DIALOGUE AND PROCLAMATION

Lawrence D. Folkemer

PRECIS
True mutual interchange between people of different faiths is of momentous importance at
this point in religious history. At the same time, Christian proclamation to all people of varying
backgrounds calls for an involvement in the faiths of others. The impact of this involvement on
the development of Christian theology is at this point uncertain. Yet the church is called upon to
proclaim the Gospel to the world of religious pluralism and secularism.
Seven theses concerning the "relationship of interfaith dialogue and Christian proclama-
tion" are presented for consideration. First, Christian theology can take either a negative or a
constructive attitude toward religious pluralism. Christian theology must struggle with the
meaning rather than the fact of religious pluralism. Secondly, the task of Christian theology in
the present situation is stated: "to bear faithful witness to its central claim," globally in an "age
of cultural and religious convergence." Third, "interfaith dialogue must be seen increasingly as
an arena for the working of the Holy Spirit." This calls for honesty and self-scrutiny. Fourth,
dialogue is a counterpart, or not a threat, to faith. Fifth, proclamation and dialogue are related
"as events in which God may speak to human beings who may respond to God and each other."
Sixth, the issue of truth is distinguished from "sheer relativism. "Finally, Christian witness must
be distinguished from proselytism—it is a testimony, not an announcement, and must be
informed by an understanding of the human condition.

Noble words have a way of degenerating into clichés and then being
disliked and dismissed. One such word is "dialogue." It has been simul-
taneously overworked and underdeveloped. What has often passed for
dialogue has been little more than double monologues, soliloquies in dis-
guise. As a consequence this "non-dialogue" has been like an unopened
door, an unentered house, talk without communication. Neither party in
the conversation met the other. Nothing significant transpired between
them. When they left it was almost as if they had not come together. Both
remained unchanged.
Much interfaith dialogue has been ofthat sort, whether carried on in the
academic quiet of a scholar's study or in face-to-face engagement with
persons of different faiths. At times, the so-called dialogue has been under-
taken on the a priori assumption (often unexpressed) of anathema on the
position of the other party. Dialogue becomes, in such an instance, a tool or
device—in reality, an anti-dialogue dialogue. Nothing much constructive

Lawrence D. Folkemer (Lutheran Church in America) has been professor of systematic

theology at Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, PA, since I960, prior to which he
founded and headed the Department of Religion at George Washington University, and held a
pastorate in Washington, DC. He holds an S.T.M. and Ph.D. (1946) from Hartford Theologi-
cal Seminary, and did post-doctoral work at the Universities of Hamburg and Heidelberg. He
was a member (1950-64) and president (1956-64) of the Board of Higher Education of the
L.C.A. His publications include Christianity and Modern Paganism (Muhlenberg, 1959);
chapters in Myers, Reimherr, Bream, eds., Theological and Missionary Studies (Times and
News Publishing Co., 1965), and in Heinecken, ed., Christian Hope and the Lordship of
"brist (Augsburg, 1969); and in preparation is a book on "Frontier Theology."
Dialogue and Proclamation 421

can occur until, to use a phrase of R. Garaudy's in his discussion of the

Communist-Christian encounter, there has been a real shift "from
anathema to dialogue."
At other times, dialogue ensues not on the assumption of anathema but
on too restrictive approaches which in one way or another prevent en-
counter at the maximal levels, for example, preoccupation with the con-
ceptual and theoretical to the neglect of the experiential and the pragmatic,
or vice versa. Wilfred C. Smith has pointed out this deficiency pronomi-
nally in the comparative study of religion:
The traditional form of Western scholarship in the study of other men's
religion was that of an impersonal presentation of an "it." The first
great innovation in recent times has been the personalization of the
faiths observed, so that onefindsa discussion of a "they." Presently
the observer becomes personally involved, so that the situation is one
of a "we" talking about a "they." The next step is a dialogue, where
"we" talk to "you." If there is a listening and mutuality, this may
become that "we" talk with "you." The culmination of this progress is
when "we all" are talking with each other about "us."1
The position we are advancing in this essay is twofold: the theological
significance ofreligious dialogue and the dialogical dimension ofChristian
proclamation. Interfaith dialogue and Christian proclamation are certainly
not to be equated but just as certainly must be interwoven with each other.
Though we understand this interrelationship from the perspective of Chris-
tian affirmation and witness, our contention is that the principle may obtain
as well for any person who takes with all seriousness the integrity of the
faith of others. To understand dialogue theologically means in no sense to
transfer the dialogical process from the realm of full technical interchange
between persons and faiths to the exclusive category of theological in-
terpretation. Technical interchange ofthat sort is essential not only to the
authenticity of true dialogue but also to the theological understanding of the
dialogue we are advancing. Whatever may provide maximum understand-
ing of a faith and the persons who hold to that faith is important to the
dialogue and our interpretation of it. Our position is that the religious faith
by which persons and indeed whole peoples live and interpret the meaning
of their existence, and have done so for centuries, is a matter of profound
theological significance to Christian faith and witness. To deal with such a
matter negatively or lightly or not at all is both to belittle what is of ultimate
significance to others, and in the end to fail to explore the far reaches of the
Christian theological witness itself. This is particularly so in the present
age. Never has there been, nor could there have been, such a confluence, if
1
"Comparative Religion: Whither and Why?" in Mircea Eliade and Joseph M.
Kitagawa, eds., The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1959), p. 34.
422 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

