Leonard Swidler's influence on the work of an American Evangelical and on Romanian Academia.

Jones, Michael S.

Dr. Leonard Swidler--he will always be "Dr." to me, for the respect that this bearded Anabaptist has for that clean-shaven Catholic is tremendous--is emphatic about the dual nature of the quest for interreligious understanding. It is relational, but it is also critical. His preferred terms are "critical thinking" and "deep dialogue." When I first met him, I was already a critical thinker. Somewhere along life's way I developed the habit of checking the other side of every coin, of second-guessing my initial proclivities, assumptions, and often hasty conclusions. This was refined and focused by two master's degrees, the first in theology and the second in philosophy. By the time I arrived at Temple University I had already been exposed to world religions and the benefits of looking outward from one's own tradition. However, dialogue was not yet on my radar. It should have been, but it was not. When I came to Temple as a Ph.D. student I began to interact with students and professors from many of the world's major religious and philosophical traditions. I welcomed this, but I lacked a systematic approach to interacting with and integrating the insights of diverse traditions into my own belief system. I needed a systematic theory of interideological learning, and Swidler provided this essential addition to my education.

Swidler's approach to interreligious encounters embraces the insight that people are inescapably situated within traditions that provide the context within which they evaluate beliefs, practices, and rival traditions. This insight has been applied to various domains, ranging from the physical sciences (Thomas Kuhn) to religion (Raimundo Panikkar) and ethics (Alasdair MacIntyre). (1) Swidler discussed this contextualization of belief in relation to interideological learning in his book After the Absolute: The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection, which was the textbook used in the first of his classes that I was privileged to attend. (2) He also modeled this for his students. While Swidler finds great value in working within the Roman Catholic tradition, he has a critical scholarly knowledge of that tradition and, working from within, does not hesitate to oppose long-held Catholic beliefs and practices when critical reflection shows them to be in need of revision. (3) His approach to ecumenism is no wishy-washy, touchy-feely inclusivism that accepts every opinion advocated by anyone as long as it is advanced with sincerity. It is an ecumenism based on critical reflection and the conviction that careful consideration of all options and the contexts that render them credible to those who hold them will lead to mutual understanding, ameliorate many sources of conflict, and have the greatest potential to lead to truth (appropriately understood).

As a committed Evangelical Christian, I entered his class unsure of what benefit a class with a professor who is both Roman Catholic and ecumenical would offer to me. The class began with Swidler's introducing himself and relating his religious background, then he invited each of the students to do the same. The class was diverse, including two Lutheran exchange students from Germany, a Quaker, and a Muslim, among others. Clearly, I was not the only non-Roman Catholic. He set us at ease with his relaxed teaching style, but it was the content of his teaching as much as his style that made us feel welcomed, for he believes that it is beneficial to interreligious dialogue for each participant to be deeply immersed in a tradition. Hence, he encouraged us to know our tradition well and to speak from within that tradition. His goal was to convert us to deep dialogue and critical thinking, not to Roman Catholicism.

Throughout the course, Swidler led us in a discussion of issues by asking us what positions our traditions took on those issues or what insights our traditions could offer toward understanding or resolving the issues, and then he led us through a thoughtful group analysis of each contribution. This was a tradition-oriented dialogue and critical-thinking exercise as none that I had ever experienced. I wish I could replicate it in my own classroom.

I teach at a university that is firmly within the Evangelical Christian tradition. Almost all of my students self-identify as theologically conservative, "bom again" Christians. Hence, the ministry that I have is different from Swidler's ministry at Temple University. However, there are similarities. Both schools have many students who are not well versed in their own tradition. Even more have never engaged in serious critical reflection on their tradition. I am frequently privileged to teach theology and philosophy classes that help entry-level students (freshmen and sophomores) to understand the Christian tradition better and to think critically about its approaches to various issues. I also enjoy teaching upper-level philosophy classes that introduce my Christian students to other religiophilosophical traditions in a way that is both critical and dialogical. I am able to accomplish this despite the general lack of religious diversity by having the students study primary texts from the world's major religions and by taking them on field trips to the mosque and the synagogue in our city (presently, there are no Buddhist and Hindu temples in Lynchburg, VA).

