Exegetical Trials and Interreligious Dialogue

Part One

Executive Summary: Exegetical Trials and Interreligious Dialogue

This article explores the tension between Christian exclusivism, diverse theological interpretations within the Bible, and the need for honest dialogue with other faiths—particularly Hinduism.

1. Scriptural Diversity and Exclusivism

• Christian theology often claims that salvation is available only through Jesus (e.g., Acts 4:12), but the Bible itself uses varied terms such as sōzō (healing) and sōtēria (salvation) that are context-dependent rather than systematically defined.
• Allegorical interpretations—such as seeing physical healing as pointing toward spiritual salvation—have historically broadened the meaning of these texts.
• Paul’s exclusivist statements (e.g., Romans 10:9–13) were often directed intra-religiously, as warnings to converts, rather than polemics against other faiths.

2. Comparative Exclusivism

• Christianity is not unique in making exclusivist claims. Hindu texts (e.g., Bhagavad Gita) assert that all worship ultimately reaches one God, while Islam declares Allah as the only God and Muhammad as His prophet.
• However, these claims are rarely made in an interreligious comparative framework but rather as affirmations within each tradition.
• Honest dialogue should acknowledge these parallel exclusivisms, rather than focusing narrowly on biblical debates.

3. Humility and “I Don’t Know”

• Jesus Himself admitted limits to His knowledge (Mark 13:32).
• Theologians should embrace epistemic humility, acknowledging that salvation may transcend human categories. This posture resonates with Hindu pluralism, where multiple paths to the divine are recognized.

4. Honest Interreligious Dialogue

• Francis X. Clooney, S.J. models comparative theology that is both confessional and dialogical, engaging Hindu texts without compromising his Christian identity.
• Parimal G. Patil critiques such dialogue as being asymmetrical, since Hindu theology lacks comparable institutional frameworks in Western academia.
• Gavin Flood emphasizes that comparative theology must allow traditions to speak in their own voice while maintaining intellectual rigor.

5. Theological Virtues for Dialogue

• Catherine Cornille’s five virtues—humility, commitment, interconnection, empathy, and hospitality—are essential for productive dialogue.
• Clooney adds risk-taking, patience with ambiguity, and marginality, urging theologians to live “on the borders” of their traditions to foster genuine learning.

6. From Theology to Trust

• The ultimate call is to shift from defending theology as a rigid system to living a faith of trust and grace, open to surprise and transformation.
• Comparative theology can deepen understanding of both self and other, but it must remain mutually accountable and avoid hegemonic tendencies.

Key Insight

The article suggests that Christian theology’s salvation debate (e.g., exclusivism vs. inclusivism) cannot be fully understood without placing it alongside other religious claims and engaging in dialogue marked by humility, intellectual honesty, and spiritual openness.

Part Two

Exegetical Trials and the Question of Exclusivism

Introduction

Allegorical interpretation, while powerful, often risks stretching the original intent of a text beyond its natural limits. A single biblical illustration usually carries one central message; however, when interpreted allegorically, it can open up layers of questions and answers not originally relevant to its context. This tension between exegesis (drawing meaning from the text) and eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) is an ongoing challenge in theological studies.

Allegory and Contextual Stretching

As I noted earlier in Clashes of Theology, I cited 1 Corinthians 15:19—“If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied”—to illustrate salvation and life after death. Admittedly, I stretched the verse beyond its immediate context.

The original intent of Paul (or “Sevanand,” as I prefer to call him) was not to argue whether everyone must believe in the Resurrection to have faith, but to emphasize that his own life of toil and sacrifice would be meaningless if the Resurrection were false. For Paul, the Resurrection was foundational to the early Church’s proclamation:

“We preach this Lord who was resurrected by God on the third day.”

Thus, Paul’s reasoning can be summarized:

• If I do not believe in the Resurrection, then all my preaching and labor are in vain.

But the broader question remains: Must everyone believe in the Resurrection to have faith? My own answer is both yes and no.

Bhakti Beyond Doctrinal Foundations

Do I personally believe in the Resurrection of the Lord? Yes and no.

• Yes, because this is what the early Church believed, taught, and recorded.
• No, because my bhakti (devotion) does not originate in the Resurrection narrative, nor does it depend on it.

Even if the Resurrection were historically uncertain or regarded as myth, my bhakti would remain unaffected, because my devotion arises from finding my Guru in Muktinath. The one who answered my questions and guided me on the path of truth is the Lord Himself, whom I follow as Guru.

Thus, I would say:

If I do not believe that Muktinath is my Guru, then all that I have believed, promoted, and practiced would indeed be in vain.

The Limits of Allegorical Interpretation

This does not mean I can simply replace “Resurrection” with “Guru” to reinterpret Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15. Such a substitution would distort the text beyond recognition. However, when I stretched the verse from Resurrection to salvation and life after death, my focus was not on the doctrine of Resurrection itself but on the cost of discipleship and the life of faith.