not convergence, of people of different faiths and their expressions of faith

as in the present time.2 We are in a new religious situation as momentous in
character as the political and economic situations. Religiously-isolationist
systems of theology are as outdated as political isolationism. Theology
cannot take seriously the realities of modern society on the one hand, and
then proceed to ignore the living reality in the modern world of other-
believing faiths on the other hand. Indeed, one might well understand this
time as a special kairos given to all people of all faiths, out of the provi-
dence of God. Dialogue, therefore, between Christians and adherents of
other faiths is no mere dialogue, a marginal exercise in interreligious
relations, but a matter of paramount theological significance in religious
history.
But the other aspect of our concern in this essay is of equal significance,
namely, the dialogical dimension of all Christian proclamation. If the Gos-
pel of Jesus Christ is God's call to all people, then the church's proclama-
tion or witness to that faith may need to be as many-sided as the apostolic
praise and witness of a Paul, a John, or the author of Hebrews. Christian
proclamation is not merely an announcement but an engagement or in-
volvement. And the involvement of the Christian with men and women of
other faiths, or of no explicit religious faith, inevitably affects the under-
standing of the proclamation today as it did in times past and in the New
Testament proclamation itself. The theology of Christian proclamation is
inherently dialogical when it pushes out toward religious traditions not its
own and seriously considers the reality of faith of other peoples. What then
is the significance of other religious faiths to the Christian's own theologi-
cal self-understanding? How is our understanding of all the loci of Christian
theology, such as God, humanity, salvation, the world, Christ, the church,
and the future, affected when we include in our consideration other living
religious traditions? As has so often been pointed out, the impact of Greek
philosophy on the church had inevitable effects, for good or ill, on the
exposition of Christian theology. So too has the modern scientific revolu-
tion. Is there likely to be any less impingement on the formulation of the
Christian proclamation from the rapidly-developing, religiously-plural
world than from the philosophical, scientific, and secular culture of the
West? What shape that wider, ecumenical (worldwide) proclamation will
take is certainly not clear at the present time. But it is clearly an issue, and
an issue not merely on the mission field where, to be sure, the question
arises in an acute form. It is a task equally close at hand for any serious
proclamation of the universality of the Gospel in a religiously-pluralistic
age.3
2
For a full and provocative discussion of this convergence, the reader is directed to the
study by Fr. Robley E. Whitson, The Coming Convergence of World Religions
(Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1971).
3
The statement of the problem is forcefully advanced in W. C. Smith's The Faith of Other
Men (New York: Mentor Book, 1962), pp. 105-128.
Dialogue and Proclamation 423

Since its beginning, the ecumenical movement has concerned itself

primarily with the problem of unity. This was essential. Unity is inherent in
the Gospel and divisiveness is the very antithesis of the New Testament
message of spiritual community. Ruptures had to be repaired. So church
leaders and scholars of all traditions gave serious attention to restudy of the
scriptures and the church's theological witness, particularly with regard to
the meaning of the church. The fruit ofthat study is abundantly evident in
the solid fact of a World Council of Churches, a dynamic rapproachment
between the historic traditions and a continuing growth in
Christian koinonia. When the Holy Spirit is granted leadership of the
church and human beings listen, marvelous things happen. Humanly im-
posed obstructions fall away one after another. Unity becomes more than a
dream; it takes on reality. And greater things are sure to be.
But the preoccupation of the church with its internal problem of unity,
essential as it was and is, prevented it from tackling the equally urgent
problem of the universality of the Gospel in a pluralistic society. While the
church busied itself with its internal life, the world slipped farther from the
grasp of the Gospel. Two worlds fell away really: the world it thought it
held-—Christendom—though it never did, and the world it hoped to secure
for the Gospel from centuries-old competitors. The one world, though
nominally Christian, meanwhile enthroned an assortment of idolatrous
substitutes; the other world rejuvenated its traditions and made audacious
new thrusts and claims of expansion and universality. The proclamation of
the universality of the Gospel was laid on the block. A titanic engagement
now ensues between a universal Gospel and a formidable religious
pluralism. How may Christian proclamation come to grips effectively with
a pervasive, indeed all-embracing, ideological, non-religious culture on the
one hand, and encounter constructively a rapidly-expanding and virile
religious pluralism on the other? This can hardly be thought of as an
ecumenical problem; it is the most contemporaneously crucial one ever
laid in the lap of the catholic church of Christ. The problem is considerably
greater than one of evangelism in the usual rendering of that term. It is
philosophical, theological, and cultural.
And it is every Christian's problem. It is quite easy to assume that while
a pervasively secularistic culture on the one hand and a vital, religiously
pluralistic world society on the other may be a paramount concern to the
specialists—theologians, missionaries, church leaders, and pastors—it is
of relatively little moment to the Christian community as a whole. Some
have even stated frankly that the parish pastor has no need to be greatly
concerned with either issue, since he or she has much more urgent prob-
lems. But is this true? Is the truth not rather that just such unconcern has
placed the Gospel in a precarious position of isolation? Let us raise some
searching questions.
One hears today the plaintive appeal for world community and plan-
424 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

ning, if for no other reason than a basic one of survival. The rapid develop-
ments of the twentieth century have produced a world in which people are
at the same time closer and farther apart. Through language, travel, physi-
cal communication, interntional events, trade, and cultural exchanges,
humankind has been brought into closer orbit. Yet not only is there not
community, there is large-scale tension and conflict. The deepest need is
for spiritual community. Wherein is it to be found? Some see the answer in
one of several "universal" faiths. Others plead for a new world syncretistic
faith, with or without God. Still others appeal for a commonly-agreed-upon
humanistic ideal broadly enough conceived. Is such universal community
even possible? Are there presently any live options?
Again, the "rightness" and the legitimacy of Christian missions in the
sense of proclamation is not as universally endorsed as once it was, even in
the churches. Not infrequently is the question raised about the impropriety
of invading the religious provinces of people who may be more religious
than we. What right have we to proclaim our religion and seek conversion
of someone who has and may be content with his or her own faith? What
right have we to assume that Christianity is sole guarantor of Truth, and
that other time-honored faiths are false or inadequate? Is not an oriental
precept of religious tolerance more plausible, if not more acceptable, in the
modern age? Why intrude with the Gospel? There may be an urgency to
witness to those living in some religious vacuum, if there be such, but why
trouble the others? Missionary activity is a type of aggression. And any-
how, until Christianity produces such souls of the stature of Vivekananda,
a Gandhi, or a Radhakrishnan, there is little justification for extensive
evangelism.
The point of our questioning to this juncture is to stress that a theology
on the frontier will take lightly neither the theological implications of the
dialogical process itself nor the dialogical dimensions of Christian procla-
mation. We stand in a new theological situation, not totally unlike, but
certainly not identical with, the church in the patristic age. If the "world" is
still the "parish" of the Christian proclamation, then the church has a
theological task greater in intensity and scope than that of the early Chris-
tian community. There are, of course, vast differences between the position
of the church in the early centuries and our own. As the "New Israel"
early theologians could claim for the small Christian community a signifi-
cant if not altogether impressive history; but the believers themselves were
under no delusion about their status in the then "pagan" world. And for a
considerable time they were illegitimate. Twentieth-century Christianity,
on the contrary, is the legatee of a long and impressive tradition which
among other accomplishments has largely mothered our Western culture, a
culture in turn which has influenced in important respects the non-
Christian world. Such "prestige" was not enjoyed by the early community.
Again, the problem of the early church was the exhilarating one of
Dialogue and Proclamation 425

