|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if some preliminary sense of similarities or differences guides a comparativist in constructing the comparison, a potentially unlimited set of possible starting points presents itself. Even if one becomes aware of intriguing similarities, and legitimately (or not) theorizes about common structures of human reason or action or experience or language which can be called upon to justify these similarities, the comparativist remains first and foremost the active, creative composer of the text/context in which any of these points might be considered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The dynamics of this constructed and creative situation must be remembered and respected by the comparativist, since after the initial choice the new context does not remain entirely in her or his control. She or he must be willing to submit to the possibilities of the newly composed context, to allow unexpected meanings to occur in the course of rereading, new complicationsan entire array of further issues which she or he may not have had in mind at first. If the comparativist uses texts differently than they were intended to be used in the first place by their authors and communities and traditions, she or he must also admit that the newly constructed comparison has possibilities not entirely under the control of this comparativist; initial intentions do not govern completely the fruits of comparison. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If one takes seriously the experimental, constructive nature of comparisons, then both the comparativists and their communities will have to be patient with practices that do not yet have refined theoretical justifications. These practices lack such explanations precisely because they are new, and because they need to occur, repeatedly, before it is worthwhile to spend time trying to justify them and reduce them to a smoother, habitual form. When measured against other areas of theology, long established and refined over centuries, comparative theology will seem ill-defined and ill-evaluated. Rather than denying this incompleteness, we need to note carefully the early stage of its development at which comparative theology standsit is only now identifying its texts and how to read themand to insist that this inaugural practice is notought not to beturned quickly into perfect(ed) theory. |
|
|
|
|
|