to avoid the twin dangers of falling into a
Messiah, the Christ of Israel.”8The tendency to speak in methodological rigidity and also an essentialist notion of
Scriptural interpretation by recognizing the linguistic IV. Frei’s Hermeneutical Approach

character of Christian faith articulations. Through his use of linguistic conception, Frei was basically
addressing two issues in theology: (1) “the endeavor to see
III. Concepts and Language Use
a unique revelation in history [in and through the person of
Frei’s understanding about the linguistic character of
Christ] as an option that made sense”; and (2) the attempt
Christian faith expressions led him to acknowledge the
to articulate the real presence of Christ, that is, “the presence
“concept and language use as two of the practical and
of God in Christ to our present age, or any given present
social skills” basic to the existence of the church as a
age.”19 Frei asserts that any hermeneutical attempt to answer
community.15 Frei understood language as a “public
these twin questions of seeing a unique revelation in history
performance”, which is “possible only within the matrix of
and to perceive the real presence of Christ should focus on
social webs of meaning”, but also it is linked “inextricably
the “proper ordering of Christ’s identity and his presence”.20
to the very constitution of individual self-consciousness.”16
In Identity of Jesus Christ Frei observes, “scripture’s logic in
Theology is primarily a linguistic activity that “reflects upon
its narrative depiction of Jesus Christ accedes a certain
and redescribes” the practices of the Church
priority to identity over presence.”21 This sequence is vital in
community.17Frei noted that the “subject matter of theology
determining Jesus’ identity and Frei assets that this identity
is ‘God’; [and] that is the ‘object’ or ‘referent’ of the
is identical with Jesus being present.
language;” Quoting Barth, Frei observed, “we [can] have
the reality only under the description, only linguistically, not Through this hermeneutical attempt, Frei sought to offer,
independently of the concept as we use it in preaching and “a realistic (or “history-like”) reading” of the Gospel
liturgy, in action in church and world, in prayer and praise.”18 narratives and also to show the use of
In other words, it is not possible to abstract the person of “hermeneutical instruments” that enables such a reading.22
Jesus Christ from the Gospel accounts, which are, as a matter His understanding of hermeneutics as “praxis —as second-
of fact, are narrative depictions. Also, these depictions are order reflection upon the concrete practices” allowed him
against the backdrop of particular contexts. to treat the gospel stories as “stories first - because it is in
storied form that the words and work of Jesus come to
Hence, according to Frei, linguistic descriptions are
their readers.”23 Frei contended:
essential to the task of theological redescription, which in
I am only saying that to the extent that the Gospel
turn is the description of practical and social character of
stories are, indeed, in the form of narrative, let us treat
the Church community. them that way when we ask about their meaning. This
does not deny the validity of source, for m,
and redaction criticism—in other words, of a variety
of historical approaches both to the fact estimation His hermeneutical task takes the centrality of Jesus’ story
and meaning of these stories.24 in the Gospels as foundational for Christian reality.30 Frei
The modern critical approach in interpreting the biblical did not approve of the tendency to separate the form and
text has its own value, but such a methodological approach content of the Scriptural accounts, which resulted in skewed
should not stifle the meaning of the text by interposing understandings of personal identity and presence as “identity
external categories; instead by maintaining the “normative as consciousness” and presence as “immediate presence
priority” of the biblical stories seek to preserve the values to consciousness.”31 Here Frei employs Ryle’s “the ghost in
of the traditional text against the “subsuming tendencies” the machine” critique to debunk the Cartesian idea of
of the modern methods.25 Frei also acknowledged the autonomous consciousness. According to Ryle, “the human
Barthian claim that “without some perspective of our own, self is not some unknowable inner entity, whose nature may
the story has no discernibly significant shape for us.”26 or may not be revealed by the words and bodily actions so
However Frei cautioned, “we must not imprint either our mysteriously related to it. Rather, my words and actions
own life problems or our own ideological analyses on it. The constitute my identity.” 32 According to Frei such
proper approach is to keep the tools of interpretive analysis readings were made possible because the gospel narratives
as minimal and formal as possible, so that the character(s) were thought to mean something else apart from what they
of the narrative of events may emerge in their own right.”27 seem to say.33 Instead, Frei focused on the inseparability of
As Mike Higton points out, a “crucial distinction” can the form and content of the Gospels’ witness.34 He
be observed here between “George Lindbeck’s use of general categorically stated that “we cannot have what [the Gospels]
philosophical insights to frame a theory of religion, within are about without the stories themselves; these stories are
which Christianity presents a distinctive instance, and “history-like — in language as well as depiction of a
the Christological ground and goal that orient Frei’s common public world, in the close interaction of character
sociological redescriptions of Christian scriptural practices.”28 and incident, and in the non-symbolic quality of the
Frei sought to render Christ’s identity in the “publicly relation between the story and what the story is about.”35
available, socially situated, complex interaction of character, The intent of Gospel stories is not to produce an abstract
circumstance, and theme”.29 Frei’s hermeneutical task thus concept about a person but to reveal the very identity of
prioritizes the normative value of the Scriptural accounts the person himself.
while “formally and minimally” employing theoretical V. Toward a Narrative Understanding
methods for a narrative reading. Frei writes “[I]n the Gospels, Jesus is nothing other than
his story...”36 He further clarified:
Jesus is his story. (Karl Barth makes the same point what he does and what is done to him as depicted in the
when he says that Jesus is reconciliation and not simply story; We need not look for a ‘messianic consciousness’,
the Reconciler who would then, in a separable action
or sequence, enact reconciliation).37
but it is the ‘obedient Christ who died and rose again’”.43
Frei fully acknowledges Ryle’s conception about how the
Barth understood the Scriptural accounts using the concept identity of an individual is constructed through the
of Geschichte - a word that can be translated as “story,” description of his or her “words and actions” and applies
“narrative” or “history.”38 Barth’s application of this term this principle to the reading of the Gospel narrative. He
was relevant to both the form and content of the Gospels’ claimed the sense of the story is derived from the “depictive
witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Frei rendering of its subject matter in the interaction of character,
adapts this “Geschichte sense of history and narrative” when circumstance, and theme”.44 Frei also conceived that a
he calls the Gospel narratives as history-like accounts that narrative interpretation of the Scripture would overcome
render the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection.39 Therefore, the quandary of looking for some “inner consciousness” or
to say that “Jesus is his story” is in fact to recognize that constructing a “historical person” out of fragmented
the “name” of Jesus Christ occurs in the “unity of Christ’s accounts.
person and Christ’s work”; Christ’s personhood cannot be
abstracted from his work, nor his work from his person; VI. Identity as the Final Primacy
The person and work should be seen in the continuous Christianity’s claim to particularity depends invariably on
sequence of the “life acts” of Jesus’ life, and thus, his story— the identity and the presence of Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ
his “Geschichte”.40 is the “central affirmation” of the Gospel accounts, the
Frei asserted that Scripture as one whole unit should be interpretation of which constitutes the Church as a
“interpreted to bring out its essential underlying conceptual community. Thus Frei’s yearning to establish the identity of
patterns as they converge upon and are clarified by the Jesus Christ as a “possible fact” will lead to establishing the
name and narrative of Jesus Christ.”41 By the simple fact particularity of Christian faith. This particular identity of
that these are stories about “the enactment of Jesus’ life Jesus Christ will be the “final primacy” criterion that
and death and resurrection”, they become his history.42 cohesively binds all Christian faith articulations. Establishing
Drawing some symbolic significance out of them is such a particular identity of Jesus Christ is necessitated
unwarranted. Jesus is the Christ only because he is so in the because the historical critical approach to the Bible and the
story of the Gospels. The focus is on the individual self ensuing “Jesus of history”, “Christ of faith” movements
who is a “specific agent who is what he does, not the have seriously challenged the traditional claims of Jesus’
consciousness lying behind; Jesus Christ the person is by identity as Christ. Frei was convinced that any Christological
development would be possible beyond these limited to refer to the same qualities and the way they are ordered.”51
understandings only by “directing Christological investigation As the narrative depiction of the Gospel stories presents
toward the problem of identity.”45 Sue Patterson notes, the life and work of the person of Jesus Christ, it is Jesus
“…for Frei, personal identity is equated with storied who “holds the things together” and his unique identity
particularity in a way that is consistent with both Christianity’s thus emerges.
“scandal of particularity” and the world’s language- Christ’s identity being the very presence of God becomes
riddenness.”46 Frei moves toward such a venture by adapting the “final primacy” criterion for Christian faith. This unique
a narrative reading of the Scripture. affirmation, if established through the narrative reading of
According to him, such an approach to scriptural reading the Scripture will affirm the particularity of Christian faith.
must be “oriented by the centrality of Christ in the gospel Frei contended, “The story as story – not necessarily as
narratives.” Frei conceived the “unique affirmation at the history – should be taken in its own right and not
center of Christian faith” as —”not only that [Christ] is the symbolically and if it is read for its own sake, it suggests
presence of God but also that knowing his identity is that Jesus’ identity is self-focused and unsubstitutably his
identical with having him present or being in his presence.”47 own”.52 However, the caveat is to avoid the “methodological
Frei wanted to show that “Christ’s real presence to believers pitfall” of “comprehensive interpretive” schematization and
presupposes the manifestation of Christ’s identity by the Hans Frei’s Identity of Jesus Christ will provide us with the
scriptural narratives”.48 He claimed that the identity and the answer whether Frei has succeeded in his attempt to establish
presence of Jesus are uniquely related, so that “to know Jesus’ identity through his narrative reading.
who he is, is also to know his “real” presence”.49 He defines
VII. Frei’s Use of Hermeneutical Tools
identity as referring to the “very core” of a person toward
Hans Frei employs certain interpretive tools that will
which everything else is ordered, likes spokes to the center
enlighten these stories so as to “enable us to see who Jesus
of a wheel; Identity is the specific uniqueness of a person,
is without determining better than the text itself the meaning
what really counts about a person, quite apart from both
and importance of what the Gospels have to say about
comparison and contrast to others.”50 The concept of “self-
him.”53 Frei stipulates that the tools must be as subtle as
relatedness” is required for identity and Frei notes”…we
possible without overpowering the story. As George
need to probe factors that relates the past, present and
Hunsinger mentions, it is that “Neither assigning logical
future of the self to itself…A person is what and who he
priority to secular disciplines nor seeing them in co-equal
is just by the way he holds all these things together and
mutual correlation with Christian theology was adequate.
orders them; and to tell how he does that, all we can do is
Secular disciplines were to be subordinated to “Christian
self-description” and used only on an ad hoc basis, for or in a separable author’s “intention,” or in a
purposes of description rather than large-scale combination of such behind-the-scenes projections.60
explanation.”54 Therefore, Frei framed certain “formal Within the “Intention-action description”, the “public and
questions” to put forward to the narratives—questions that practical makeup of a character’s story” is the central
will not “force an answer that would risk overwhelming element; the changes that the character undergoes, and his/
either the person or the story.”55Frei posed the questions her acts at a given point or over a limited stretch of time,”
“Who is he?” and ”What is he like?”of the accounts of as narratively rendered is the fulcrum around which the
Jesus in the Gospels. Frei thought that such questions were identity of the character is constructed.61 In other words,
sufficiently formal to reveal the identity of Jesus in the gospel the character’s actions are the embodiment of his identity.
narratives without overwhelming the texts’ portrayal of his In order to know a person, “his true identity” needs to be
identity with a general theory.56 And Frei also attempts to “assessed” by simply observing “what she does and what is
answer these two questions “What is he like?” and “Who is done to her in a given context and her interaction with a set
Jesus?” through the ad hoc use of philosophical methods. of circumstances.” 62 So, Frei adopts this narrative
To answer the first question, “What is he like?” Frei understanding of a character’s “intention-action” description
turns his focus on the “public and socially embodied as depicted in the Gospel stories to reveal Jesus Christ’s
interaction of character and circumstance” with the aid of identity. Yet, being true to his conviction that the “normative
a device called “intention-action description,” which he priority of the biblical narrative” should be above all
adapted from the Oxford philosopher of mind, Gilbert interpretive tools, Frei subordinates the methodological tools
Ryle.57 To answer the question “Who is he?” Frei employed to the priority of the Gospel stories themselves. Hence, far
what he called the “subject’s self-manifestation.”58Frei from an essentialist understanding of the Scripture, Frei’s
asserted “…[Jesus’] being had to be narrated, as historians use of modern philosophical tools in the interpretation of
and novelists must always narrate the matters they describe. Scripture is more of an “ad hoc” approach, that seeks to
He was constituted by the interaction of his character and maintain the priority of the Gospel story, while allowing
circumstances”.59 He further states, the interpreter to delve into the plot of the story and to
Especially in narrative, novelistic, or history-like form, explore how the identity of the central character of the
where meaning is most nearly inseparable from the story is being revealed. Thus to know who Jesus is, we have
words—from the descriptive shape of the story as a to explore what he does and undergoes and Jesus’ identity
pattern of enactment, there is neither need for nor use emerges as “the one who is crucified and raised”.
in looking for meaning in a more profound stratum
underneath the structure (a separable “subject matter”)
VIII.Intention-Action Description they throw any light on the “identification of Jesus as the
Following Ryle’s lead, Frei asserts that the whole person narrative’s chief character”.68 Frei also wants to ensure that
may be described under the pattern of “intention-action” such a reading would sufficiently reveal the aspects of the
description; for a person is not merely illustrated, he is Gospel narrative, “without damaging the integrity and flow
“constituted” by his particular intentional act at any given of that narrative by the imposition of artificial intellectual
point in life.63 He calls this kind of identity description categories or structures”.69Frei contends that
“intention-action” description. Identity is described as an Reading a story, whether the Gospel story or any other
intentional act, suggesting that a person is as he acts; what is compared to understanding a work of visual art,
he or she does in a connected sequence of events over a such as a piece of sculpture. We do not try to imagine
the inside of it, but let our eyes wander over its surface
limited period of time, tells us what he is like.64 Here the
and its mass so that we may grasp its form, its
focus of attention is on the person’s intentions and actions proportions and its balances. What it says is expressed
as they can be reported in a narrative account of his life. In in any and all these things, and only by grasping them
this type of identity description, we are concerned about a do we grasp its “meaning”. So also we grasp the identity
person’s specific deeds as the focus of identity. Identity of Jesus within his story.70
description “locates the identity of an individual at the point In his enterprise to understand the narrative account of the
at which his inward life, coming to outward expression, is Synoptic Gospels, Frei identifies four “patterns of meaning”
linked with or meshes into the train of public as embedded in the narrative:
circumstances.”65 While explaining the relation between 1. Jesus’ obedience
intention and action or enactment, Frei says that “intention 2. Coexistence of power and powerlessness
is nothing in itself without enactment; enactment does not 3. Transition from the state of power to powerlessness
merely illustrate, but constitutes, intention.”66 Based on this
4. Interrelation of Jesus’ and God’s intention and ac-
assumption, Frei attempts to locate Jesus’ identity within
tion.71
the “intention-action sequence in which he came to be who
he was.”67 A. Jesus’ Obedience
Using this intention-action description, Frei explores the Frei, while intending to see “what Jesus was like” through
question “What is he like” by reading the narrative account the identification of “the enactment of his central intention”,
of the New Testament to see whether the depictions observes that the Gospel story writers stress Jesus’ obedience
concerning Jesus falls into any “significant states or to God’s will (Rom. 5.19, Phil. 2.8 Heb. 5.8).72 He contends
transitions of development” and if they do so, to see whether that Jesus being obedient to the will of God is a common
motif all through the four Gospels and also in other writings