"growing up" and making conquests ; the problem of the modern church is
that of "staying alive" and of being renewed. Whereas the early warriors of
the faith assailed the enemy in thought and life, even snatching intellectual
weapons from their hands to perform the coup d'etat (or was it a coup de
grace!), latter day soldiers of the cross, in their mission to the ends of the
earth, have often become bogged down in trench warfare, defensively
battling for their lives. The two ages are different in more ways that we may
elect to describe, but in one decisive respect we stand where they stood,
namely, on the front of a vast and complex intellectual and spiritual
battleground where all the best and creative forces must assemble, armed
with all the spiritual weaponry of the Triune God to do battle through mind
and life with an as-yet-unreconciled world. Any Christian proclamation
which is doctrinally isolationalist or religiously intramural, that is, unin-
volved constructively either with the realities of modern secular culture or
with other religious faiths, is simply inadequate for these times or the days
ahead.
We propose therefore to set forth in a series of theses some basic
principles for understanding the inherent and inescapable relationship of
interfaith dialogue and Christian proclamation. Further, we understand
that involvement in no narrow or exclusive religious context but in terms of
the problems, possibilities, and perils facing a common humanity in a
global, secular revolution. The "thesis form" is intended to advance a set
of affirmations and to invite the fullest debate.
Thesis 1: Religious pluralism, like theological pluralism within Chris-
tianity, is a continuing and developing reality in contemporary conscious-
ness. Christian theology can dismiss it as only human aberration, well
intentioned but misguided, due to sin, ignorance, or theological immatur-
ity; or it can affirm it as a positive, deeply-rooted y earing and expression of
the human spirit and a divinely-given opportunity for new and necessary
encounter.
It may seem elemental if not banal to speak of religious pluralism as a
new phenomenon. When in human history has religion been other than
pluriform? Given the fact of human existence itself, the character of
humanity's being, and the broadest spectrum of the human predicament
from the most primitive to the most sophisticated, from the most ancient to
the most modern, how could religion be otherwise? Interpreting human life
at its deepest levels and developing ways of celebrating that interpretation
are as predictably diverse as human differentiation itself. To say that is by
no means to overlook the commonality of human being and the essentiality
of the kinds of questions humans ask in moments of deepest reflection. It is
to state, however, that how humans come to look upon their commonality,
i.e., their marks of finiteness, their inter-kinship with one another and the
mystery of the world around them, and the still greater mystery of the
426 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

world beyond them, breaks forth in a plurality of symbols, rites, concepts,

and modes of behavior. And the remarkable and seemingly infinite world of
modern exploration in no way foreshortens either the element of mystery
or the plurality of religious expression.
Religious pluralism is not new nor is its history closing out. If anything,
it is entering upon a new phase. There is something irrepressible about
religion. Time-honored traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism are
entering upon a new era, not of resurgence but of revival and reinterpreta-
tion. "Resurgence" is too restrictive a term to characterize the present
situation. It has all the overtones of reaction from a former position of
passivity, staticness, or even defensiveness. The charge of resurgence
even smacks of political self-assertiveness, aggressiveness, self-
vindication, or a form of cultural nationalism to offset and reverse the
effects of what often was interpreted as an attempt at religious domination
and imperialism from without. Such talk, at best, is language out of the
past. Revival, inner-renewal, reinterpretation, a sense of mission, is more
the language of the present. "What does it mean to be a Buddhist today?"
was the way an articulate young Buddhist priest from mainland U.S.A. put
it recently to a gathering of serious enquirers. And there wasn't an other-
worldly, unhistorical, escapist comment in the entire discussion that
ranged from the meaning of human interdependence to the ethics of picket-
ing in support of Chavez's United Farmworkers!
To speak of religious pluralism as a developing reality in contemporary
consciousness, however, is to talk of more than old faiths reinterpreted and
renewed, or of brand new religions or quasi-religions, far off or near at
hand, esoteric or bizarre; it is rather to recognize that deep within the
consciousness of modern society there is the growing acceptance, the
legitimacy, if you will, the integrity, the authenticity of a religiously plural
non-monochromatic society. Plurality is not only a fact of existence but is
conceived of as an inherent and inescapable right of modern religious
existence. Religious coexistence, if not finally an adequate theological
position, is increasingly seen at least as a necessity if for no other reason
than as a moral checkmate against a widening gulf between believers and
unbelievers, between conviction and arrogance.4
The issue before us in this thesis is not sociological but theological. It is
not the development of a new consciousness about religion, its causes or
even its legitimacy which is under question, but how or even whether
Christian theology is constrained to come to grips with it in any way other
than a traditional manner. When I say "traditional," Christian theology of
course has long been conscious of iht fact of historic, formidable, and even
in some sense admirable religious pluralism. How else would one account
for the impetus, historic and contemporary, of the vast missionary enter-
4
Ibid., p. 118.
Dialogue and Proclamation 427

