Alan RACE and Paul KNITTER, eds. New Paths for Interreligious Theology: Perry Schmidt-Leukel’s Fractal Interpretation of Religious Diversity. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2019. Pp.206. $40.00 pb. ISBN 978-162698-338-0. Reviewed by Nathan R. KOLLAR, St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY 14618.

If you do interreligious theology, comparative theology, intercultural theology, theology of religions, and/or pluralistic theology, this book is for you.  If you do just “theology,” the editors would claim it is incomplete because “No religion is sufficient unto itself for carrying out the task of religious understanding.” (vii) As a matter of fact, no religious way of life is adequate by itself. It must necessarily be pluralistic if it is committed to a search for religious truth.

The editors believe that past methods that informed such a search did not provide adequate means to arrive at such truth. This book introduces the reader to Perry Schmidt-Leukel’s fractal theology of religions as found in his Gifford Lectures and published by Orbis Books as Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology. This present book is the result of the author’s initiative of providing a session in 2017 at AAR that offered Schmidt-Leukel (SL) an opportunity to again present his theory of fractal interpretation of religious diversity to an audience of responders for their evaluation. The book under review is the result of SL’s presentation and the response of those present plus a select few others.

Knitter’s introduction offers the best outline of the book: Setting the stage, Affirming, Correcting, Fixing, Response. Rather than the actual one: Setting the Stage, Methodological/Contextual Perspectives, Multireligious perspectives, Continuing the Conversation. There are actually twelve chapters, plus the introduction; each with its unique perspective on SL’s fractal interpretation of religious diversity and their own approach to the same issue: unity and diversity of religious truth. I will focus on SL’s approach.

SL’s hypothesis is that “… the diversity we observe among the religions globally is mirrored in the diversity we find within each of the major religious traditions.” (3) SL echoes the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot’s The Fractal Geometry of Nature (1982). SL translates Mandelbrot’s mathematical theories into his theological methodology by adapting Elmar Holenstein’s Dozen Rules of Thumb for Avoiding Intercultural Misunderstandings (2003) to religious diversity. Thus suggesting that interreligious diversity exists on a global scale, intrareligious diversity exists within each religion, and intrasubjective  religious diversity within each human.  The patterns and distinguishing features that demarcate religious diversity at the first level of global religious diversity reappear at the second and third level. (9)  SL applies his hypothesis to three different, but fractally relatable, images from Buddhism (Buddha/the Awakened One), Christianity (the Son of God), and Islam (the Prophet).  The respondents react to both hypothesis and application.
Affirming.
Alan Race and Kenneth Rose see Leukel’s Fractal Interpretation of Religious Diversity (FIRD) as demonstrating that inclusivism and exclusivism are wrong.  Hans Gustafson offers his theory of pansacramentalism as supporting SL’s fractal approach. John Makransky demonstrates how FIRD applied to disagreements within one’s own faith provides us with a deeper understanding of our own faith and that of others. Rong Wang argues, using Chinese religions as an example, that true inculturation of Christianity will only occur when it harmonizes with the Chinese, thus seriously challenging current Christian identity.
Correcting.
Francis Clooney, SJ, takes SL to task for his portrayals of theology of religions and comparative theology; and of Clooney’s honoring Christianity as central to his own life. Ayon Maharaj corrects SL’s understanding of Vivekananda and questions whether SL’s emphasis upon doctrinal integration and synthesis might result in losing sight of the important  differences between religions.
Fixing.
From  Ephraim Meir’s Jewish point of view SL is too heady, logocentric, in confronting the reality of religious difference. It is more important that we act in a communal ethical manner than think together. Jerusha Tanner Rhodes, as a feminist Muslim theologian, sees SL’s approach as just another attempt at androcentrism and patriarchy.  Son, Prophet, and Buddha cast ascentral doctrines remind us of female exclusion, she says, and their centrality should be questioned, not enhanced through our theology. Maria Dakaka reminds us that FRID comes a little too close to making interreligious theology into a world theology. In any attempt to harmonize (common theology for all religions) we must also sustain our unique differences in such an attempt.

Hopefully this summary provides the reader with enough information to choose or not chose this book. I have to admit that I am not a member of the AAR seminars on interreligious theology, comparative theology, intercultural theology, theology of religions, and/or pluralistic theology. The various responses were caught up at times in subtle disagreements that have probably been going on since the seminars began. At the same time, I have been involved in interreligious dialogue for over twenty years and am a trained theologian. I have spent four summers with Muslim theologians (translators included) were we exchanged ideas, argued about those ideas… and ate and laughed together; edited interreligious exchanges dealing with the nature of our religious texts and our understanding of poverty, and, lastly, helped bring together religious professionals of various sorts with diverse backgrounds, to deal with common contemporary issues such as war, poverty, and climate change. I love to think and argue about my thoughts but I do not see how FRID would have enhanced our exchanges. This is a good book for the initiated. Not convinced of its use for the laborer in the field of interreligious dialogue.