of the New Testament and in fact Jesus’ very identity situation.77Within the narrative, this coexistence of Jesus’
depends on his intention-action response to the will and power and helplessness comes to the fore in Jesus’ encounter
purpose of his Father who sent him.73"Jesus becomes who with the Roman governor. When Pilate asks him if he is
he is in the story by consenting to God’s intention and by the king of the Jews, Jesus replied, “You have said so”. As
enacting that intention in the midst of the circumstances Frei writes, Jesus “actively turns the governor’s question
that devolve around him as the fulfillment of God’s into unwitting testimony to himself, the Christ (Mk. 15.2;
purpose.”74 But if this pattern of obedience is to be taken Mt. 27.11; Lk. 23.3)78 Frei further observes that this pattern
as a specific enactment of his intention, we need a “sequence of coexistence of power and powerlessness is unequivocally
of cumulative, unbroken events within a story”. brought out by the writer of the Fourth Gospel, who
Frei notes that such a sequence is not available at the …took this stress and make it one of the main themes
initial part of the Gospel story, but is brought out more of his interpretive account, to the point of the
elimination of Jesus’ passive, helpless suffering; He
clearly toward the final stage of his life mission.75 In the portrays Jesus as actively laying down his life for his
final part of the story, “a sustained and unbroken narrative” sheep; he is not robbed of it. “I lay down my life, that
unveils a sequence of events, beginning with the account I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay
of the Last Supper (Mk 14; Mt. 26 Lk. 22). Frei notes that it down of my own accord”. (John 10.17-18).79
in the Garden of Gethsemane, in the midst of agony of his Thus along with the obedience motif, the coexistence of
thought about what is going to come, Jesus affirms his power and powerlessness develops the narrative description
obedient intent: “Yet not what I will, but what thou wilt” that gradually unveils the singular identity of Jesus Christ.
(Mk 14.36) Thus the story points “from the inside” to his
C. Transition from the state of power to
obedient intention. This “inside” information is inferred by
powerlessness
the story writers and hence communicated to us through
As the narrative sequence progresses, there is a transition
the plot.
from the state of power to powerlessness. To effect this
B. Coexistence of power and powerlessness transition from power to powerlessness, Jesus’ “inner” plane
While reading further into the sequence of events in the becomes the constituting enactment on the “outer” plane.80
Gospel story, Frei observes that the obedience pattern Within the whole of “passion-crucifixion-resurrection
develops into a plot of Jesus’ “coexistence of power with his sequence”, Frei observes that the
powerlessness”.76 The mode in which Jesus enacts his …point of transition from inwardness to outwardness
obedience unveils an ensuing pattern of this coexistence of at the point of change from power to powerlessness
power and powerlessness within his existential [is present] more clearly… [in]Jesus’ words in Matthew’s
report of the arrest, just after the scene in the Garden D. The interrelation of Jesus’ and God’s intention
of Gethsemane. Staying the hand that would defend and action
him against the arrest, Jesus asks: “Do you think I
Frei also observes that Jesus’ intentions and their enactment
cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send
me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then are enmeshed with the external circumstances and events
should the scripture be fulfilled, that it must be so?” surrounding his passion and death. The narrative sequence,
(Mt. 26.53-54) Jesus affirms the will of God obediently as a whole constitutes these events where Jesus’ “inner”
by both initiating and consenting to the shape of the intentions interact with outer circumstances and thus brings
events that now develop in their mysterious logic.81
the Gospel story to a climax. These exchanges between the
Jesus’ love that “enacts the good of men on their behalf “is intentions and circumstances that make up the sequence of
effected by his “specific vocation” that was in tune with the story, “depict the interaction between Jesus and the
God’s purpose for humanity and Jesus’ unconditional initiative of the power he calls “Father” to the very end”.85
obedience to it.82 Thus the narrative flow reveals the crucial Frei remarks that in addition to the patterns of coexistence
“inner” transition point from power and scope to and transition between power and powerlessness, “the
powerlessness. Frei further reads that Jesus in his perfect identity of Jesus that is manifest in his obedience must be
obedience to God’s will, “enacted the good of men” by his seen in the mysterious manner in which his intention-action
“vicarious identification with the guilty” as well as his pattern meshes and interact with that of God in the Gospel
“identification with the helplessness of the guilty”.83 Here story.”86 The Gospel writers show that Jesus’ intentions and
Frei’s conception is closer to Barth’s dialectical concept of actions are becoming “increasingly identified with those of
“redeemer – redeemed” motif. Citing Mark 15:31, “He saved the very God who governs the actions of the opponents of
others; he cannot save himself,” Frei comments, “[the] Jesus who destroy him.”87 However Frei notes that the
pattern of the saving action… suggest that if Jesus had not differentiation between God’s agency and that of Jesus is
forsaken the power to save himself, he could not have saved maintained as revealed in his cry on the cross, “My God,
others. Thus the transition from power to helplessness is at my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mk 15.34)88 Jesus’
the same time the realization of his saving power.”84 Within particular identity was maintained intact till the last moment
the narrative flow, Jesus’ saving efficacy requires this and was never subsumed under God’s act. Frei thus
transition from power to powerlessness to fulfill God’s intent concludes, “We see in the story a crucified human savior
for the humanity. who is obedient to God’s intention and to his actions…The
identity of Jesus who preached and died and that of the
risen Lord are one and the same.”89 As the narrative unfolds,
through the interconnection and distinction in relation Elusiveness: The elusiveness of the “who” lies in the
between the actions of Jesus and God in the story of the fact that one’s own act now cannot become objects of
knowledge to oneself until they have receded into the
events, Frei sees the need to answer the complex question past…
“Who is he?”
Ultimacy: Ultimacy simply means that asking the
IX. Self-Manifestation Description question “Who is he?” indicates that we can describe
no personal physical states, characteristics, and actions
After attempting to answer the question “What is he like?”
except as we ascribe them to someone. And the
through the intention-action description, Frei explores his “someone” to whom they are ascribed is ultimate
second formal question, “Who is he? by means of the self- because in ordinary conversation no person is a quality,
manifestation description. He states: state or action predictable of another.91
Self-manifestation description is the structuring of the A person’s self-persistence in the midst of a constantly
Gospel story as whole into a single developing series changing intention-action process is the key to answer the
of stages in the identification of its persisting subject
question “Who is he”? The elusive character of the
Jesus of Nazareth. Unlike the patterns of which we
spoke earlier, the structure of which we now speak is enactment of intentions, which constitute the identity of a
concerned with the transitions in the sequence of the person, and the centrality of a concrete person, for the
one whole narrative and their cumulative identification descriptive ascriptions are also taken into consideration in
of who Jesus is. the pursuit for an answer. In other words, the central aim
As identity should be considered in terms of a person’s of self-manifestation descriptionis to locate the “continuity
manifestation as a total being, the emphasis shifts from the of a person’s identity throughout the transitions brought
specific acts of a person to seeing the person in continuity, about by his acts and life’s events”. 92 And the self-
as he or she “persists through all the changes that take manifestation description of Jesus comprises the whole of
place in his life”.90 To answer the question “Who is he?” the Gospel story. Frei conceives the Gospel accounts, as a
Frei considers three aspects: persistence, elusiveness and ultimacy “self-contained whole” story, in which there is an “order-
in the description of a person: in-sequence, consisting of a series of distinct transitions
Persistence:…refers to self-continuity or self-ascription from stage to stage.”93
over a period of time. The question “Who is he?” In the first stage that comprises the birth and infancy
obviously points to the identity or self persistence of
a person from action to action, rather than to the stories, Jesus’ identity is totally merged with the identity of
uniqueness of each action and the possibility of change the people of Israel; He is not the individual person Jesus,
at the core of the self from one act to the next. not even “of Nazareth”.94 Jesus represents Israel under the
symbolic form as the “infant king figure”;”He is a Jesus and the Son of Man title.99 As the narrative reaches
representative, stylized figure in the form of an individual.”95 its climax in the crucifixion-resurrection episode, Frei
The second stage is Jesus’ baptism, which serves as a contends that Jesus “re-establishes the connection “between
point of transition. Frei states, the “stylized” titles and his person. Frei writes,
With the account of Jesus’ baptism, the story undergoes It is in the interaction between God and Jesus that
a decisive transition. He is no loner simply a Jesus’ identity is clarified as the one unsubsitutable Jesus
representative of the people as whole or of Israel’s of Nazareth. Indeed, at the climactic point of the divine
history. He now performs mighty deeds that are signs action, the resurrection, where God alone is active, it
of the imminent Kingdom of God. He proclaims its is Jesus alone who is manifest. Jesus’ enactment of his
advent and teaches the manner of life in it…[Jesus] identity comes to a climax in one sense in the crucifixion
now represents the direct and immediately pending rule and in another sense in the resurrection...It comes to
of God, newly present or about to come. Thus he concrete expression in the resurrection appearance,
begins to emerge as an individual figure in his own where Jesus identifies himself most fully as Jesus who
right and yet it is as the witness to and embodiment of is the Son of Man, the promised one of Israel, the
the Kingdom of God that he does so.96 Christ…he reestablishes that connection and its titles,
by “demythologizing” the savior myth.100
Frei claims that the final stage in the structure of the Gospel
The stylized titles that carried mere symbolic significance in
story reflects “actual events with considerable (though not
absolute) accuracy”. In this part of the story, Frei sees a reference to Jesus in the earlier two phases of the narrative
sequence now have become his own titles in his very identity
“most clearly history-like” account that “describes an
as Jesus of Nazareth. Frei discards all criticism that Gospel
individual and a series of events in connection with him
and his actions… and the events converging on him are not accounts are “myth”, though he concedes that its “factuality”
cannot be ascertained with absolute certainty.101 Hence, the
simply symbolical or representational.”97 Frei locates the
resurrection story, as a narrative description, is anything but
transition moment from the second to the third phase of
the story in the event of Jesus’ statement to his disciples mythical, no matter what one may think of its factuality. He
says, “Gospel account of the resurrection cannot be
that he would go to Jerusalem along with them and his
understood as a myth because, the literary structure of the
subsequent prediction of what is anticipated in Jerusalem.
During this phase, Frei notes that “the connection between account points in favor of the thesis that…the passion-
resurrection account as an unbroken unity is a
Jesus and the Kingdom of God becomes loose, and the
demythologization of the dying-rising savior myth.”102 As
figure of Jesus emerges more and more as one whose
mission is to enact his own singular destiny;”98 Yet there is the whole narrative sequence of the passion-resurrection
account is concerned about “an unsubstitutable individual
a tension “real within the narrative” in the association between
whose mysterious identity is not ineffably behind the story X. Identity is the Final Primacy
but is inseparable from the unsubstitutable events In the beginning of this chapter, it was stated that if the
constituting it”, it is unlike to be mythological stories which unique identity of Jesus as Christ could emerge out of the
are normally generalizations about some principles. Jesus narrative reading of the Scriptural account, it will point to
Christ of the Gospels is not the “contingent symbolization the “final primacy” of Christ as the cohesive aspect for all
of some eternal principle, divine–human reconciliation for Christian faith articulations; this was claimed on the basis
example. He is not an illustration of God’s disposition that Jesus Christ is the central affirmation of all the Scriptural
toward humanity. He is the enactment, the actualization of accounts and hence his identity is the central element for all
that disposition, and that precisely as the recognizable human descriptive ascriptions. This is the ultimacy factor, which Frei
individual he is.”103 employed in his self-manifestation description. Jesus to
And moreover, by emerging in his unsusbstitutable whom all the actions and characteristics are ascribed stands
identity as Jesus of Nazareth who is also Christ, Jesus has “ultimate because in ordinary conversation no person is a
“demythologized” these “mythical” (Frei calls them quality, state or action predictable of another.”105 Whatever
“stylized”) titles and claims them as his own. Now it is the narrative descriptions ascribed – including the “stylized”
Jesus who identifies these titles rather than they who identify titles as well as the salvific purpose of God – these belong
him. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus asks his two disciples uniquely to the single individual Jesus of Nazareth who is
“Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these the Christ. Frei defines the identity of Jesus Christ as
things and enter into his glory?”(Lk. 24.26) Frei comments, …the man from Nazareth who redeemed men by his
“…the earlier ambiguity having been resolved, the author helplessness in perfect obedience enacting their good
in their behalf. As that same one, he was the raised
can add, “He interpreted to them in all the scriptures the from the dead and manifested to the redeemer…
things concerning himself ”.104 (Lk. 24.27) Jesus Christ has Having directed attention all along to the descriptive
finally emerged as the unique person who “holds” these structure of the accounts and not the factual historicity
accounts together in an unsubstitutable manner. Thus the of their contents, we must say that belief in Jesus’
resurrection is more nearly a belief in something like
self-manifestation description that proceeded along the three
the inspired quality of the accounts than in the theory
phases of narrative sequence has brought out the singular that they have reflect what “actually took place.”106
identity of Jesus Christ, in answer to Frei’s second formal
This “inspired quality” of the biblical accounts read within
question, “Who is he?”
the Church community, unfailingly portray the individual
identity of Jesus Christ who is the central affirmation of
the faith of Church community. This “history-like” factuality
of the Scriptural accounts was made possible only through Church community. He employs Ryle’s intention-action
a narrative reading which neither the historical critical or description as a hermeneutical tool to address the theological
“inner consciousness” readings could do. Thus the ultimacy issues of Jesus’ person and work as a unique revelation in
of Jesus Christ as the “someone” to whom all ascriptions history and to perceive the real presence of Christ.
are made in the Gospel narrative is the “final primacy” He poses two formal questions “What is he like?” and
criterion that preserves the particularity of Christian faith “Who is he?” He turns his focus on the individual self of
affirmations. “In the gospel stories the depiction of a Jesus, who as the specific agent is what he does and what
concrete subject whose attributes are understandable only is done to him as depicted in the story. By deriving the
as located in their firm embeddedness within this unique sense of the Gospel story as the depictive rendering of its
person and his story.”107 Sue Patterson’s comment clarifies subject matter, Jesus of Nazareth, interwoven within
this: the interaction of inner intentions and external circumstance,
Under a Christotypology such as Lindbeck’s and Frei’s, Frei describes the identity of Jesus in his own story by
this biblical content is brought under the primary means of a formal scheme for identity description. This
incarnational grammar that Jesus Christ is God’s
redemptive, salvific reality stated in human terms. In
description answers the question “What was he like?” by
Christian theological language-games, this primary pointing to the crucified savior, the obedient Jesus who
grammar rules the use of, first, other theological enacted the good that God intended for men. Frei further
propositions or doctrines (which might be viewed as applies the self-manifestation description as the key to answer
exegetical commentaries on it) and, second, the content
the second formal question he posed, “Who is he?” By
of Scripture and experience, so that while the Bible
read as Christian Scripture is the source of Christian taking the whole narrative sequence of the Gospel story in
truth, as such it is also subject to how that truth is progressive phases, Frei comments that in the passion-
understood and interpreted in theological language- resurrection sequence, which is the climactic point of the
games.108 divine action, Jesus is manifest in his unsusbstitutable identity.
XI. Conclusion Within the concrete expression of the resurrection
Frei’s qualified use of linguistic philosophical insights which appearance, Jesus identifies himself most fully as Jesus and
he borrowed from Gilbert Ryle allows him to overcome the reestablishes the connection between his identity and the
criticism of essentialist understanding of the Scripture. Frei titles, the Son of Man, the promised one of Israel, and the
readily acknowledged that linguistic descriptions are essential Christ by “demythologizing” the “savior myth”.
to the task of theological redescription, which are By reiterating the emergence of an unambiguous, singular
descriptions of the practical and social character of the identity of Jesus Christ through his narrative reading, Frei
contends that the ultimacy of Jesus Christ as the individual 3