For Paul, Resurrection is assumed; his point is that without belief in it, all the suffering, preaching, and sacrifice of both Paul and the Corinthians would be pointless. The Resurrection itself is not made void; rather, the believer’s life would lack purpose if there is no hope of eternal life.

This leads to a broader hermeneutical question:

To what extent can Scripture interpret Scripture (“analogy of faith”) without violating its original intent?

The Analogy of Faith

The principle of analogia fidei (Scripture interprets Scripture) is central to Christian exegesis. As Gabriel Fackre notes:

“Another, very similar insight from the early centuries is that not only texts but also teachings hang together. (Actually, it’s hard to separate texts from teachings.) What is true in one doctrine sheds light on what is the case about others… Thus, what is taught about the person of Christ (that Christ is God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit) has to fit with what is taught about God (God is One). True doctrines will be harmonious, integrated with one another, and shedding light on one another.”¹

While this approach is necessary for theological coherence, it can also create tensions when diverse interpretations emerge within the same canon.

Clashes of Theology: Exclusivism and Pluralism

Theologians have long debated the scope of salvation. Within Christianity itself, there are multiple soteriological models:

• Restrictivism (Exclusivism): Salvation is only for those who explicitly know and believe in Jesus Christ.
• Inclusivism: Salvation is through Christ alone, but sincere non-Christians may be saved without knowing Christ directly.
• Divine Perseverance: God continues to reach out even after death until a person makes a final, informed decision.
• Universal Opportunity: God ensures everyone gets a real chance—either in this life or beyond—to accept or reject Christ.
• Universalism: Eventually, all will be saved—either by God’s love overwhelming all resistance or through eventual repentance (a view widely considered unorthodox).
• Pluralism: Salvation is available through multiple religious paths; Christ is not uniquely necessary.

This diversity shows that pluralism is not an external imposition on Christianity but arises from within its own theological traditions.

Comparative Claims of Exclusivity

When Christians discuss the destiny of non-Christians, the debate should not be limited to biblical texts alone. Similar exclusive claims exist in other religious traditions:

• Hinduism: “Whoever worships whichever god, in any form, they worship Me alone” (Bhagavad Gita 9:23).
• The famous analogy: “As all rivers reach the ocean, so do all worship practices ultimately reach Vishnu/Shiva.”
• Islam: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet.”

While Hindu sectarian rivalries often revolve around supremacy among deities (Vishnu vs. Shiva), such claims are not usually made in comparative religious contexts. In contrast, Christian exclusivism—especially in the New Testament—tends to present Jesus as the unique path to salvation (e.g., John 14:6).

Paul’s Approach: Exclusivity or Engagement?

In the New Testament, exclusivist language is often directed inwardly, toward Christian communities, rather than outwardly against other religions. For example:

• Paul’s writings often warn new converts not to return to their former pagan practices, rather than denouncing those outside the faith.
• In Acts 17 (Athens), Paul begins with the concept of the “Unknown God,” quoting Greek poets to build common ground rather than asserting raw exclusivism. While some believe his approach failed (as few Athenians followed him), others see it as a model for respectful interfaith dialogue.

Part Three

Honest Interreligious Dialogue

Scholars like Francis X. Clooney, S.J. and Raimon Panikkar represent a model of honest dialogue. While deeply rooted in Christian faith, they engage Hindu and other religious texts with openness and intellectual humility. Clooney acknowledges:

“As a Christian believer—who also happens to be a theologian—I willingly profess my faith in the God of our Lord Jesus Christ… By direct implication, this faith claim… excludes other such faith claims. But this admission, in itself rather obvious, leaves us exactly where we started. If I wish to speak of my faith as a theologian and make considered and intelligible judgments as a theologian, then I still have to make a case that is plausible and persuasive in an interreligious theological conversation.”²

This highlights a crucial tension: dialogue is possible only if each participant can remain true to their own tradition, while still being open to learning from others. As Clooney insists, Christian theology today must be interreligious, comparative, and dialogical.

A Hindu Response: Parimal Patil

Parimal G. Patil notes that Clooney’s comparative project, though admirable, risks being asymmetrical, since Hindu theology lacks the same institutional and academic support enjoyed by Christian theology:

“Without the presence of professional Hindu theologians in the academy… Hindu theology will only be used in service of Christian theology and will not be given an opportunity to respond.”³

Patil points out that Hindu traditions have a long history of inter-school debates (e.g., among Hindu, Buddhist, and Jaina thinkers), but engaging on Euro-American academic terms is challenging due to language, resources, and institutional gaps.

