One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility (review)

140 SHOFAR Spring 1999 Vol. 17, No.3 One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility, by Paul F. Knitter. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995. 218 pp. $16.95. Both for those actively engaged in religious dialogue and for those whose interest in the enterprise is strictly academic, Paul Knitter's One Earth Many Religions should be required reading. Knitter offers a circumspect yet passionate argument for a morally responsible eco-conscious humanism, decrying as irresponsible the kind of diversionary theological advocacy that characterizes much of what passes as progressive religious dialogue even today. This ambitious and daring treatise builds methodically on the author's long and varied experiences to encourage a "globally responsible, correlational dialogue of religions" (p. 15) that "does not begin by looking within the [various religious] traditions, but rather by looking beyond them to the fires of human and interplanetary suffering that bum all around us" (p. 80). Knitter begins his study with an autobiographical introduction that serves to explain not only his own background and interests in dialogue, but also his growing conviction that "dialogue must include liberation and that liberation must include the Earth.... In other words, interreligious conversations must take as their most pressing agenda the ethical issues behind the mounting sufferings ofhumans and Earth" (pp. 10--11). Unlike many of his colleagues who seek some theological common ground both as a premise and a goal of dialogue, Knitter is realistic and compassionate enough to accept the stipulation that there are in fact incommensurable differences among the various religious traditions. According to Knitter, it is only by acknowledging these differences in religious experience and expression that a more just and responsible (i.e., liberating) course of dialogical action is possible. For Knitter, intellectuals' debates can be important , but only insofar as they actively contribute to a resolution of the existential dilemmas facing our planet. It is just this sort of attitude that marks the discussions in the first half of the book. In Chapters 2 and 3, Knitter illustrates the intellectual generosity of his reflections and the thoughtfulness of his analysis as he presents in tum a systematic review of current models of dialogue; a summary of his own soteriological vision of a "responsible model"; and (in Chapter 3) a remarkably frank and (even more remarkably) accessible "conversation" with his assumed postmodem critics. In my opinion these two chapters ought to be included as readings in any course claiming to address the theoretical and practical state of contemporary interreligious dialogue, not least because they reveal a deeply committed theologian taking seriously the "postmodem" position and offering a critically and morally sound response. Following the lead of G. Lindbeck, S. Hauerwas, and others, Knitter characterizes this response as "postliberal" and devotes the remaining chapters ofhis study to elaborating on his proposal for a "good neighbor" model of dialogical engagement. TopicalBook Reviews 141 Chapters 4 and 5 are, according to Knitter himself, the heart of his book. Chapter 4 is entitled "Global Suffering Calling for Global Respon~ibility: The Pain of the World asa Religious Challenge." Here Knider, synthesizing arguments already familiar to many theology students, establishes his major premise that the existential reality of "the suffering Other" must be the starting point, the "common context," and the ethical impetus for any interreligious dialogue (p. 58, Knitter's italics). In Chapter 5, Knitter returns to his consideration ofpostmod~mtheologies in light of the religious challenge posed in the previous chapter. His arghment is a practical one. Action or praxis in the face of suffering, he contends, is the orlly viable option for those who accept "the pain I ofthe world as a religious challenge." Praxis is a necessary precondition, not a consequ .e~ce, of a~th~ntic dial?~ue, and lth~ victims of suffering ,must always have a pnvIleged VOIce m determmmg the particulars of any such praXiS. Somewhat inexplicably, chapter 61raises his own version ofwhat has in many ways been the most problematic issue in interfaith dialogue for a long time: how "common" I is the ethic of global responsibility in the world's religions? While some readers will no doubt find his grand claims here ihcohsistent, ill-informed, or otherwise unsatisfying...