to whom all descriptive ascriptions of the Gospel narratives 4
Hans W. Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: Study in Eighteenth and
such as the “stylized titles” the Son of Man, Son of God, Nineteeth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974),
281.Ryle writes “The differences between the physical and the mental
Savior, belong in a history-like sense. While the modern were thus represented as differences inside the common framework
historical critical methods and the “Jesus of history -Christ of the categories of ‘thing’, ‘stuff ’, ‘attribute’, ‘state’, ‘process’,
of faith” movements have faltered in their “scientific” or ‘change’, ‘cause’ and ‘effect’. Minds are things, but different sorts of
“kerygmatic” approaches to the historicity of Jesus, Frei things from bodies; mental processes are causes and effects, but
different sorts of causes and effects from bodily movements… minds
adopts the “history-like” story reading to establish the
are not merely ghosts harnessed to machines, they are themselves
identity of Jesus as Christ. He has attempted to maintain just spectral machines. Though the human body is an engine, it is
the Church community’s fidelity to the sacred text and not quite an ordinary engine, since some of its workings are governed
traditions. Within the world reality of plurality of religions, by another engine inside it—this interior governor-engine being one
of a very special sort. Gilbert Ryle, Concept of Mind (New York:
such particularity of individual religions needs to be
Barnes and Noble, 1949), 5–11.
emphasized. According to Frei’s narrative reading, Jesus 5
emerges as the unsubstitutable individual, who is the central 6
George Hunsinger observes the following differences in the
affirmation of all Christian faith articulations. Thus the approaches of FreiandLindbeck: “Frei was oriented toward Barth;
identity of Jesus Christ is the final primacy criterion for the Lindbeck, toward Aquinas and Luther. Frei’s method of relating
particularity of Christianity. This “final primacy” criterion theology to other disciplines fell most naturally into thought-forms
that preserves the particularity of Christianity without reminiscent of Barth (Gospel/Law); Lindbeck’s method, by contrast,
into thought-forms indebted to Luther (Law/Gospel). The logic of
negating the possibility of such specific claims of other
Frei’s theology tended to move from the particular to the general,
religions has to be tested for its efficacy in its interaction from the ecclesial to the secular, and from the confessional to the
with a neighboring faith’s particular claim. methodological; the logic of Lindbeck’s theology moved more or
less in the opposite direction, from the general to the particular,
Endnotes from the secular to the ecclesial, and from the methodological to the
George Hunsinger writes, “In his later work [Frei] shifted away
1
confessional.” Hunsinger, “Postliberal Theology” in Vanhoozer,
from making formal claimsabout how the narrative genre logically Postmodern Theology, 43.
depicted Jesus’ unsubstitutableidentityas the Savior to more 7
sociological or historical claims about how thechurch, on the whole,
has read the Gospel narratives in this way.” George Hunsinger,
8
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 81.citing Karl Barth, “Humanism,”
“Postliberal Theology” in ed. Vanhoozer, Postmodern Theology, 48. God Here and Now , trans. Paul M. van Buren (New York:Routledge,
2004), pp. 131–32.
Jason A. Springs, Toward a Generous Orthodoxy: Prospects for Hans
2
Frei’sPostliberal Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010),