prise and its huge investment of personpower, exemplary commitment,

devotion, and accomplishment, and the continuing outlay of resources?
Even if theology has traditionally tended to look upon pluralism as in some
sense a necessary evil to be dealt with from the stance, at least temporarily,
of theological coexistence, it has by no means been unaware or inattentive
to the present crisis in the theology of missions.5
The stark reality of the theological question still remains. It is not the
fact but the meaning of historic and contemporary religious pluralism
which is the challenge to Christian theology. Is it sufficient simply to
"explain it away," even without critical evaluation, on the dogmatic
ground of the rejection of all "human" religions? Is the position even of
theological coexistence, in many ways attractive if not presently neces-
sary, theologically congruent with the biblical understanding of the Chris-
tian proclamation of the universality of the Gospel? Or is arigidprinciple of
coexistence, "a theological live and let live," in the final analysis not
self-defeating, sterile, and tension-ridden, as much in the realm of religious
faith as in political, social, and economic ideology? Is there anything to be
learned from the recent if tentative development in the Christian-Marxist
dialogue?
Religious pluralism, historic and contemporary, is an ambiguous
phenomenon with a track record of both negative and positive effects.
Negatively it can and has been divisive, as in the Israeli-Arab conflict in the
Middle East, the Hindu-Muslim situation in India, Pakistan, and Bang-
ladesh, or the Catholic-Protestant dilemma in Ireland, though in all
instances the coloration of the problem is as much political as religious. It
can lead to theological exclusionism, non-communicative opposition, or
ghettoism. One position alone is considered valid; the other is invalid
except perhaps in some non-essentials !
Positively, pluralism can serve a useful, indeed necessary, function-
—sociologically, toward the development of a free society, and theologi-
cally, toward a greater and more creative awareness of the meaning of
human unity, if in no other sense than in the deep desire to understand
reality. There may be a paradox of sorts here. The very diversity of
religious understanding rises out of a common, deeply-grounded human
passion to discover and then communicate what can be known and experi-
enced of reality. Unity, whenever most profoundly expressed has rarely
been uniform or monolithic.
However ambiguous the story of religious pluralism, or its scale of

5
Acknowledgement must be given here to the extensive literature, particularly in the last
decade, arising from the so-called "mission lands": Christian theological * 'nationals," and
missiologists, Asian theological conferences, Vatican II documents and preparatory and
subsequent theological studies, World Council of Churches conferences and dialogues, study
centers for interfaith dialogues, etc. The author is largely indebted to and dependent upon
materials and insights from these and many other sources.
428 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

expression from the profound to the fadish and absurd, its polychromatic
reality is a force positively to be grappled with by any theology under the
mandate of the Spirit's direction. The affirmation of this thesis is no
condescending acknowledgement of such a mandate on the frankly realis-
tic grounds, "Well, that's the way things are and are likely to remain for the
long, foreseeable future." It is the affirmation that the Spirit is summoning
from ahead the church out of its intra-eccesiasticism into a new moment of
dialogue and proclamation. The contours of the way ahead will become
clearer only in the process of the encounter.

Thesis 2: The task of Christian theology is so to formulate its structure

as to bearfaithful witness to its central claim, namely, thefullness ofGod* s
self-revelation in Jesus Christ for the reconciliation of humankind, to find
positive meaning for its own theological formulations in the historic
pluralism of religions, and to move out toward (people in) other faiths in
constructive dialogue.
A strange dichotomy of thinking has developed within the church that
differentiates and even separates theology and theologians into two types,
a kerygmatic theology which might be classified as "domestic" or "inter-
nal," and an apologetic theology more "foreign" or "external" in its basic
concerns: a theology for those at home, the insiders, and a theology for
those away from home, the outsiders! There is a certain irony in the latter
fact that Christian theology has had less concern for the "world of relig-
ions" (other than to condemn or dispose of it), which after all is the historic
locus for human wrestling with what is ultimately real and meaningful, than
it has had for the world of non-religious thought and life. There is no
intention in that statement to pull the curtain around religion and set up
another false dichotomy of the sacred and secular, thereby perpetrating or
perpetuating an un-secular meaning of the Gospel.
What we are saying here is that the parameters of Christian theologizing
have become circumscribed, even in those places where one might have
anticipated through the years a more expansive involvement, namely, the
mission lands. One understands historically and culturally the reasons for
that "theological poverty" which a recent Roman Catholic document
penetratingly points up,6 but the prospect of such a continuing poverty,
whether in so-called mission lands or anywhere else in the present times, is
our main concern. There is a vast new frontier which Christian theology is
summoned to cross. And the frontier is not Eastern, Middle-Eastern, or
Western, but global. It is precisely this age of cultural and religious con-
vergence, of the interpénétration of religious thought and experience, and a
greater understanding of the history and phenomenology of religions,
6
"The Future of the Missionary Enterprise," a series of missionary documents of the
Roman Catholic Church, produced under the sponsorship of the IDOC International
Documentation Participation Project.
Dialogue and Proclamation 429

which both facilitates and demands a theology which takes fully into
consideration the encounter of faiths. We have arrived at a new spiritual
"kairos" in theological history calling forth a new hermeneutical task. We
stand at a new ecumenical watershed where the issues of universality and
unity in all their dimensions are a primary challenge to the thought of the
church. A stepped-up, highly-promoted evangelism of the traditional sort
is neither adequate nor relevant. On the contrary, a new kind of
evangelism, no less faithful to the historic Christian proclamation but far
more responsive to the fundamental issues implicit in other religious tradi-
tions and experience, is required. Christian theology is presented with an
occasion for a new "apologia pro vita sua," which runs parallel to and
indeed intertwines with an apologetic brought on by a modern secularity
with its radical new thinking about the universe and humanity.
Such a theology has implications for the theological education of clergy
and laity. At face value it would seem steps removed from the training of
men and women for the pastoral ministry of the church, somewhat less
removed in importance should some be prepared for the teaching ministry,
and in no sense secondary for those headed for overseas ministry or for
national pastors whose vocation is set squarely in the context of other
faiths. The serious study and understanding of other faiths is more than the
"science of religions," but vis-à-vis Christian proclamation confronts one
sharply and edifyingly with the fundamental issues of Christian theology in
the global mission of the church. For here the central claims of the Gospel
are brought most seriously into focus and question. By the same token,
dialectically, one is enabled to see more vividly the redemptive character of
the Christian proclamation. Furthermore, the theological student of today
and tomorrow will never be so securely isolated, as my own generation
was, from the intellectual responsibility of teaching the Christian message
in the context of other expressions of faith.
It must be kept in mind that what we are talking about is not merely the
need for a serious intellectual statement of Christian faith which will
include an adequate doctrine of other religions. That too is a vital task of
contemporary theology and inherently part and parcel of the thesis we are
here advancing. Constructive thought is necessary on that front. The thrust
of this thesis is an endemically Christian theological task, namely, the
meaning, significance, and effects of the thought and experience of other
religious faiths and traditions on Christianity's own self-understanding and
the shape and manner of its theological proclamation in an age of religious
plurality and convergence.
Thesis 3: The foundation of the Christian's dialogue with others rests
on the constraint of the Gospel and the genuine concern for others; without
the former (Gospel), dialogue becomes mere conversation; without the
latter, it becomes arrogance. The Holy Spirit who leads people into and in
430 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