During my time as a doctoral student at Temple, the seminary where I studied theology invited me to teach at their extension in Romania. This was after the fall of communism in 1989. The seminary had been contacted by Baptist churches in Romania that requested help training a new generation of pastors and church workers. The seminary responded by helping to start a small seminary on the western side of Romania and a Bible institute on the eastern side. In 1998 I visited Romania for the first time, teaching a one-week intensive on New Testament Ecclesiology at the Bible Institute of Holy Trinity Baptist Church in Fetesti, a small city between Bucharest and the Black Sea.

I taught this course with the assistance of an interpreter who was a bilingual pastor. When he found out that I was a philosophy student, he asked if I had studied any Romanian philosophers. I, of course, was not even aware that there were Romanian philosophers, so he scrawled on a scrap of paper the names of a half-dozen thinkers. When I returned to Temple I went to the library to look up these Romanian intellectuals. One of them was Mircea Eliade, the famous religion scholar from the University of Chicago; I had already read Eliade, but had not known that he was Romanian. The other names were unknown to me, and little could be found about some of them. One about whom I did find several articles caught my interest: Lucian Blaga (1895-1961) (4) The son of a village Romanian Orthodox priest, Blaga grew up in Transylvania, earned a bachelor's degree in theology from a Transylvanian seminary, and then completed a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Vienna. He published poetry, theater, and over thirty books of philosophy before being blacklisted by the communist government that gained control of Romania after World War II. (5)

It did not take me long to realize that I had found a possible subject for my Ph.D. dissertation, and it was not long before Swidler was on my dissertation committee. Blaga piqued two of his chief interests: critical thinking about life's big issues, and interreligious/interideological learning. For me, the greatest attraction was the possibility of conducting very original research into the work of a thinker who brings together three of my greatest interests: philosophy, theology, and my new interest, Romania. Thanks to a grant from the Fulbright Scholar Program, I was able to conduct my research at Babe^-Bolyai University, the very Transylvanian university where Blaga had taught.

I studied and taught at Babe[section]-Bolyai University for two years, learning Romanian, scavenging the country to collect resources for my research, teaching philosophy, and integrating myself into the Romanian academic and religious life. I maintained contact with my dissertation committee, including Swidler, through email. The last course that I taught was a course in philosophy of religion with a particular focus on issues related to interreligious relations and dialogue using his After the Absolute as one of the textbooks.

During this time I was privileged to collaborate with two Romanian professors in founding the "Seminar for Interdisciplinary Research of Religions and Ideologies." (6) This is a vehicle for facilitating meetings and collaboration across the disciplines between students and faculty who are pursuing research related to religion. Thanks to the personal warmth and organizational skills of my Romanian colleagues, SC1RI was an almost immediate success, spawning frequent gatherings at the university, occasional conferences featuring scholars from other countries, and a very significant number of scholarly publications. One of our biggest successes was the creation of the Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, (7) a scholarly online journal that is the first Romanian journal selected for coverage in both Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Current Contents: Arts & Humanities.

Swidler joined the advisory staff of JSRI early on and contributed an article to the inaugural issue. (8) His After the Absolute was translated into Romanian by a SCIRI member, Codruta Cuceu, and published in Romania by Editura Limes. (9) He has visited Babes-Bolyai University three times and participated in a variety of SCIRI activities.

I left Romania at the end of the 2001-02 academic year to return to Temple and complete my Ph.D. Swidler participated at my dissertation defense and encouraged me to publish on the topic of Blaga's philosophy. I accepted his challenge and have published book chapters and articles on Blaga's philosophy in Romania and the United States. In 2006 I succeeded in turning my dissertation into a book, The Metaphysics of Religion: Lucian Blaga and Contemporary Philosophy, published by Fairleigh-Dickenson University Press. (10) Publications specifically relating Blaga and dialogue include a chapter on his philosophy of culture as a doorway to interreligious understanding published in a multi-author volume devoted to Blaga's philosophy (11) and an article in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies on implications of Blaga's philosophy for interreligious understanding. (12)

During this time I continued to serve as an editor for JSRI and to collaborate, from time to time, with my former colleagues and friends in Romania. It was less than I desired but all that I could manage in light of a heavy teaching load. I wanted to continue my involvement in Romania. I also wanted to make it possible for Americans to read at least a part of Blaga's philosophy for themselves rather than being limited to reading about Blaga. During my summers I worked on translating Blaga's last book, The Historical Being (Fiinta istorica), into English. However, since I teach summer school every year, the progress was slow. These twin desires eventually led me to apply for a second Fulbright. I am grateful to God to report that I am writing this essay from Bucharest, having received a nine-month Senior Fulbright Grant to teach philosophy at the University of Bucharest and to complete my translation of The Historical Being.

The Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Bucharest is the premier philosophy program in Romania. I do not intend this statement to detract from the other solid philosophy programs in Romania; each program has its strengths, and I feel a great deal of warmth for and a certain sense of loyalty to my former program in Cluj. But, the program in Bucharest is the largest in the country, has the best facilities, regularly hosts large international conferences, and in other ways evidences its preeminence. I am greatly enjoying my time here. The students seem very engaged, and the faculty and administration have been warmly welcoming.

I am currently teaching one course: Analytic Philosophy of Religion. The Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Bucharest is the most analytic of the Romanian philosophy programs; from what I have been told and what I experienced in Cluj, it seems that the other philosophy programs tend much more toward Continental philosophy. However, the philosophy of religions course that is a regular part of the undergraduate program is closer to Continental philosophy of religion than to analytic philosophy of religion; it is a general introduction to and comparison of the belief systems of the world's major religions rather than a close philosophical examination and critical analysis of issues that span multiple religious traditions. A Continental-style philosophy of religions course is certainly of great value and can be fun to teach; I teach a similar course at my home institution. It can also provide an excellent opportunity to introduce concepts that foster a dialogical attitude toward diverse traditions. Such courses usually do not emphasize critical thinking to the same degree that an analytic philosophy of religion course does. Hence, the latter has this strength that is in harmony with Swidler's approach to dialogue. (13)

I have structured the course around David Hume's classic text, Dialogues on Natural Religion. (14) Hume's dialogues are engaging reading and have a natural way of involving the reader in critical thinking. I use the weekly reading in Hume to introduce a subject and then assign more advanced readings in an anthology that develops the topic further in a dialogical, point-counterpoint fashion. (15) meet for one hour with the entire class to discuss the issues introduced by Hume, and then we meet for two additional hours during which the students and I present the readings from the anthology. Using student presentations of philosophical texts is a favorite pedagogical method of mine, because it requires the students to think carefully about what they are reading.

The subjects that we are examining are the nature of faith, the compatibility or incompatibility of reason and revelation, the existence of God, the problem of evil, naturalism versus supernaturalism, the relationship between religion and ethics, the problem of religion pluralism, "ownership" of the term "God," how to handle ideological disagreement, and interreligious dialogue. These topics provide fertile ground for discussion, especially in light of the ideological diversity of the class. Although Romania is purportedly over eighty percent Romanian Orthodox, the Faculty of Philosophy has a notably naturalistic bent. Hence, the class includes professed agnostics and Eastern Orthodox believers, as well as at least one student who is an Evangelical Christian and perhaps other perspectives that have not yet surfaced. This diversity has yielded some very interesting and interactive classes.

During the spring semester I am scheduled to teach two courses: Religious Issues in Ethics, and Lucian Blaga. The latter will probably be the first course on Blaga taught in English. It will be very interesting to be an American teaching a classroom of Romanians about one of their own folk heroes. The former is a class that was requested by the head of the Faculty of Philosophy. While the Faculty has its own ethicists, it appears that they do not approach ethics from a religious perspective. I expect to be challenged by my students during this class. It will be a good opportunity for more dialogue.

In keeping with Swidler's aforementioned emphasis on being grounded in one's own religious tradition, in addition to teaching at the University of Bucharest (and occasionally speaking at other universities around the country), I speak and teach in several Romanian Baptist churches and will address Evangelical student organizations, the Romanian equivalents of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ), and the like. (16) In fact, I have more speaking opportunities than I have the time for. To me this is a welcome predicament.