9
17.
Sue Patterson, Realist Christian theology in a postmodern age (New

10
attempts to render ahabitable scriptural world. Without this value,
York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 47. theology is too easilyabsorbed into other semiotic systems with no
11
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 106. distinctly Christiantheological perspective to offer an increasingly
secular, biblicallyilliterate and fragmented society.” Kamitsuka,
12
Contemporary Culture, 12.
Hans W. Frei, Identity of Jesus Christ (Oregon: Wipf and Stock
13
26
Frei, Identity, 46.
Publishers, 1997), 133.
27
Frei, Identity, 46.
14
28
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 38 citing.MikeHigton, “Frei’s
15
Christology and Lindbeck’sCultural-Linguistic Theory,” Scottish Journal
Paul J. DeHart, Trial of the Witnesses: Rise and Decline of Postliberal
16
of Theology 50, no. 1 (1997): 92–95.
Theology (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 103. 29
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 11. David Kamitsuka notes, “The
17
30
Patterson, Realist Christian Theology, 62.
theologian’s most pressing objective is (as Clifford Geertz would say)
to redescribe thickly the internal logic of the faith which is displayed
31
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 32 citing.Robert H. King,The Meaning
in the community’s speech and action, particularly in its reading of of God(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) p.III.
scripture. This means that theology must not only think about but 32
Patterson, Realist Christian Theology, 116–117.
with the community — that is, with “the cumulative tradition and the 33
most supple and sensitive minds and consciences in the community 34
“Learning what makes Jesus the Christ must fundamentally orient
past and present.”David G. Kamitsuka, Contemporary Culture: Liberation,
itself from textual interpretation of the New Testament. His divinity
Postliberal, Revisionary Perspectives (New York: Cambridge University
must not simply be seen as the reverse side of a perceived human
Press, 1999), 16.
need for redemption, nor is it to be indissolubly linked to a special
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 11 citing Frei in Types of Christian
18
kind of faith-apprehension.” DeHart, Trial of Witnesses, 108.
Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 78. 35
Frei, Identity, 59.
19
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 26 citing; Frei, Identity, 59. 36
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 55.citingFrei, “Remarks in Connection
20
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 29. with a Theological Proposal”, T&N, 1967, p.43.
21
James Fodor, “Postliberal Theology”, Ford, Modern Theologians, 37
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 55.citingFrei, “Remarks in Connection
235. with a Theological Proposal”,T&N, 1967, p.42.
22
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 36 citing Frei, Identity, 61. 38
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 36–37 citing Frei, “Remarks in
23
39
Frei, “Scripture as Realistic Narrative: Karl Barth as Critic of
Connection with a Theological Proposal,” T&N, p.41. HistoricalCriticism,” in Hans W. Frei: Unpublished Pieces, p. 35
24
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 37.citingFrei, “Remarks,” p. 32-33. 40
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 3.2, Section 47: The Doctrine of
David Kamitsuka notes, “Frei’s conception of theology values
25
Creation, Study Edition 16 (Edition 16.; T&T Clark Int’l, 2010), 438.
theology’s ecclesialfunction of redescribing Christian communal
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 108.citingFrei, “Response to ‘Narrative