Flood’s Call for Mutual Theological Reflection

Gavin Flood, in The Truth Within, emphasizes that serious comparative work requires faithful attention to the self-interpretations of traditions:

“Religious studies can then function as an arena that allows the self-articulation of traditions to reflect upon themselves, that allows for second-order discourse, while also offering a third-order discourse that reflects upon and offers corrective readings of traditions’ self-descriptions.”⁴

Flood’s approach calls for a non-reductive dialogue where texts are read both critically and respectfully, recognizing the inwardness and intellectual integrity of each tradition. Yet, as Nancy Levene critiques, this model risks privileging theology over other academic approaches, unless it remains open to multiple forms of rational discourse.⁵

Toward Theology as Trust, Not System

The diversity within Christianity—when acknowledged honestly—is not a sign of weakness but a call to humility. Just as Hinduism accommodates both exclusive devotion (eka-bhakti) and pluralistic inclusivism, Christianity too can learn to live with the tension of multiple soteriological models without turning them into a rigid system.

As I wrote in the conclusion of my earlier reflection:

“Rather than insisting on one fixed model, perhaps it is better to adopt a posture of wonder and wait for the unfolding of grace. Theology may clash, but grace can surprise. And in that space between clashing ideas and divine mystery, faith becomes what it was meant to be—not a system to defend, but a life to live.”

A Personal Reflection: Bhakti, Mukti, and God’s “Investment”

In engaging with exclusivist claims—whether from Christian, Hindu, or Islamic traditions—we often forget that the ultimate destiny of the soul is not ours to decide. If, as Christians believe, the soul is God’s creation, then its final journey—heaven, hell, or elsewhere—is God’s concern, not ours. To put it humorously, sending a soul to heaven or hell is God’s gain or loss, not ours; it is for Him to decide where He wants to invest. We cannot dictate where He should “invest” His grace.

From my own perspective as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I have found mukti in this life itself, through a deepened sense of bhakti, responsibility, and inner transformation. My concern is not about what happens to my ātman after death; rather, my focus is on living fully and faithfully here and now. As I have argued in my article Clashes of Theology: One God, One Lord, One Faith, One Scripture, One Bhakti—but… Many Muktis, salvation (or mukti) need not be reduced to a single formula or post-death destiny. There are many muktis, and divine grace manifests in ways beyond any single tradition’s theological boundaries. [Clashes of Theology: One God, One Lord, One Faith, One Scripture, One Bhakti—but… Many Muktis, dayanandbharati.in.  https://dayanandbharati.in/clashes-of-theology-one-god-one-lord-one-faith-one-scripture-one-bhakti-but-many-muktis/

Clashes of Theology: One God, One Lord, One Faith, One Scripture, One Bhakti—but… Many Muktis]

Moreover, it is neither fruitful nor necessary to speculate about the salvation of others using only the language of one’s own theology. True dialogue requires that we take the exclusive claims of other faiths seriously—whether the Gita’s assertion that all worship ultimately reaches the Supreme, or Islam’s proclamation that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet—rather than assuming that Christian exclusivism stands alone. As I have discussed in Dialogues on the Divine: Trinity, Jewish Roots, and the Soul’s Final Journey, authentic dialogue emerges when faith is shared not as a system of absolutes to be imposed, but as bhakti to be lived and witnessed, both in word and deed, with equal respect for others’ faith journeys. [Dialogues on the Divine: Trinity, Jewish Roots, and the Soul’s Final Journey, dayanandbharati.in. https://dayanandbharati.in/dialogues-on-the-divine-trinity-jewish-roots-and-the-souls-final-journey/]

Therefore, I suggest a different posture: Enjoy your bhakti and mukti in this life; do your part in sharing faith humbly; but do not worry about what only God can do. God will not do what we alone are called to do (living responsibly, witnessing through love), and we cannot do what only God can do (deciding eternal destinies). Speculative debates on the fate of “non-Christians” often miss this essential point. A theology that acknowledges both divine mystery and human limitation—while remaining open to the “many muktis” across traditions—offers not relativism, but a deeper trust in the Lord of all.

Ashranm, July 25, 2005

Footnotes

1. Gabriel Fackre, Divine Perseverance, in John Sanders (ed.), What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 73–74.
2. Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries Between Religions, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 180.
3. Parimal G. Patil, “A Hindu Theologian’s Response: A Prolegomenon to Christian God, Hindu God,” in Francis X. Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God, pp. 185–188.
4. Gavin Flood, The Truth Within: A History of Inwardness in Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 98–99.
5. Nancy Levene, “Response to Gavin Flood, ‘Reflection on Tradition and Inquiry in the Study of Religion,’” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 74:1 (2006), pp. 60–64.

Bibliography

• Clooney, Francis X. S.J. Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries Between Religions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
• Fackre, Gabriel. Divine Perseverance. In John Sanders (ed.), What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
• Flood, Gavin. The Truth Within: A History of Inwardness in Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Levene, Nancy. “Response to Gavin Flood, ‘Reflection on Tradition and Inquiry in the Study of Religion.’” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 74:1 (2006), pp. 60–64.
• Patil, Parimal G. “A Hindu Theologian’s Response: A Prolegomenon to Christian God, Hindu God.” In Francis X. Clooney, Hindu God, Christian God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.