Swidler's philosophy of dialogue and critical thinking is at work in Romania. He brought it here himself, and it has been reinforced by his students, including me. Romania, like so many other places in the world, is rich soil for such dialogue. It is a Balkan crossroad of Eastern and Western cultures, politically oriented toward NATO and very friendly to the U.S., but at the same time influenced by years of communism and firmly embracing a European-style democratic socialism. Predominantly self-identifying as Romanian Orthodox, many Romanians seem to be practicing secularists. There are significant ideological minorities, including atheists and agnostics, on the western side of the country there are large numbers of Roman Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, and Hungarian Reformed. There is a very old Muslim minority along the Black Sea, and there are Baptists, Pentecostals, Adventists, and others sprinkled throughout. It is a diverse tapeshy of beliefs and practices that happily is less divided than are some other Balkan nations, but that also has the potential for significant conflict. Principles of peaceful interaction such as those promulgated by Swidler are invaluable in this context.

(1) See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); Raimundo Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978); and Alasdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989).

(2) Leonard Swidler, After the Absolute: The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg/Fortress Press, 1990).

(3) As an example of this, see Swidler's involvement in the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (http://www.arcc-catholic-rights.net/).

(4) These articles included Angela Botez, "Lucian Blaga and the Complementary Spiritual Paradigm of the 20th Century," Revue Roumaine de Philosophie et Logique, voi. 37 (1993), pp. 51-55; idem, "Comparativist and Valuational Reflections on Blaga's Philosophy," Revue Roumaine de Philosophie et Logique, vol. 40 (1996), pp. 153-162; idem, "The Postmodern Antirepresentationalism (Polanyi, Blaga, Rorty)," Revue Roumaine de Philosophie et Logique, vol. 41 (1997), pp. 59-70; Basile Munteanu, "Lucian Blaga: Metaphysician of Mystery and Philosopher of Culture," Revue Roumaine de Philosophie et Logique, vol. 39 (1995), pp. 43-46; Mircea Eliade, "Rumanian Philosophy," in Paul Edwards, ed., Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan and The Free Press, 1967); Virgil Nemoianu, "The Dialectics of Imperfection," in his A Theory of the Secondary: Literature, Progress, and Reaction (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), pp. 153-170; and idem, "Mihai [section]ora and the Traditions of Romanian Philosophy," Review of Metaphysics 43 (March, 1990): 591-605.

(5) For a concise introduction to Lucian Blaga as a philosopher, see Mircea Flonta, "Lucian Blaga," in Edward Craig and Luciano Floridi, eds., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy On-Line (London: Routledge, 2002); and Michael S. Jones, "Blaga, Lucian," in James Fieser and Bradley Bowden, eds., Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, posted April 24, 2011; available at http://www.iep.utm.edu/luc ianblaga/.

(6) SCIRI, Seminarul de Cercetare Interdisciplinara a Religiilor si a Ideologiilor; available at http // sciri.wordpress.com/.

(7) See www.JSRI.ro.

(8) Leonard Swidler, "A Vision for the Third Millennium, the Age of Global Dialogue: Dialogue or Death!" Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 1 (Spring, 2002): 6-18.

(9) Leonard Swidler, Dupa Absolut: Viitorul dialogic al reflectiei religioase, tr. Codruta Cuceu (Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Editura Limes, 2003).

(10) Michael S. Jones, The Metaphysics of Religion: Lucian Blaga and Contemporary Philosophy (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, 2006).

(11) Michael S. Jones, "A Philosophy of Culture Approach to Interreligious Understanding," in [Irina Petras, ed.,] Meridian Blaga VI (Cluj-Napoca: Casa Cartii de Stiinta, 2006), pp. 129-156.

(12) Michael S. Jones, "Culture and Inteneligious Understanding according to the Romanian Philosopher Lucian Blaga," J.E.S. 45 (Winter, 2010): 97-112.

(13) Offering my students an opportunity to study analytic philosophy of religion is only one of my goals for this course; others include exposing the students to an American-style classroom experience, helping them to improve their written and spoken English, and helping them to think about their own religion and other religions objectively, deeply, critically, and charitably.

(14) David Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion and the Posthumous Essays, ed. Richard H. Popkin (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1980).

(15) Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenback, and David Basinger, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1996). There are more recent versions of this text, but both the library of the Faculty of Philosophy and I have the 1996 version, and newer editions are difficult to find in Romania.

(16) I must mention here that I am accompanied by my wife, Laura, an Ed.D. candidate at Liberty University, who is researching her dissertation on the effects of teacher attitudes on Roma children in the Romanian public school system. She, too, is speaking in churches during our time in Romania, as well as teaching conversational English at the Romanian-Finnish School (http://www.scoalafinlandeza.ro/).