41
with the utmost seriousness the public and embodied nature of
Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal,’” T&N , p. 211. selfhood.” DeHart, Trial of Witnesses, 103.
42
Frei, Identity, 154.
Hans W. Frei: Unpublished Pieces ,Transcripts from the Yale Divinity
43 66
School Archive, ed.MikeHigton, p.55, http://www.library.yale.edu/div/ 67
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 47. “An identity-description of a person
Freitranscripts/Freicomplete.pdf, p.51. depicted in an account of his or her actions and interactions through
44
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 33. a temporal sequence (that is, in a story) can take two overlapping and
45
DeHart, Trial of Witnesses, 111. complementary forms: rooting characteristic actions in intentional
attitudes, or grasping the emergent subject as the convergence point
46
Patterson, Realist Christian Theology, 69.
of utterances, acts, and reactions to events. This is the procedure
47
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 28 citing Frei, Identity, 53. Frei used in The Identity of Jesus Christ…to illustrate how the gospel
48
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 28. accounts render the character Jesus as a concrete and recognizable
49
Frei, Identity, 94. individual, especially in the climactic crucifixion and resurrection
sequences.”DeHart, Trial of Witnesses, 115.
50
Frei, Identity, 95. 68
51
52
53
Hunsinger, “Postliberal Theology” in Vanhoozer, Postmodern
54
Theology, 52.
72
55
73
56
74
57
75
58
76
Frei, Identity, 152. Italics original
59
77
Frei, Identity, 146. Italics original
60
Frei, Eclipse, 281 citing; Ryle, Concept of mind, 40.
78
61
79
62
80
63
Frei, Identity, 99.
81
Frei, Identity, 101. Paul DeHart observes, “[Frei] was one of the
64
82
first among theologians to begin exploring the consequences of taking 83
84
85
86
87
88
Frei, Identity, 157. CHAPTER 3
89
90
91
Comparative Dialogue
92
Frei, Identity, 164. Indian Interfaith Commitment
93
94
Frei, Identity, 165–166.
95
96
97
Frei, Identity, 167. I. Introduction
I
98
Frei, Identity, 170. n the first chapter, the reality of religious plurality was
99
Frei, Identity, 171. accepted as a fact through the cultural-linguistic
100
Frei, Identity, 171. conception of religions as linguistic-semiotic systems,
101
Frei, Identity, 171. which avoided the essentializing notions within the pluralistic
102
Frei, Identity, 174. conception. The second chapter dealt with the need for
103
DeHart, Trial of Witnesses, 115. preservation of particularity of a religion in the midst of
104
Frei, Identity, 172. plurality; in this case, of Christianity, by describing the
105
Frei, Identity, 138. identity of Jesus Christ as the final primacy criterion of
106
Frei, Identity, 181. Christian faith reflections through the narrative reading of
107
DeHart, Trial of Witnesses, 112. the Scriptural depiction of Jesus’ life and ministry. This
108
Patterson, Realist Christian Theology, 99. “final primacy” criterion, which characterized the particularity
of Christianity, ensured the possibility of such particular
claims of other religions. Now, having established a viable
model (post-plural) that recognized the plurality of religions
and a “beyond post-plural” application of Frei’s narrative
reading of Christ’s particularity, the challenge of
62 “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD COMPARATIVE DIALOGUE 63
interreligious communication has to be taken up for relations. Donald Davidson argued, “the very notion of
conceptualization and demonstration. This process should incommensurable or untranslatable conceptual frameworks
address the issue of “incommensurability” and or languages is incoherent because some common measure
“untranslatability” raised by Lindbeck’s conception of or idiom, some ability to translate, is necessary in order to
religions as “comprehensive interpretive schemes.” While recognize instances of untranslatability or
Frei’s narrative reading and his ad hoc methodology has incommensurability.” He out rightly denied the possibility
2
provided an alternative for upholding the particularity of a of any incommensurable notions between different traditions
religion, the notions of “incommensurability” between as it becomes logically impossible to compare and contrast
various religious traditions, which signified the two traditions without some common strands within them.
“untranslatability” of Christian higher truths into any other Hence, Lindbeck used the term “untranslatability” in addition
traditions, poses serious challenge for interfaith interactions, to his “incommensurability” idea to “side-step” this caveat.3
which is essential for the Indian Christian community. Hence By citing Alasdair MacIntyre’s riposte to Davidson, “the
the problematic of “incommensurability” of religious contents of a language or tradition of inquiry that are
traditions has to be reexamined and a possible mode of untranslatable can be recognized as such by some sufficiently
interaction has to be located. This chapter aims to look into adept interpreter”, Lindbeck writes, “Those for whom that
these issues through the “ad hoc” use of postcolonial tongue is “a second first language” can recognize and flag
concepts - hybridity and third space and also a relevant what is untranslatable in it without falling into the
methodical demonstration of “comparative dialogue” by contradiction of supposing (or allowing others to suppose)
Francis Clooney. that they have thereby provided a translation.4 Macintyre
was arguing that “practitioners of some language or rival
II. Incommensurability Reexamined
belief system” that might be totally different from the other
Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic theory sufficiently addressed
to “warrant being called ‘incommensurable,’” still have the
the issue of religious plurality while avoiding the notion of
conceptual ability to “understand and represent many of
universalized “religious experiences”. Yet his conception of
the beliefs of the other language from within their own”.5
religions as “comprehensive categorial schemes” led him to
Yet according to Macintyre, “What [the practitioners of
argue for the “untranslatability” of Christian truths into
other language or belief system]cannot do, represent those
other idioms. 1 Hence this problematic of
beliefs in ways that would not be rejected by native speakers of
“incommensurability” between various religious traditions
that language.”6 Lindbeck amplifies this contention in his
and the subsequent idea of “untranslatability” are in need
elaboration on “incommensurability” and claims that
of reexamination for any progress toward interreligious
Christian truth claims are “untranslatable” into other idioms. in translating Horace’s Latin poetry into Hebrew. Spring
MacIntyre, while conceding the existence of certain amount further elaborates,
of common strands between different traditions, holds that …the only way a Jew could have found such a view
this could always be “partial commensurability at most”. blasphemous is because he or she had been able to
He wrote: translate it adequately. Our hypothetical Jew can translate
Horace because he or she and Horace share some
[T]he fact that certain other parts of the two languages common beliefs about gods, what it means for them
may translate quite easily into each other provides no to reign, who is referred to by the name Augustus and
reason at all for skepticism about partial untranslatability. many other things. On the other hand, they are
The sentences-in-use that are the untranslatable parts irreconcilably divided on the plurality of divinity and
of this type of language-in-use are not in fact capable about who it is who actually reigns in heaven, Jupiter
of being logically derived from, constructed out of, or Yahweh.9
reduced to, or otherwise rendered into the sentences-
in-use that comprise the translatable part of the same The disagreement was possible only because of the
language-in-use.7 translatability of Horace into Hebrew; however the
He rejected the prospect of total commensurability between disagreement was based on the internal rules and forms of
different linguistic systems as there are significant portion life within the Jewish linguistic/religious system.
of “untranslatable” ideas within each system. However, Within the cultural-linguistic theory, in tandem with his
Macintyre’s conception also does not vouch for the total notion of “incommensurability,” Lindbeck proposed the
“incommensurability” that Lindbeck claimed for his schema. “intratexuality” model that circumscribes all translations
Springs obser ve that Macintyre’s use of into/from extra-Scriptural conceptions, by according
“Incommensurability” or “untranslatability” “is deflated in exclusive priority to the Christian Scripture. As Springs
significance to refer to the sort of disagreement between observes, this sort of “Unidirectionality invests Scripture with
conflicting viewpoints in which it is impossible for a single a kind of inflexibility” that will stifle all possibilities for a
person to hold the truth of two conflicting claims mutual interaction between religions;” It construes Scripture
simultaneously.”8 Incommensurability between different as a comprehensive scheme that will always and already
linguistic or religious systems rather signifies that a position all other discourses and worldviews in its own
practitioner of a particular language or religion cannot have terms”.10 While Frei too accorded a priority of the Scripture,
cognitive consensus on two conflicting ideas, which are the conceptual difference is delineated by his use of Barth.
translated from one to the other system. Springs quotes Following Barth, Frei had claimed that the Scriptural
Stephen Fowl’s article “Could Horace Talk with the narratives should exert a priority over the methodological
Hebrews?” in which Fowl concludes that there is no problem scaffolding; this priority being by “virtue of the Person to
whom they witness and manifest.”11However, as Barth had conceded while recognizing that “with sufficient care and
acknowledged the “inevitability of revising received hermeneutical enrichment, beliefs and truth claims from
interpretations of the stories and doctrines” and argued for within one belief system might be made intelligible—and
“great latitude for the adoption of further necessary elements perhaps even persuasive— to people who hold different or
of faith that are still outside formulated dogma,”12 Frei also conflicting beliefs.”17 Thus the notion of “untranslatability”
qualifies his stand. As the Christian “world of discourse” is and “incommensurability” should not be understood as
exemplified by a “set of discursive practices” that are defined absolute categories but should be qualified to signify the
by the biblical witness, this “socially and practically embodied difference of conception in the community situated rules
world of discourse “necessarily signify certain “conceptual and “forms of life” of a particular tradition. Given the
and practical relations” with people of other religions.13 differences in the individual conception of each linguistic-
Christian truth claims about God’s relation to the world in semiotic system (religions) and the possibility for “partial
Jesus Christ do not nullify the “ambiguities, deep nuances, commensurability” between them, an appropriate model has
and revisability unavoidable in human speaking and to be constructed albeit in an ad hoc manner (Frei’s rule of
conceptualization.”14 Frei did not claim that we “live in thumb) to facilitate this interaction.
somehow conceptually incommensurable, and thus discretely
III. Ad Hoc Use of Hybridity
different, realities; [Rather] there are important, even radical
Homi Bhabha, a prominent Postcolonial scholar and a
and irreconcilable, differences between competing truth
proponent of “Hybridity” and “Third Space” categories –
claims and ways of living in the world. But these differences
postcolonial terms that subvert the colonial notions of
are recognized and appreciated for their full depth against
essentialism and hierarchy – acknowledges differences
a background of agreement or comparability.”15
between various cultures. He says,
Springs concludes that,
The attempt to conceive of cultural difference as
Barth’s proviso does not stipulate a rule about the opposed to cultural diversity comes from an awareness
direction of translation in every case, nor that right through the liberal tradition, particularly in
untranslatability, but rather priority…this priority makes philosophical relativism and in forms of anthropology,
it neither discrete nor an autonomous world unto itself the idea that cultures are diverse and that in some
nor (in principle) unintelligible to nonbelievers. Neither sense the diversity of cultures is a good and positive
would it indicate either “untranslatability” or thing and ought to be encouraged, has been known for
unidirectionality of translation”16 a long time.18
Hence, “the case specificity and partiality, even the He makes a distinction between cultural “difference” and
precariousness, of a given act of translation” has to be “diversity” and observes that while cultural diversity is good,
differences have to be articulated. Bhabha further notes Bhabha also recognizes the incommensurability between
that, “The articulation of cultures is possible not because different cultures that cannot be synthesized using some
of the familiarity or similarity of contents, but because all “universalized framework”. Bhabha, while not subscribing
cultures are symbol-forming and subject-constituting, to a total incommensurability as envisioned by Lindbeck,
interpellative practices.”19 Despite the differences in the midst yet recognizes a “partial translatability” as propounded by
of beautiful diversity, cultures need to inter-articulate not Macintyre.
just their similarities but also differences, as they are In The Location of Culture, Bhabha uses the concept of
necessarily semiotic, meaning constructing activities. Bhabha Hybridity to refer to interactions between different cultural
observes that “multiculturalism” that emphasizes the diversity identities. David Huddart describes:
while negating the artificial hierarchy of one “supreme Hybridity refers to the fact that cultures are not discrete
culture” allows for the possibility of such inter-articulations. phenomena; instead, they are always in contact with
He elaborates, “Multiculturalism represented an attempt both one another, and this contact leads to cultural mixed-
to respond to and to control the dynamic process of the ness. Instead of beginning with an idea of pure cultures
interacting, Bhabha directs our attention to what
articulation of cultural difference, administering a consensus
happens on the borderlines of cultures, to see what
based on a norm that propagates cultural diversity.”20 While happens in-between cultures. He thinks about this
such inter-articulations between cultures seek to produce a through what he calls the liminal, meaning that which
“consensus”, Bhabha cautions: is on the border or the threshold.22
This must not be confused with some form of Bhabha, while acceding to the notion of incommensurability,
autonomous, individualist pluralism (and the did not fail to see the constant “contact” between different
corresponding notion of cultural diversity); what is at
cultures. As a postcolonial theorist, Bhabha understands
issue is a historical moment in which these multiple
identities do actually articulate in challenging ways, either
hybridity as “the process by which the colonial governing
positively or negatively, either in progressive or authority undertakes to translate the identity of the colonized
regressive ways, often conflictually, sometimes even (the Other) within a singular universal framework, but then
incommensurably…The difference of cultures cannot be fails producing something familiar but new.”23 Bhabha’s
something that can be accommodated within a writings subvert the colonial notion of the universalizing
universalist framework. Different cultures, the difference
process by interposing the concept of “Hybridity” which
between cultural practices, the difference in the
construction of cultures within different groups, very locates the contact between two different cultures (in his
often set up among and between themselves an case, between colonial and colonized cultures) within a liminal
incommensurability...21 space, which he calls “Third Space”. He writes,
[F]or me the importance of hybridity is not to be able Bhabha confirms this saying
to trace two original moments from which the third
The ‘originary’ is always open to translation so that it
emerges, rather hybridity to me is the ‘third space’
can never be said to have a totalized prior moment of
which enables other positions to emerge. This third
being or meaning - an essence. What this really means
space displaces the histories that constitute it, and sets
is that cultures are only constituted in relation to that
up new structures of authority, new political initiatives,
otherness internal to their own symbol-forming activity
which are inadequately understood through received
which makes them decentred structures - through that
wisdom.24
displacement or liminality opens up the possibility of
The focus shifts from the “originary” cultural context to articulating different, even incommensurable cultural
the newly emerging position of a third space category. He practices and priorities.29
says “With the notion of cultural difference, I try to place The essentialist understanding of a dominant culture is
myself in that position of liminality, in that productive space countered while the cultures are constituted and interpreted
of the construction of culture as difference, in the spirit of in relation to the “other,” albeit on an equal footing. This
alterity or otherness.”25 liminal space, in which “even” the incommensurable cultural
Thus, the third space is a mode of articulation, a way traditions could interact, is methodically illustrated by Francis
of describing a productive, and not merely reflective, Clooney in his book Theology after Vedanta.
space that engenders new possibility; It is an ‘interruptive,
interrogative, and enunciative’ space of new forms of IV. Comparing the Incomparable Texts
cultural meaning and production blurring the limitations Clooney attempts a rereading of two Texts belonging to
of existing boundaries and calling into question
two different religious traditions – the Uttara Mimamsa Sutras
established categorisations of culture and identity.26
of Hinduism and the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas
As cultures and identities can never be “wholly separate, belonging to the Christian tradition. Interestingly, Clooney
homogeneous entities”, their “interrelationships of takes Aquinas treatment of the Passion narrative (Summa
differences are marked by translation and negotiation.”27 TheologiaeIII.46-49 [hereafter ST III.]) to be compared with
Rutherford commenting on Bhabha’s conception of cultural the UMS (Uttara Mimamsa Sutras). In the previous chapter,
interactions, says, “incommensurability [should be viewed] Frei, while establishing the single, unassailable identity of
through new ethical and democratic frameworks, within a Jesus Christ had concluded that the Passion-Resurrection
culture that both recognizes difference and is committed to narrative is the climactic point at which Jesus’ identity as
resolving its antagonisms.”28 the “final primacy” of Christian faith articulations stands
out. Hence, it is relevant to consider Clooney’s comparative
experiment of this “incomparable” Passion narrative comparisons, because it is both central to the Christian
exposition with that of Advaita Vedanta of UMS. faith and positively “incomparable.”32
While asking the Question, “Are there incomparable There seems to be not even a slightest semblance of Passion
Texts?” Clooney answers: narrative in the Mimamsa tradition – including the ritual
…[while] embarking on a rereading of the entirety of
emphasis on sacrifice. Given the fact that there are
the two Texts… the expected rereading is a “incomparable,” “incommensurable” Texts, should it deter
comprehensive one, and no part of a Text, however a person from venturing to read these “incomparable” Texts
central, can be appealed to as an excuse for not reading together? Clooney recommends an alternative view in which
other parts of it; and no part can be ignored merely on such Texts can be read together. He contends,
the grounds that it is inconsistent with the general
trajectory of the reading that is undertaken. We must In itself, the passage [Summa Theologiae]raises no direct,
therefore take into account the possibility that there immediate conflict with Advaita; if immediate points
are at least some parts of texts which resist comparison, of similarity are missing, so too immediate points of
which are so significantly unlike what is found in other contradiction…The claims of Advaita and the Christian
texts that any possible comparison is likely to be claims related to the Passion are both mediated in a
unwarranted.30 complex fashion through the Texts in which they are
inscribed. Before ST III.46.3 is either marginalized or
Clooney acknowledges Macintyrian notion of “partial allowed to preclude further comparison, some points
untranslatability,” yet attempts a comparative reading of two of consonant or dissonant interconnections with
such “incomparable” texts to locate a “liminal space” for Advaita must first be identified and constructed.33
the emergence of a new understanding. While observing Clooney rightly points out that the absence of explicit
that, “Aquinas’ treatment of the Passion of Christ which semblances also indicates the absence of obvious
may appear incomparable, since it would seem that in Advaita contradictions. The point to be taken note of is the complex
there is nothing like the Passion, in fact or in principle,”31 textual tradition within which they evolved and also the
Clooney further notes, possibility of interconnections, both in the direction of
As such it is foreign to the Advaita tradition, devoid of commensurability or incommensurability. As Clooney
obvious parallels or evident starting points for observes, “One might allow a text such as ST III.46.3 to
comparison. Even Mimamsa’s theology of sacrifice is stand noticeably and carefully uncompared, in order to
not of much help in providing analogues for the
soteriological interpretation of the Passion. One may specify and highlight that incomparability, while not
be tempted then to consider leaving it aside as overlooking other possibilities for rereading which continue
unsuitable for comparison, or to use it to block further to exist even in the face of this large incomparability.”34
The challenge is not to override the incomparability while Brahman. As theological truths they are complex literary
at the same time not to be overwhelmed either. A delicate events, composed against certain written and oral
backgrounds, subject to new readings in new contexts,
rereading is sug gested that will “explore [the] and therefore available as true only in a series of distinct
(re)compositions, and the function of Aquinas’ text… in arrangements and upon consequent judgments. While
light of comparable Advaita recompositions of the truth it is possible to formalize such claims in such a way as
of Brahman, thereby inaugurating a comparative to make explicit their truth, the full presentation of
soteriology”. Here Clooney is embarking on a bold adventure the truth retains a memory of its textual and communal
roots.36
to juxtapose these complex textual traditions to result in a
mutual learning and unlearning process. He asserts that there Following a Wittgensteinian linguistic-pragmatic framework,
could be no valid reasons to deter someone from reading the truth of theological assertions is to be located within
ST III.46.3 alongside the Advaitic text, “even if the the communal and textual traditional roots. According to
juxtaposition highlights distance, inappropriateness and Clooney, in the absence of any explicit contradictions that
apparent incomparability. Since comparative reading does prevents a reading together of different texts, new readings
not depend on similarity, extreme dissimilarity is no reason can be effected in entirely new contexts and truth can be
to end such reading.” Yet, Clooney cautions that “A rereading ascertained by a “series of distinct arrangements.” This is
of the Summa Theologiae after the Vedanta would be in vain what he is attempting in his enterprise of comparative
were it merely to undercut a Christian belief as important reading. He call this “a postcomparative theology of
as a central recognition of the Passion of Christ, or were religions,” which is a “theology of religions after Advaita
everything in the Summa to be taken into account but one Vedanta”. He argues that such a theology of religions
or two such passages.”35 He reiterates that comparative …must replicate the dialectical activity of reading,
reading does not demand relegation of basic faith tenets or whereby the “new” is read through and after one’s
original Text, and according to the rules by which we
the omission of few “incomparable” passages. This is in construct and read the world in terms of our
line with our observation that interreligious interactions community’s privileged texts. Like other acts of
should not enforce a negation of particularity. juxtaposition, this dialectical act of reading creates a
new signification for the non-Christian texts, and may
Clooney asserts
distort as well as enhance their original meanings;
The truth of Christ’s passion in juxtaposition with the likewise, new meanings will be constructed for the Bible
truth of Brahman: the per manent location of and the theological systems composed from it, new
theological truths in and then after their texts makes meanings that occur only due to the event of
unlikely any direct contradiction between texts about juxtaposition with these non-Christian texts. Only in
Passion and theological texts about knowledge of
an attentive recognition of this creative juxtaposition set of theological arguments in support of their belief,
can a useful theology of religions be composed.37 and perhaps with a preference for Aquinas’ exposition
of that efficacy. She or he will not be likely to proclaim,
Clooney identifies a dialectical reading process, in which the
alongside or instead of the truth of Christ’s Passion,
“new” Text (Advaita Vedanta) is read “through and after” that “knowledge of Brahman saves”. But she or he
the original Text (Christian theological reflections of ST - will be in this position of maintaining the original
devoid of any essentialist notion). The ensuing result would Christian commitment only after undergoing an
challenge both the reader’s understanding of the “new” education in the nature of Advaita claims about
Brahman, and in the process will lose, I suggest, the
Text as well as his or her understanding of one’s original capacity to make claims such as “knowledge of
Text; thus new meanings could be constructed in the Brahman does not save.” Though the result may seem
emerging new contexts of rereading. This context is the minimal in light of the desire for decisions of import,
liminal “third space,” where new meanings emerge as the progress made in this way toward a new and broader
context for the Christian claim is significant, and
cultural/religious traditions are brought into “contact”.
irreversible.39
The theologically sensitive juxtaposition of one’s
scripture and theology with what one recognizes to be While this enterprise of comparative reading of two
another theological version of the world, narrated “incomparable” Texts is not aimed at any radical upturn of
according to different texts, traditions and practices, one’s religious understanding, it nevertheless challenges one’s
makes one aware of the margins of one’s theological untested presuppositions about both the original as well as
universe…Whatever one wants to do after the
juxtaposition of texts and acts of comparative reading, the new Texts. Clooney rightly argues that a person’s
the theological and religious awareness of the “other” commitment to his or her religion’s tenets will be rather
will remain in place, along with an unformalizable affirmed and not disproved while this rereading occurs;
measuring of the margins of one’s own universe of meanwhile the person will be able to see the truth in the
thought.38
claims of the “new” religious Text – in this case, the Adavitic
Thus the comparative experiment between two claim that the “knowledge of Brahman saves.” What he or
“incomparable” texts is aimed at bringing out the awareness she may not be able to do is to cognitively consent to both
about the limit of a reader’s theological horizon. It challenges of these “incomparable” notions - “the Passion of Christ
the pre-reading assumptions of the reader and moves him saves” and the “knowledge of Brahman saves.” Springs had
or her toward a broader outlook on the theology of religions. observed that this is the crux of Macintyre’s use of
Clooney concludes, “Incommensurability” or “untranslatability,” which “is
A Christian comparativist may begin and end with a deflated in significance to refer to the sort of disagreement
belief in the efficacy of the Passion of Christ, with a between conflicting viewpoints in which it is impossible for
a single person to hold the truth of two conflicting claims “Untranslatability,” and “Incomparability” are to be
simultaneously.”40 “deflated” in their supposed meanings and through the ad
However, for Clooney this should not deter someone hoc use of Hybridity and Third Space categories, seemingly
from venturing into this critically productive “third space” “incomparable” texts may be read in a dialectical rereading
toward “a new and broader context for the Christian claim.” process to produce new meanings that enhances as well as
Also Clooney’s caution that the comparative theology challenges the untested pre-readings. Thus the problematic
experiment must be done “without a sense of finality and of “incommensurability” of “categorical schemes” is
without the added claim that no other thinking through the overcome by deflating the meaning of “Incommen-
problems of comparisons is possible,” is to be considered surability” through the Macintyrian notion and further
seriously; Clooney’s caution is reiterated by Bhabha’s remark through the ad hoc use of Hybridity and Third Space. This
about the fluidity of the “Third Space” in which no comparative dialogue as demonstrated by Clooney, provides
essentialization is possible. Clooney has demonstrated a new impetus for the Indian Christian community to engage
sufficiently that a comparative dialogue between the in non-imperialistic interfaith dialogue with the neighboring
seemingly “incomparable” Texts – Passion narrative faiths.
exposition and the Advaita Vedantic claim –is possible; the Endnotes
particularity claims of these two distinct traditions were 1
Adonis Vidu comments, “Lindbeck all too easily takes the meaning
conserved while rightfully acknowledging the plurality of of the religious schemes tobe fixed, while the truth of adherents’
religious conceptions – in this case, of salvific claims. utterances needs to be decided by reference to those very meta-
narrative meanings. The “language” in “cultural-linguistic” stands for
V. Conclusion a conventionalized, static, fixed structure of signs…” Vidu, Postliberal
Thus the Passion narrative that depicted the “final primacy” Theological Method, 93.
of Christ as the single identity of Jesus Christ - the individual
2
Lindbeck, “The Gospel’s Uniqueness: Election and
Untranslatability,” in The Church in a PostliberalAge , ed. James Buckley,
who holds the coherency of Christian faith articulations - p.231.
has been juxtaposed with another “incomparable” Text from 3
the Advaitic Vedanta. In the ensuing process, the 4
prings, Generous Orthodoxy, 77.
commitment to such basic faith assertions as “the Passion 5
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 78citingMacIntyre, “Relativism, Power,
of Christ saves” and “knowledge of Brahman saves” were and Philosophy,” in After Philosophy, ed. Kenneth Baynes, James
not compromised; however, construction of a new meaning Bohman, and Thomas McCarthy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987),
was attempted that exposes the finitude of one’s religious p.390.
horizon. Thus, the notions of “Incommensurabilty,”
Paul J. DeHart, Trial of the Witnesses: Rise and Decline of Postliberal