the dialogue speaks through both participants, preceding them in their

common meeting and bringing them to a mutual consciousness of their
essential unity as human beings and the solidarity of their common human
tasks and hopes. Interfaith dialogue must be seen increasingly as an arena
for the working of the Holy Spirit.
In the last analysis, the common ground of the meeting of faiths and
persons in their faiths is not explicitly their religions or their cultures but
their common humanity and the "gospel for the common good" of all
humanity. In the broadest sense of the term, what is "good news" for the
whole of humankind, what speaks to the deepest needs and concerns for
the entire human community, is the basic raison d'être for constructive
dialogue. To speak in that way is by no means to circumvent the signifi-
cance of human faith and cultures and the universal effects of the modern
secular revolution on all faiths and historic cultures. On the contrary, our
argument up to this point has been to stress the need for serious and
intelligent interfaith encounter. That is where people are, and that is the
most profound ground for understanding why they are there. Religious
faiths are not historical trivia, but humankind trying to come to grips with
the deeper reaches of human meaning and fulfillment. The nature and
destiny of the human being is a ground of our commonality.
The foundation for the Christian's entry into the dialogue is that he or
she shares responsibility in that commonality, believes that the gospel for
the common good lies in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as he or she has come to
experience it, and feels compelled under its constraint to put it out into the
arena of all human existence. Without the constraint ofthat Gospel, the
Christian is merely a listener (no mean function) and not a speaker.
Dialogue is listening and speaking. To be sure, speaking or conversation
does not always imply an exchange of words. It may be that "conversa-
tion," though words may be part of it, will take place—especially in our
time—at a much deeper level. In some situations it may even be, and have
to be, mute. In some situations Christians have already talked too much or
too big! Taking on people's burdens, really entering into their sufferings,
and rejoicing in their accomplishments may be a Christ-like "conversa-
tion" where words may simply be an intrustion or an affront. That is
neither a renunciation of the Christian proclamation nor a subtle gimmick
for interposing it. If the Christian is really impelled into the human dialogue
under the constraint of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then he or she is truly
safeguarded against many of the besetting sins of an anti-Gospel involve-
ment which heretofore have played havoc with the Christian encounter,
namely, pressure, coercion, religious paternalism, and theological im-
perialism.
In a sense, all human systems of thought, including the theological
ones, have tended to become little "cultural empires." Not only have they
been strongly shaped by the cultural heritage from which they have sprung,
Dialogue and Proclamation 431

but they have also tended to be held as fortresses. For the Christian, an
even greater temptation has been to identify and equate them with the
Gospel; consequently, the need for continuing critical theological self-
scrutiny. One need not identify this tendency as a peculiarly Christian
phenomenon. Like sin it is evenly distributed throughout the religious
world. Advaitist Hinduism, despite protestations of philosophical toler-
ance, often sports a similar tendency toward intra-Hindu imperialism. As
much could be said in the Islamic and Buddhist traditions.
The Gospel of God's creation and re-creation draws the Christian into
conversation with all people. Because God "made of one every nation of
men" we can be joyfully and responsibly aware of our human solidarity
regardless of color, culture, faith, or unbelief. There is an essential identity
of the human species. For the Christian, the deep sense of human commun-
ity derives from the conviction that all are created in God's image; all are
those for whom Christ lived, died, and rose; and all may anticipate their
reconcilation in a Reign yet to come in its fulness.
The Spirit is loose in the world. It blows where it wills as it wills.
Sometimes it comes with the might of giant waves of an island surf pound-
ing on the shores. Or it may come in the stillness of a quiet retreat. But the
Spirit is alive and at work as it has ever been through the centuries, evoking
human responses out of every faith and ceaselessly pointing to a yet fuller
moment in human history. This coming age in which Christians may meet
with those of other faiths (or of no explicit faith), in a way we have never
been able to meet before, is a day which the Spirit has made. It is the Spirit
which leads men and women into such dialogue, and it is the Spirit which, if
given fullest opening, will fructify that involvement.
Thesis 4: Faith is the very basis and driving force toward the intensifi-
cation of interfaith dialogue. For some this may seem a jeopardizing of
faith; but for those who truly surrender faith to God in order to receive
guidance and light, dialogue becomes an "offering" to God, calling faith
out into adventure and hope. Commitment to one's own faith and openness
to other faiths are not contradictory but complementary acts. Our com-
mitment is ultimately to God, not to the absoluteness of our own positions,
though theological convictions must be respected as the conscious expres-
sions of that commitment. Faith-commitment must therefore be seen as
dynamic, not static. Faith is the point of embarkation and the "way in" to
serious dialogue; the "way through," the outcome, lies open to the power
and wisdom of God.
Professor Tillich in his little book Dynamics of Faith has opened up for
many the full dimensions of faith. He has urged people to see faith as the
involvement of the whole person, mind, emotion, and will. Faith is no
fragmented experience. When fragmented it can lead to an intellectualistic
distortion (propositions of belief), an emotional distortion (a subject! vis tic
432 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

feeling), or a voluntaristic distortion (unguided obedience). At one point or

another these distortions of faith have all surfaced in the history of Christ-
ian experience to abridge the dimensions of faith. The wings of faith have
thereby been clipped.
Faith is a frontier word. It is commitment and open-endedness without
contradiction. Its roots penetrate deeply into interiority so that one may
move "from faith to faith" without exhausting the frontiers of spirituality.
Faith in God is like a never-ending, unsatiated relationship which as it
matures "blows" the imagination of the mind into creativity, the feelings
into joyous ecstacy, and the will into limitless avenues of service. But the
frontiers of faith extend outward as well as inward. And the adventures,
together with the risks, are no less inexhaustible. One such frontier is
Christain faith's involvement in the larger and wider community of others'
faiths. Surprisingly, involvement on this outer frontier can and often does
have the significant effect of extending the inner frontier of one's own
commitment. Action on the frontier of interfaith involvement is something
more than the meeting of theological systems. It is certainly that, but more.
It is the meeting, one is almost tempted to say "communion," of men and
women in their religious faith. Listen for a moment to the words of a devout
Muslim after spending nine days of continuous encounter with Christians
and other Muslims:
We were made to feel something which cannot be put into words except
that we were all too small before God, too small to dispute Him among
ourselves, and that we had just to surrender, kneel down and pray. This
was the internal side of the dialogue, what it did to us in our deep inside,
and as its consequence, many of us were led to feel that we were talking
too much about God To most of us the "other" faith was, before
we actually met, an abstraction, or just a different faith about which we
knew less or more. But as we met, we became aware of a new situation,
a kind of personal encounter, unfolding between us, and within our
common humanity, which was, to translate it into religious terms, our
common need of God. The dialogue introduced most of us to a new
spirituality, an inter-faith spirituality What we really became
aware of was our common human situation before God and in God.7

