Edited by Reinhard Kirste, Paul Schwarzenau, and Udo Tworuschka. Religionen im Gesprach 3. Balve (Germany): Zimmermann Verlag, 1994. Pp. 512. Paper.

Grunschloss's book is doubtless the most comprehensive, balanced account and evaluation of the life and work of Wilfred Cantwell Smith. It

is amazing to note that although about a dozen Ph.D. dissertations were written on Smith's work between 1969 and 1988, and some of his ideas have received extensive treatment in journals, there is no monograph in English that offers a complete view of this important Canadian pioneer of "religious studies."

Grunschloss has studied Smith's biography, which forms Part 1 of the book, and he has read and evaluated just about everything written by and about Smith, including unpublished manuscripts. Beginning with an evaluation of Smith's work as an Islamicist (Part 2), the bulk of the work is devoted to an exposition and critique of Smith's "foundation and execution of comparative religion" (Part 3), concluding with a review of his theological publications under the heading "On the Way to a World-Theology" (Part 4). The appendix contains a complete list of Smith's courses taught at McGill, Dalhousie, and Harvard; a systematic-chronological overview of his publications; and a complete list of his writings, including unpublished manuscripts. The bibliography includes a complete list of dissertations written about Smith; an extensive list of publications about him and his work; and a selected list of works dealing with issues with which Smith has dealt. A three-page index of names and a two-page English summary conclude the attractively produced volume.

J.E.S. readers can be presumed to be informed about the content of Smith's writings, which therefore not need be summarized here. Many will also be aware of the criticism leveled against Smith's work, which is extensively covered by Grunschloss as well. Smith's early work on Islam was attacked as being "leftist." His concern to place a moratorium on the term "religion" and speak of "traditions" instead, as well as his insistence on radically distinguishing "faith" from "belief" and on deemphasizing the latter, found ardent defenders as well as vehement critics. It was, however, the "theological dimension" that is inalienably connected with Smith's notion of "religious studies" and the emphasis of doing theology pluralistically that invited the most severe rejection from purists of "science of religion" and from theologians. Grunschloss reports on the criticism and largely seems to agree with it. Smith, he concludes, does not offer a convincing philological/historical proof for his thesis that "faith" is the common core of all religions, nor can he "prove" the fundamental difference between faith and belief.

I must confess that I find myself more in sympathy with Smith than with his critics, in contrast to whom he has lived what he writes about: He has experienced other religions and has taken up the challenge that the religious life of "the others" poses both to one's scholarship in religion and to one's own religious identity. Smith may not have found all the answers, but he asks the right questions. He addresses issues that are relevant, issues that have a future. While struggling to accommodate an enormous mass of experiences and data under a unifying theory - and obviously failing - he comes up with many observations that are insightful, says many things that are important, addresses many urgent issues that have not been addressed for a long time. Smith has had a major influence on the shaping of the discipline of "religious studies." He has given a major impetus to colleagues and students, and he has shown an uncommon integrity of life and work.

The book edited by Kirste et al. contains about fifty contributions by almost as many different scholars in five sections: "Basic Observations on Interreligious Dialogue," "Interreligious Focus: Tradition, Modernity, and Post-modernity," "Documents and Reports," "Reviews," and "Select Bibliography." Obviously the work is intended to serve actual interreligious dialogue, especially in Germany, over and above contributing to its theory. One does not get the impression that the editors aimed at covering all the major traditions or that they attempted any kind of balance of presentations. Many contributions are reprints and/or translations of articles published elsewhere. The usefulness of the collection is most evident in the reports on dialogue events. Many contributions to the other sections deal more with world religions generally than with interreligious dialogue specifically. One could argue that those interested in interreligious dialogue need up-to-date information on the "other religions" as presupposition for their encounter. Among the religions dealt with, Islam receives the most attention. That may reflect the situation in Germany where Muslims form the largest "non-Christian" religious community and where conflicts with immigrants from Islamic countries make major news. About a dozen contributions deal directly with Islam, and one of the two sections of the bibliography is devoted to Islam.

It may perhaps be unfair to some of the big-league names among the contributors (e.g., Annemarie Schimmel, John Hick, Paul Knitter), but the contribution which most caught my attention was that by Beyza Bilgin, a Turkish woman who studied and taught Islamic theology. Her autobiographical sketch is revealing, fresh, uncomplicated, and thought-provoking.

Contrary to Grunschloss's monograph on Smith, Interreligioser Dialog does not offer a central idea or concern (other than an affirmation of interreligious dialogue) that would lend itself to engagement and critique. If one were to point out what the two works have in common, it would be their "world-horizon." Both give testimony to the growing interest of German theologians in doing their work in a context of world religions rather than within a narrow confessional Christian position. Smith's suggestion that "Christian" theology that leaves out other religions has become meaningless seems to have found a receptive response in Germany. What strikes the reviewer, in addition, is the eagerness with which these German theologians study and appropriate Anglo-American writings. This is not paralleled, as far as I can see, by Anglo-American writers on these matters.

Klaus K. Klostermaier, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada