Religion and Revelation: A Theology of Revelation in the World's Religions.

Gillis, Chester

This combination of Ward's Gifford and Selwyn Lectures (1993-94) is a rational investigation into, and defense of, the category of revelation across traditions. The lectures read like two different books: one carefully and sympathetically describing Judaism, Hinduism (of the Vedanta tradition), Islam, and Buddhism; the other a comparative theology from a Christian perspective. W. attempts to create a Christian theology that is open to and informed by the revelations, traditions, and beliefs of other religions. Thus he joins the company of contemporary theologians such as W. C. Smith, J. Hick, and R. Panikkar, who have produced similar efforts.

W. roots his enterprise by appealing theologically to Aquinas and philosophically to Wittgenstein, while refuting Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Hendrick Kraemer for their separation of reason and revelation because their prejudice against the use of reason leads them to dismiss as false all claims to revelation, other than the Christian claim. W. understands revelation to be ambiguous and subject to various interpretations by particular communities in history, giving rise to different religions. Theology, then, is provisional, and previous articulations of it are subject to revision. While confessional theology that explores a particular revelation remains legitimate, W. distinguishes this from comparative theology that investigates the transcendent as understood in many traditions. Comparative theology also explores the meaning and rationality of religious beliefs in various traditions. These two kinds of theology are not necessarily in opposition, but they are different. In W.'s view, however, there is little necessary difference between theology and philosophy of religion. Thus, W., not unlike Hick in An Interpretation of Religion, weaves both disciplines into the work. He traces the history of revelation from primal, which in his view suffers from lack of rational and moral development, to canonical traditions, making the theological claim that the Divine has disclosed itself in various historical and cultural contexts by various means.

His descriptions of the four scriptural traditions (Judaism, Vedanta, Islam, and Buddhism) are accurate, although necessarily not comprehensive. His treatment of the Christian tradition is at the same time the most important and the most puzzling part of the book. For here he appears, on the one hand, to be a confessional theologian and, on the other hand, a comparative theologian; and the confessional theologian seems to prevail. W. acknowledges the many pitfalls and caveats associated with conferring on history a definitive significance when it comes to the claims to superiority by Christian theology because of its historical foundation. Yet he defends the validity of the Christian story on the basis of its intrinsic connection to history. For W. believes, unlike, e.g., Van Harvey, that history can be read through the eyes of faith: "Faith will not always falsify; it may be the condition of a true perception of historical meaning and significance, if indeed God acts self-revealingly in historical situations" (247). While he accepts in principle the validity of historical and textual critical studies, he believes that their methodologies have been compromised by nontheistic presuppositions. W.'s theological reading of the Christian tradition reminds one of Pannenberg's theology because of its close ties to history. One of the problems with this reading of "salvation history" is that many Christians are not natural heirs to Middle Eastern history (Asians and Africans, e.g.) and thus seem to be distanced from God's historical self-disclosure as chronicled in the Old and New Testaments. Another problem is that the preference given to historical revelation creates a religious underclass of ahistorical traditions such as Hinduism.

In the end, W. tries to hold a delicate balance that acknowledges genuine revelation and a common soteriological structure in many religions, yet confessionally holds to the normative character of the Christian revelation that leads to a "practical certainty of commitment" (341). This is among the most pressing problems in theology, and W. has resolved it no more or less convincingly than others. He has further refined the discussion, particularly by clarifying the idea of "authentic manifestation" of the transcendent and by exposing the indefinite character of "the Real" as found in Hick and his insistence (against Gavin D'Costa) on rational criteria for judgment about religious truth claims. But W. admits that the book is a prolegomenon, an attempt to clarify the discussion about revelation in order to clear the way for a constructive theology of religions.

CHESTER GILLIS Georgetown University, D.C.