Faith in God as the true mode of the Christian's existence is the very
force which drives one out to the frontiers. It ventures beyond the "safe"
places. It enables one to glimpse the horizons of God's own concerns which
include the whole inhabitable world. One of the most insidious diseases
affecting the community of faith globally is a "settling down" com-
munalism and ghetto mentality. It may be that only in the meeting of people
7
S. J. Samartha, ed., Dialogue between Men of Living Faiths, papers presented at a
Consultation held at Ajaltoun, Lebanon, March, 1970 (Geneva: World Council of Churches,
1971), pp. 113f.
Dialogue and Proclamation 433

of other faiths, in the very context of their faiths and one's own, one may
receive illumination on the larger purposes of God. A lively faith has no
need to be protective. It has far greater need for adventure. Faith's com-
mitment is ultimately to God, finding its security and freedom in God, not in
the absoluteness of one's own theological positions. Secure and free in
God, it is able, indeed is called, into the risks and adventure of freedom
where it may embark upon the venture of interfaith encounter. Christian
faith belongs on that frontier.
Thesis 5: Proclamation and dialogue are neither identical nor alterna-
tive and mutually exclusive acts. They are intimately related not as tech-
niques but as events in which God may speak to human beings who may
respond to God and each other. In a dialogical life-style, that is, in a life
turned out to others in conversation and service, any moment may become
a moment of proclamation. A dialogue rooted in a good news to be shared
rather than a victory to be won may include proclamation. Proclamation
may occur in ways other than in dialogue but will always be made in the
spirit of dialogue. Dialogue in turn may provide the possibility of procla-
mation.
It is a regrettable fact that some Christians have set Christian proclama-
tion in opposition to interfaith dialogue, thereby dividing Christian
thinking—sometimes heatedly—on this issue. The argument on the one
side, that is, proclamation without dialogue, runs as follows: "The thrust
of Christian evangelism is weakened and dulled, and the sense of mission
imperiled, when proclamation is attended by dialogue. Dialogue leads to an
evangelistic 'cop-out' and an ultimate compromise of the faith. The bap-
tized are not commissioned to talk about religion, but to 'go forth baptizing
and making disciples of all nations. ' ' ' The argument on the other side, that
is, dialogue without proclamation, is an equal dichotomizing of the princi-
ple of proclamation and dialogue: "The age of direct proclamation or
evangelism is ended. It is divisive, competitive, and ultimately self-
defeating. The primary need today is for open, full interfaith communica-
tion in order that we may know one another and one another's faith better
in order, among other things, that we may break down barriers that prevent
necessary common human action."
The fallacy in the dichotomizing of the two lies in a questionable
understanding of both proclamation and dialogue. On the one hand, it
assumes that any proclamation of the Christian message either takes place
in some religious or faith vacuum, or that the "father Jacobs" of religious
history at whose wells people have drunk for centuries are largely irrele-
vant and therefore ignorable in the proclamation of the Gospel. Recently a
Christian missionary in rural Japan unashamedly indicated that though he
had been in Japan for over ten years he knew very little about the Buddhist
tradition of the people among whom he labored. He recognized that as not
434 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

only a limitation on his work as an evangelist but, in the final analysis, the
failure to realize the meaning and value as well as the possible gifts ofthat
religious culture to his own religious self-understanding. In any act of
proclamation there is an exchange and one need not be hesitant in either
giving or receiving. In any authentic exchange or inter-communication
there is a listening, a coming-to-understand, and a humility before and
respect for each other. No proclamation need be fearful or defensive, and
certainly not offensive, when it enters into an authentic encounter with
other faiths. Whatever is authentic in the Christian proclamation will
authenticate itself and needs no authenticator other than God, who after all
is the authenticator of every Christian proclamation.
There is an equal misunderstanding about dialogue as well as about
proclamation. To be sure, a positive mark of true dialogue is a "probing
listening," and there is little doubt that Christian witness in the past, if not
in the present, has been "slow to hear and quick to speak." Yet when
dialogue is seen as an event of the Spirit which has already been preceded
by the activity of God, and not as a phony, ulterior, self-serving act, there is
speaking and witnessing as well as listening. There is participation, a
sharing and a caring, marked not by conquest but by a manner of communi-
cation in harmony with the nature of the message communicated. A mes-
sage of divine love will be delivered in a manner true to the way of love.
Proclamation and dialogue are not synonymous, nor are they adver-
saries. They are locked into one another not as human devices but as
events in which God may speak to us and we may respond. In interfaith
encounter genuine proclamation is invariably dialogical and true dialogue
includes witness. In many instances today it may be the prime or the last
channel of proclamation and the only substance to dialogue. The stance of
theological and interfaith coexistence in an advancing pluralistic society is
in the end mutually non-reproductive. To coexist is ultimately to stand
apart from, to decry, to condemn, to judge. To communicate is to engage
in, to understand, to self-examine. The Gospel calls Christians not to
coexistence but to "pro-existence" : to live on one another's behalf, enter-
ing into one another's joys, hopes, losses, and problems.

