LAUSR

There is no doubt that the field of comparative religion and religious studies may profit from new critical and constructive reflection on its method. Many of the articles in this volume do just that. They represent, to my knowledge, the first sustained attempt to revalorize the comparative method since Kimberley Patton’s and Benjamin Ray’s volume A Magic Still Dwells (2000). But this collection of articles goes further in advancing concrete methodological principles and proposals, and in refining the models developed by previous generations of comparativists. It is also less shy in recognizing the merits of former giants in the field such as Mircea Eliade and in rehabilitating some of his insights and approaches. That makes this collection of articles truly refreshing. With regard to the relationship between comparative religion and comparative theology, and the possibilities for cross-fertilization, I find the volume less helpful. S.’s notion of mutual illumination tends to blur, rather than clarify the distinction between the disciplines. While comparative religion is oriented to understanding one religion in light of another, comparative theology is oriented toward transformation, challenge, and growth, all normative goals that do not belong within the field of comparative religion. And while comparative theology presupposes a confessional starting point, comparative religion may acknowledge a confessional disposition only to minimize its impact on the comparison. These remain fundamental differences which seem to be ignored or downplayed in S.’s own contribution, and in those of the scholars directly engaging his work. This collection still represents a very important and much needed contribution to methodological questions in the study of religions, and I will be certain to use it in my graduate course on history and method in comparative religion.