6 24
Bhabha, Location of culture, 211.
Theology (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 77. 25
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 78 Jason A. Springs, Toward a Generous
7
26
Meredith, “Hybridity in the Third Space,” 2 citing Bhabha, Location
Orthodoxy: Prospects for Hans Frei’sPostliberal Theology (New York: of culture, 207–211.
Oxford University Press, 2010), 78. 27
Jonathan Rutherford, ed., Identity, Community, Culture, Difference
8
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 78. (London: Lawrence &Wishart, 1990), 26.
9
Rutherford, Identity, Community, Culture, Difference, 26.
10
11
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 73. Francis X. Clooney, Theology After Vedanta: An Experiment in
30
12
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 73. Comparative Theology (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1993), 175.
13
Clooney, Theology after Vedanta, 176.
14
15
Clooney, Theology after Vedanta, 177–178.
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 77 citing Frei, “Theology and the
16 34
Interpretation of Narrative,” in George Hunsinger and William 35
Placher, eds.,Theology and Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 36
1993), p. III.
37
Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 77; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol.
17
3.2, Section 47: The Doctrine of Creation, Study Edition 16 (Edition 16.;
38
T&T Clark Int’l, 2010), 425. 39
18
Clooney, Theology after Vedanta, 177–178.
Homi K. Bhabha, Location of culture (Abingdon: Routledge, 1994),
19
207.
20
21
Bhabha, Location of culture, 208–209.
David Huddart, Homi K. Bhabha (New ed.; Routledge Critical
22
Thinkers; Routledge, 2006), 4.