Thesis 6: In any Christian proclamation and interfaith dialogue, the

issue of Truth is paramount. To treat with sheer relativism or easy toler-
ance the question of Ultimate Reality (Truth) is in the end to destroy
respect for such Truth and to cut the nerve of the passion to know. The
result is to consider the ground of one another's faith as essentially irrele-
vant and to make a mockery of serious dialogue. Humility before the Truth is
a virtue; indifference to Truth is a vice. For Christian faith, Truth is not a
thing to be grasped but a relationship to be entered. To know the Truth is to
be "in" the Truth, to be "of the Truth, and to "do" the Truth.
Some distinctions must be pointed out here. We must differentiate
Dialogue and Proclamation 435

between "relativity" and "sheer relativism." To say that there is a relativ-

ity about our grasp of Truth is to acknowledge, as we must, the boundaries,
the limitations of the human intellect and spirit, and to realize our place in
time and history. There is nothing negative or demeaning about that. On
the contrary, it is a constructive deterrent toward any tendency to ab-
solutize our understanding of Truth or to absolutize any of our theological
systems. This should be thrown out as a necessary caution to both indi-
viduals and institutions. Dogmas, ecclesiastical or otherwise, have a
natural bent toward dogmatism. The warfare between new science and
theology was often as much a struggle between new and old science.
In all our knowledge of Divine Reality the subjective factor is inescapa-
ble. Looked at positively, in the sense of Kierkegaard's "truth as subjectiv-
ity," it is to recognize that Truth is not "Truth for us" until it is inwardly
appropriated. On the other hand subjectivism, or the absolutizing of our
own relativity of knowledge, leads inevitably to a virtual idolatry of our
systems. It would mean to destroy the tension between the objective and
subjective factors in the knowledge of Divine Reality and lead to the virtual
entrapment of the divine within the human.
"Sheer relativism," on the other hand, is to assert that the passion to
know the Truth is inconsequential. It is to back off from the hard demands
of Truth. It is an exercise in futility or meaningless endeavor. It is to
transfer the relativity of the knower to the Reality of that which is to be
known, to the Ultimate Reality, to the God who is to be known. To affirm
God as the Ultimate Truth and the Truth for us is not to affirm that we know
God absolutely. Sheer relativism finds expression in popular ways of
thinking such as, "One religion is as good as another," or, if you happen to
be a pessimist, "One religion is as meaningless, useless, or false as
another." A former U. S. president worded it: "I don't care what religion
he has, just so he has a religion," whatever that may mean. Or again, "It
makes no difference what you believe, just so you believe." That last
statement is fraught with ominous possibilities or consequences.
I do not wish to be pedantic. I am only saying that neither Christian
proclamation nor interfaith dialogue will handle the question of Truth
lightly at any level. Divine reality is not inconsequential to human exis-
tence. To love God with all "one's mind" means, among other things, the
passion of the mind to know God, whom to know is perfect freedom. To cut
the nerve ofthat passion by an "easy tolerance" toward Truth—which has
nothing to do with religious tolerance toward persons seriously in pursuit of
such knowledge, indeed is the very antithesis of it—is to consider the
Reality of God as of no or little importance to human life.
This thesis likewise contends that the passion to know the Truth is the
very motivation which locks the Christian into serious dialogue with
adherents of other faiths. Truth leaves no doors locked. Truth examines
critically and expectantly all the cornerstones of human faith. Truth ulti-
436 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

mately frees and unites. Truth fears no frontiers. And the human passion
for Truth will travel to every frontier, relentlessly seeking, until the Truth
is made to give up its enlightenment and its divine secrets. Indeed, the
human passion is Truth's own Spirit relentlessly seeking out the knower
and driving the human spirit on its adventure.
For Christian faith, "knowing the Truth" is nota thing or a proposition
to be grasped. Truth is relational. God is not an object or proposition but
Person. Truth therefore is more than intellectual knowledge. As William
Temple, the late Archbishop of Canterbury argued, there are not revealed
truths, only truths of revelation.8 Truth is a relationship, a communion, a
life with, a continuing encounter with God. To "know" the Truth is to be
"in" God; to "do" the Truth is to walk in God's Way. In that sense, one
can understand, in part at least, the impatience of the Hindu philosopher to
get beyond the formal academic dialogue to its "roots in the deeper being of
man." As he wrote to Fr. C. Murray Rogers, "when you have discovered
the inner Christ in the light of the Spirit within, then we shall gladly come
forward to share with you our own experience of the interiority of God." 9
Thesis 7: Christian proclamation is a witness. The burden of the Chris­
tian is first and foremost out of one's own spiritual experience, to share
with another what God in Christ has done for oneself and for all people.
Like all true preaching it is dialogical in essence: a kerygmatic element is
inseparably combined with an apologetic element. It is more than the
"hurling" of a message at another, to be accepted or rejected. With
sensitivity and loving concern for the person, it enters into another's
reasons for believing or not believing as oneself does. Therefore, the
conception of mission and evangelism must be continually rethought and
distinguished from mere pros elytism. True dialogue safeguards proclama­
tion and witness from s elf-projection, s elf-justification, satanic egotism
(whether personal or institutional), and the desire for expansion at the cost
of others.
Any preacher who aspires to good preaching knows that the authentic­
ity of his or her proclamation of the Gospel is strengthened by the validity
of his or her own witness to it. To be sure, the truth of the proclamation is
not derived from the genuineness of one's experience of it—it may function
in the absence of it—but its credibility is enhanced by it. Christian procla-
8
William Temple, Nature, Man and God (London: Macmillan Press, 1935).
9
Samartha, Dialogue, pp. 26, 28. See also the All India Seminar, Church in Ιηώ a Today
(Bangalore, 1969), the official report of the "Dialogue with Other Religions," p. 341:
"Dialogue at its highest level is spiritual and religious communion, the experiencing in
common of the religious reality. It consists in experiencing religiously the fact that we, though
specially chosen and blessed by God in Christ, are, together with the non-Christian partners,
seekers after a deeper realization of God, and witnesses to each other of His mystery and His
love, and that therefore we are at one at the deepest level of life. We meet on the ultimate
ground of existence. Therefore, we can share both what is common and what is different,
intimate and personal."
Dialogue and Proclamation 437

