The Salutary Experience of Pushing Religious Boundaries: Abraham Joshua Heschel in Conversation with Michael Barnes

Rabbi Heschel's audacious assertion in his 1965 lecture at Union Theological Seminary that "religious pluralism is the will of God" rests on his belief in the grandeur of the Divine. God is greater than religion; in God "all formulations and articulations appear as understatements."¹ Because Heschel advocates but does not develop a theology of religious pluralism, it is appropriate to search among contemporary scholars for any who argue in ways Heschel himself might feel at home. Among such thinkers, one in particular in my own Catholic tradition resonates with significant aspects of Heschel: Michael Barnes, a Jesuit priest and scholar of the religions of India who teaches in London.

The decision to use this occasion to initiate a conversation between Heschel and Barnes came uncharacteristically quickly as I reread "No Religion Is an Island." I was immediately struck by resonances between Heschel's essay and Barnes, whom I do not know personally but whose work interests me.

Yet I say "resonance" because to my knowledge Barnes does not cite Heschel; insofar as he is influenced by a Jewish thinker, it is Emmanuel Levinas, and, to a lesser extent, Martin Buber.² Thus, I am not arguing dependence or correlation. Rather, I am tracing the thinking of a scholar in my home tradition whose position on religious pluralism is kindred to Heschel's.

So, after a brief exposition of Heschel's perspective on pluralism, I will lay out elements of Barnes's thought that invite conversation with the late rabbi from Warsaw. In a concluding note, I will speculate about what the two might talk about were they to walk together along Riverside Drive.³

Heschel and Religious Pluralism

Because Heschel's style bears closer relationship to poetry than to rigorous argumentation, analysis of his thinking involves teasing out strands of thought rather than scrutinizing logic.⁴ The most prominent strands include a profound awareness of the human condition, the necessity of accountability to God, and the role of religion.

As a "brand plucked from the fire of an altar to Satan on which millions of human lives were exterminated," he knew the urgency of preventing humankind's "surrender to the demonic"—a task he deemed far more significant than personal salvation.⁵ All peoples bear the common burdens of "poverty, anguish, insecurity," and the ravages of war and racism scar the human (and nonhuman) landscape. Arrogance, callousness, and iniquity are part and parcel of the human condition. Accordingly, Heschel suggested that the "most significant basis for the meeting of men of different religious traditions is the level of fear and trembling, of humility and contrition, where our individual moments of faith are mere waves in the endless ocean of mankind's reaching out for God."⁶

Yet his realization of humankind's shared state of fear and trembling did not lead Heschel to an easy syncretism. Ever mindful of deep differences in creed, cult, and commitments, Heschel held that what unites humanity is our accountability to God as objects of Divine concern: "The real bond between people of different creeds is the awe and fear of God they have in common."⁷ In his memorable phrasing: "Different are the languages of prayer, but the tears are the same."⁸

Thus, he believed that the most fruitful level for interreligious discussion was not on the level of doctrine but on "depth theology,"⁹ which attempted to "lay bare some of the roots of our being, stirred by the Ultimate Question. Its theme is faith in status nascendi."¹⁰ Depth theology, as John Merkle discusses in his 1985 book The Genesis of Faith, "deals with religious insights, with the antecedents and the act of faith." Theology works along a different order, dealing with "religious expressions, with the beliefs and dogmas born of faith." Depth theology evokes the religious situation that gives rise to insights and faith, and theology systematizes and expresses beliefs and dogmas.¹¹

Humans are called not only to intimacy with the Divine, but also to solidarity with God—and solidarity with the God of pathos...