Meredith, “Hybridity in the Third Space,” 2citing N. Papastergiadis,
23
Tracing Hybridity in Theory. Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural

Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism, (London: Zed Books, 1997),
257-281.
82 “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD EPILOGUE 83
individual religion’s particularity, an alternative approach in

the postliberal tradition was attempted. This post-plural
application of Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic theory identified
Epilogue religions as varied linguistic/semiotic systems. Borrowing

Clifford Geertz’s anthropological insights, Lindbeck
perceived religions like a culture or a language, which is
necessarily a communal phenomenon that shapes
the subjectivities of individuals. Thus religions are
“worldview ethos complex” that characterizes the
W
ithin the Indian context of religious plurality, community’s performance in terms of its rituals, traditions,
Christianity seems to occupy a precarious state prayer, worship and other manifestations. Each religion is a
because of its unfortunate identification with distinct unit of a linguistic/semiotic system that shapes the
Western colonialism. Also the present wariness about behavior of its followers. Thus, Lindbeck successfully
“cultural colonialism,” perceived as being transferred from affirmed the plurality of religions as diverse linguistic systems
the “Christian” West (post-Christian, to be accurate) through and their particularity as individual units.
globalization, wrongly identifies anything that is “Western”
However, within such a particularity conception,
as Christian and hence “non-Indian.” This mistaken
Lindbeck conceptualizes religions as “comprehensive
presumption prevailing among a significant number of
interpretive schemes” and uses a “categorial adequacy
Indian populace does great disservice to the Indian identity
criterion” to prioritize them. Eventually, Lindbeck concludes
of the Indian Christian community. This thesis attempted
that Christianity has the most adequate categories for
to analyze the theological reasons and responses for the
expression of reality and hence Christian higher truths are
aforementioned problem and locate a conceptual as well as
“incommensurable” and “untranslatable” into any other
a methodical alternative to allay the tensions and facilitate
religious idioms. These notions of “incommensurability”
a dialogue with neighboring faiths that will bolster the Indian
and “untranslatablity,” affirm the conception of Christian
Christian identity.
particularity by effectively denying such particularity of other
Having evaluated the existing theological responses to religions on an equal footing. Such a conception of
plurality – exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism – on the particularity cannot be maintained in our original endeavor
basis of the three parameters: parity among religions, to establish mutual cordiality among religions in Indian
possibility of interfaith dialogue, and preservation of context. To overcome this “methodological pitfall,” Hans
Frei’s narrative reading of the Scripture was considered as “incommensurability” as an absolute category to emphasize
an alternative approach. his conception of Christianity as “the” adequate religion.
Through a narrative, “history-like” reading of Scriptural However, Macintyre, while arguing for a “partial
depiction of the life and ministry of Jesus, Frei successfully commensurability” between different traditions, uses
established the “unsubstitutable,” “single” identity of Jesus “Incommensurability” in a sense to signify the sort of
of Nazareth as Christ. He employed Gilbert Ryle’s intention- incongruity between incompatible viewpoints, in which it is
action description and self-manifestation description to bring impossible for a single individual to uphold the truth claims
out the identity of Jesus Christ. Frei established that this of two conflicting claims simultaneously. This was further
person of Jesus, who is the Christ, is the central affirmation analyzed through the use of Homi Bhabha’s “Hybridity”
of all Christian faith articulations and thus is the “final and “Third Space.” Bhabha, while acknowledging the notion
primacy criterion” for Christianity. Thus, the particularity of incommensurability between different cultures, emphasized
of Christianity was conserved by affirming the particular the constant “contact” between them. Bhabha’s concept of
identity of Jesus Christ, who is the pivotal point for all “Hybridity” locates the contact between two different
Christian faith reflections. Thus, by extending the post-plural cultures (in his case, between colonial and colonized cultures)
application of cultural-linguistic theory to include the within a liminal space, which he calls “Third Space”.
narrative reading of Hans Frei, the twin parameters of parity According to this view, the third space is a “mode for
among religions and preservation of particularity of articulation”, a “productive space” that will bring about
individual religion – in this case, of Christianity – are “new possibilities”. This new possibility of the “Third
successfully established. This approach also intends scope Space” enables the dialogue between even the
for other religions to locate their particularity by employing incommensurable cultural traditions.
non-external, self-established parameters. Francis Clooney’s Theology after Vedanta demonstrates this
Having established the parity and particularity of by adapting a comparative dialogue between two
religions, devoid of all essentializing notions within the “incomparable” Texts: the Advaita Vedanta and Thomist
pluralism, the interreligious relationship among religions has exposition of the Passion of Christ in Summa Theologiae, in
to be pursued. Yet, the concepts of “incommensurability” such a liminal space that denies any fixity of categories. By
and “untranslatability” raised by Lindbeck’s conception of juxtaposing the two “conflicting” religious views of the
religions as “comprehensive interpretive schemes” have to “knowledge of Brahman saves” (Advaita Vedanta) and the
be addressed before any such interreligious interactions are “Passion of Christ saves” (Summa Theologiae), Clooney
taken up. Lindbeck had used Alasdair Macintyre’s successfully demonstrates the possibility of a comparative
dialogue between such “incomparable” Texts. He goes on