mation is not merely an announcement but a testimony. The entire New

Testament is a *'witnessed" proclamation. Some even offered their
proclamation-witness by death (martyrdom).
But all Christian proclamation, like true preaching, goes beyond the
proclamation of doctrine or the fitting exegesis of Scripture, however
fundamental both of these are to the proclamation of the Word. The
doctrine may be ever so learned and accurate and still fall short of a
Christian proclamation of good news. What is needed further to make the
proclamation authentic * 'good news" is an understanding of, and a concern
for, the human condition: the temptations, heartaches, needs, fears, hopes,
and aspirations. Offering bread to one dying of thirst is not good news.
Offering answers to unasked or misunderstood questions is not good news.
The ministry of Christ became good news because Christ knew what was in
woman and man—the hunger, thirst, anxiety, pain, sense of guilt, and
desire for new life.
Christian proclamation in the world of other-believing faiths has a
concern not only for the kerygma, the proclamation, but also for the life,
the thought, and the culture of those for whom it is proclaimed as good
news. The scope of evangelism in an age of active religious pluralism
cannot be so constricted as to shut out from serious consideration the faiths
by which people have lived. Certainly the goal of Christian proclamation
does not call for the rejection of one's cultural roots or the transfer of
people from one socio-cultural community to another. Herein lies one of
the continuing complex problems of the indigenization of the Gospel.
Wherever there is a virile proclamation of the Gospel there is no way to
fence in or to hold back the critical questions it raises about the meaning of
all human existence or the structures of all human society. The Gospel can
be devastating in its redemptive effects, that is, when it has been truly
heard and received. On the other hand, the transforming power of the
Gospel is re-creative, personally and societally, not driving people out of
their cultural milieu but returning them constructively into it. Whatever
else incorporation of non-Christians into the Christian fellowship of faith,
sacrament, and love may mean, it hardly calls for rejection or separation
from their fundamental cultural heritage. That a dynamic tension occurs in
non-Christians and their cultural identity when the force of the Christian
proclamation becomes a reality for them cannot be gainsaid. The deep
inter-entwinement of their historic faith and cultural heritage accentuates
the tension. This very tension and its implications are increasingly recog-
nized as a primary issue in the theology of missions. It only substantiates
the urgency of interfaith dialogue in the theology of Christian proclama-
tion.
The issue of "conversion" in its traditional interpretation has become a
major problem in an age of interfaith encounter. In large part it has become
problematic because of a traditional distortion of its meaning and practice.
438 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

On the one hand, it has often been identified with human techniques of
proselytism, where, in the interests of institutional expansion or the eager-
ness for success, human manipulation has occurred in the guise of Gospel
proclamation. Or else conversion has been interpreted more in terms of
some form of horizontal, sociological transference out of one tradition into
another rather than in the fundamental biblical terms of repentance and
spiritual "turning." As a result, the issue of religious conversion has often
become an embarrassment to responsible Christian leaders and a source of
animosity to leaders of other faiths. It is a continuing obstacle to inter-faith
dialogue.10 In no way, however, does the present tension over conversion
negate or diminish the significance of the biblical understanding of it. There
the fundamental directions are vertical and inward, a radical "turning of
one's mind and life" (metanoia) as a response to God's gracious turning
toward us. God the Spirit acts upon the mind and heart, bringing forth an
acknowledgement of sin and sorrow, and setting it forth on a new course of
hearty amendment. The issue of whether that divine "turning about" of a
human life leads or should lead in the direction of a new religious or
communal affiliation is a matter of open and serious debate.11 It would
appear that the biblical context, of both Old and New Testaments, addres-
ses itself primarily to the need for a radical transformation of personal and
corporate life "among the people of God" rather than to the question of the
transference or reaffiliation ofthose who stand outside Israel or the church.
This does not imply that formal and active identification of the "convert"
with the Christian community of faith is a matter of only tangential signifi-
cance. It does affirm the need for the church to keep the question of
"conversion" in true biblical focus and to keep the issue of affiliation
dynamically open.
Dialogue dare not degenerate into a satanic instrument for human
I
°See Study Encounter, Vol. III-IV (1967-68), pp. 52-56, the statement on "Christians in
Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths," drawn up by the Protestant/Orthodox/Catholic Consul-
tation convened by the WCC at Kandy, Ceylon, 1967. "Christians, who have to repent of and
live down much sad history, have thereby a special responsibility for building bridges of
understanding We recognize that there is often confusion, within the Church and outside
of it, between conversion as an inner spiritual and moral rebirth, a radical turning to God, and
conversion as a cultural and sociological change of religious affiliation. We are not agreed
among ourselves whether or not it is part of God's redemptive purposes to bring about an
increasing manifestation of the Saviour within other systems of belief as such. This very fact is
one of the reasons which should make us leave it to the conscience and inner illumination of
those who within other systems take up Christian discipleship, whether or not it is God's will
for them that they should leave their own social and religious community. The spirit of
dialogue should anyway prevent our dogmatism on the subject. Normally, conversion leads to
baptism and incorporation into the Church. There may, however, be situations—personal or
social, spiritual or practical—in which the Church may support the individual in his decision to
postpone or abstain from baptism. Baptism is an invitation and a gift, not an imposition."
II
Acts 15:3 speaks of the "conversion [epistrophen] of the Gentiles," though I suspect
more in the theological sense of conversionfromidolatry to the true God than in a sociological
sense of a new communal affiliation, through there can be little doubt that the "converted"
Gentiles became members of the Christian community.
Dialogue and Proclamation 439

proselytism. Jesus' stern rebuke of Pharisaic proselytism that would

traverse land and sea to make a convert, only to make that convert "twice
as fit for hell" (Mt. 23:15 N.E.B.) as themselves, should be sufficient
deterrent to any similar activity in Christian evangelism. True Christian
proclamation brings about a "turning" in human life not on the strength of
human instruments of manipulation, however subtly contrived, but on the
power of the Holy Spirit. Dialogue is not a technique or device. It is a
sensitized concern, a loving and a caring, and a serious inquiry into the
position of another on the strength of such concern. I doubt there can be
any true proclamation today in the world of other belief in the absence of
such dialogue. Proclamation needs such dialogue to fulfill its own task and
to safeguard its true function from demonic self-interests and a human
travesty of the Gospel.

Study and Discussion Questions

1. What is the position being advanced?
2. What is the significance of dialogue in the present time?
3. What is meant by Christian proclamation?
4. When is Christian theology dialogical?
5. What factors have hampered attention to these issues?
6. What alternatives are presented in Thesis 1 ? Are there other alternatives not delineated?
7. What is the task of Christian theology in the present situation described?
8. What is the significance for missionary endeavor?
9. How are the issues of Holy Spirit and faith related to the situation of interfaith dialogue
and Christian proclamation?
10. What are the arguments against dialogue and proclamation? Are these arguments charac-
terized adequately?
11. What is the issue of Truth and why is it so crucial?
12. How does the author distinguish between relativity and "sheer relativism"? Discuss.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.