to show that such comparative dialogues will challenge a
reader’s untested presumptions about truth claims of other
religions, and eventually broaden one’s religious horizon to
include reality-descriptions from other faith perspectives. Bibliography
Such a comparative dialogue that incorporates the post-
pluralist understanding of religions as cultural-linguistic
systems and the beyond-post-pluralist understanding of the
“final primacy” of Christ as the particularity of Christianity,
could be an effective tool in the hands of Indian Church Books
community to build interreligious relationships with Aleaz, K.P. Dimensions of Indian religion: Study, experience and interaction.
Kolkotta: PunthiPustak, 1995.
neighboring faiths in India and in the process regain their
Aleaz, K.P. Dialogue in India: Multi-religious Perspective and Practice,
Indian identity.
Calcutta: Bishop’s College,1991.
Amaladoss, Michael. Making all things new: dialogue, pluralism, and
evangelization in Asia. New York: Orbis Books, 1990.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. 3.2, Section 47: The Doctrine of
Creation, Study Edition 16. Edition 16. T&T Clark Int’l, 2010.
Bhaba, Homi K. Cultures in Between: Questions of Cultural Identity.
London: SagePublications, 1996.
. Location of culture. Abingdon: Routledge, 1994.
Cathey, Robert Andrew. God in Postliberal Perspective: Between Realism
and Non-Realism. Surrey: Ashgate. 2009.
Clooney, Francis X. Theology After Vedanta: An Experiment in
Comparative Theology. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1993.
D’Costa, Gavin. Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in
the Theology of Religions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
DeHart, Paul J. Trial of the Witnesses: Rise and Decline of Postliberal
Theology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
. Trial of the Witnesses: Rise and Decline of Postliberal Theology.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
88 “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD BIBLIOGRAPHY 89
Ford, David F., ed. Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Patterson, Sue. Realist Christian theology in a postmodern age. New York:
Theology since 1918. Third. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Frei, Hans W. Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: Study in Eighteenth and Pecknold, C.C. Transforming Postliberal Theology: George Lindbeck,
Nineteeth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Pragmatism and Scripture. New York: T&T Clark Int’l, 2005.
Press, 1974. Raju, T. Swami. Christian responses to plurality of religion.
. Identity of Jesus Christ. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Bangalore: BTTESSC, 2006.
Publishers, 1997. Rutherford, Jonathan, ed. Identity, Community, Culture, Difference.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990.
1973. Ryle, Gilbert. Concept of Mind. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1949.
Hauerwas, Stanley. Wilderness Wanderings: Probing Twentieth-century Samartha, S. J. One christ- Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology.
Theology and Philosophy. Colorado: Westview Press. 1997. Faith Meets Faith Series. Ba: SATHRI, 2000.
Hick, John, and Brian Hebblethwaite, eds. Christianity and Other Singh, Narendra. Christian Theology of Religions: Recovering Dialectical
Religions: Selected Readings. 2nd ed. Oneworld, 2001. Method. Bangalore: SAIACS Press, 2005.
Hick, John. Myth of God Incarnate. 1st ed. Westminster John Knox Springs, Jason A. Toward a Generous Orthodoxy: Prospects for Hans Frei’s
Pr, 1977. Postliberal Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Huddart, David. Homi K. Bhabha. New ed. Routledge Critical Stern, David G. Cambridge Introduction to the Philosophical Texts:
Thinkers. Routledge, 2006. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigation - An Introduction.
Jones, Gareth. ed. Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology. Oxford: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004. Sumner, George R.The First and the Last: the claim of Jesus Christ and
Kamitsuka, David G. Theology and Contemporary Culture: Liberation, the claims of other religious traditions. Wm. B. Eerdmans
Postliberal, Revisionary Perspectives. New York: Cambridge Publishing, 2004.
University Press, 1999. Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed. Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology.
Knitter, Paul F. No Other Name?: A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Toward the World Religions. New York: Orbis Books, 1985. Vidu, Adonis. Postliberal Theological Method: A Critical Study. Oregon:
. One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006.
Responsibility. New York: Orbis Books, 1995. Volf, Miroslav.ed. Future of Theology: Essays in Honor of JurgenMoltmann.
Lindbeck, George A. Church in a Postliberal Age. Edited by James J. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
Buckley. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003. 1996.
. Nature of Doctrine. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984.
Journals
Marshall, Bruce D. Trinity and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge Catalano, R. M. “Reclaiming Particularity: Reflections on “Reclaiming
University Press. 2004. the Center: A Jewish–Christian Conversation.” CrossCurrents,
(59: 3, 2009): 118–122.
90 “THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST” IN A POST-PLURAL WORLD BIBLIOGRAPHY 91
Doyle, Dennis M. “The contribution of a lifetime: George Raschke, Carl A. End of Theology. Journal of the American Academy
Lindbeck’sThe church in a postliberal age.” Modern Theology of Religion. XLVI/2, 159-179.
21, no. 1 (January 1, 2005): 157-162. Rashkover, R. “The Scandal of Particularity.”CrossCurrents(59: 4,
Fowl, Stephen E. “Paul among the postliberals: Pauline theology 2009):100–103.
beyond Christendom and modernity.” Modern Theology 21, Reno, Russell R. “Transforming postliberal theology: George
no. 1 (January 1, 2005): 178-180. Lindbeck, pragmatism and Scripture.” Modern Theology 24,
Hensley, Jeffrey S. “Are postliberals necessarily antirealists : no. 3 (July 1, 2008): 522-525.
Reexamining the metaphysics of Lindbeck’spostliberal Selvanayagam, Israel.. “Theological positions in Christian approach
theology..” Nature of confession (1996): 69-80. to religious pluralism- the fourth way.” Arasaradi journal of
Imbelli, Robert P. “The priority of Christ: toward a postliberal Theological Reflection 17 (2004): 1-19.
Catholicism.” Worship 82, no. 2 (March 1, 2008): 188-190. Walsh, John E. “Interfaith dialogue, peace and public policy.”
Johnson, William Stacy. “The triune God: an essay in postliberal Ecumenism, no. 169 (March 1, 2008): 20-24.
theology.” Theology Today 65, no. 2 (July 1, 2008): 254-318.
Online Resources
Knieps-Port le Roi, Thomas. “Interchurch marriage: conjugal and
Laragy,Elizabeth. Imperial Archive: Key Concepts in Postcolonial:
ecclesial communion in the domestic church.” Journal of
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/key-concepts/
Ecumenical Studies 44, no. 3 (June 1, 2009): 383-400.
Hybridity.htm
Largen, Kristin Johnston. “Rethinking salvation: Christian soteriology
Meredith, Paul. “Hybridity in the Third Space: Rethinking Bi-cultural
in light of interfaith dialogue.”Deepening faith, hope and love in
Politics in Aotearoa/New Zealand”. Massey University,
relations with neighbors of other faiths (2008): 111-127.
NewZealand,1998. http://lianz.waikato.ac.nz/PAPERS/paul/
Lillback, Peter A. “Pluralism, postmodernity, and religious liberty: hybridity.pdf.
the abiding necessity of free speech and religious convictions
Mike Higton,Hans W. Frei: Unpublished Pieces ,Transcripts from theYale
in the public square.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44, no.
Divinity School Archive, http://www.librar y.yale.edu/div/
1 (December 1, 2009): 26-56.
Freitranscripts/Freicomplete.pdf
Mays, Rebecca Kratz.”Interfaith dialogue at the grass roots” (2008).
Work, play and linguistic hybridity in postcolonial India: (de)forming
Mitchell, Robert. “Interfaith dialogue, peace and public the Indian middle class in Ray’s Kanchenjungha. (http://
opinion.”Ecumenism, no. 169 (March 1, 2008): 5-8. goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7344797/Work-play-and-
Moseley, Carys. “Transforming postliberal theology: George linguistic-hybridity.html)
Lindbeck, pragmatism and Scripture.”Studies in World
Christianity 13, no. 1 (January 1, 2007): 98-99.
Muwahidah, Siti Sarah. “Interfaith dialogue at the grassroots level:
a case study of an interfaith empowerment program in East
Java, Indonesia.” Political Theology 9, no. 1 (January 1, 2008):
View publication stats

79-92.

The Uniqueness of Christ in A Post-Plural

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Uniqueness of Christ in A Post-Plural

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Uniqueness of Christ in A Post-Plural

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Uniqueness of Christ in a Post-Plural

Book · January 2014

Theological Hermeneutics View project

Theological Epistemology View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Uniqueness of Christ

The Uniqueness of Christ

“The Uniqueness of Christ” in a Post-plural World—Published

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in

Laser typeset by ISPCK, Post Box 1585,

Mt. Gospel according to Matthew

further description of religions as “comprehensive 9

Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology since 1918 (Third.;

Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 89.

Postliberal Theology, 4. Buckley; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), 48.

Postliberal Age, 231.

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953), p. 15.

Postliberal Age, 235. factors in Scriptural interpretations.1 This “later turn” to

Scriptural interpretation by recognizing the linguistic IV. Frei’s Hermeneutical Approach

contends that the ultimacy of Jesus Christ as the individual 3

Frei’sPostliberal Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010),

Sue Patterson, Realist Christian theology in a postmodern age (New

Springs, Generous Orthodoxy, 108.citingFrei, “Response to ‘Narrative

Paul J. DeHart, Trial of the Witnesses: Rise and Decline of Postliberal

Thinkers; Routledge, 2006), 4.

Tracing Hybridity in Theory. Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural

individual religion’s particularity, an alternative approach in

Epilogue religions as varied linguistic/semiotic systems. Borrowing

dialogue between such “incomparable” Texts. He goes on

View publication stats

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.