“Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church's evangelizing mission,” Pope John Paul II famously stated in his 1990 encyclical Redemptoris Missio (no. 55). The title of the present book revisits this bold statement. The pope stresses the scope of mutual enrichment and warns, “Dialogue does not originate from tactical concerns or self-interest, but … is demanded by deep respect for everything that has been brought about in human beings by the Spirit who blows where he wills” (no. 56), while the editors of this volume, rather focusing on the distinction between mission and dialogue, quote as their only reference to Redemptoris Missio, “These two elements must maintain both their intimate connection and their distinctiveness; therefore they should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they were interchangeable” (no. 55, XXV).

That, in principle, they endorse the pope's high esteem of dialogue in evangelization becomes clear from the rationale of this book. In addition to the introduction, it contains eleven contributions on four different thematic areas: (1) Catholic approaches to interreligious dialogue, (2) the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, (3) the dialogue between Islam and Christianity, and (4) the dialogue among Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. It assembles a plethora of renowned contributors, mainly US American professors, most of them based at Notre Dame, among them one woman, one Italian, and two non-Christians, a Jew, and a Hindu. Because the context of how the contributors were selected is not mentioned, one can only guess that it was by accident that no Muslim contributed, no non-Catholic Christians stated their views on evangelism and interreligious dialogue, and no missionary practitioners of evangelization counterbalanced the perspective of academic theoreticians.

It is always difficult to fairly assess an edited volume. I am aware that my own perspective and expertise were my guiding principles. I fully concur with the editors that “true dialogue begins with listening and observation” (xvi) and that writing about dialogue inevitably turns into a monologue. Therefore, I think the editors overreach when they state the book's purpose: “The real beauty of this book is the dialogue that will be ignited between the reader and these texts” (xxxvii). Doubtlessly, this book provides thought-provoking insights into and stimulating ideas for dialogue, but it cannot replace real face-to-face encounter. The dimension of experience is pivotal in evangelization as dialogue. It is certainly advisable to start explaining one's theoretical framework by pointing to the principle of “anthropology first” (xix). Yet before this translates into “objective truth” (xix–xxiv) with an emphasis on infallibility, the dimension of personal experience must be explored. After all, the truth in which Catholics, and Christians in general, believe is a personal truth; they follow “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) in a personal relationship by becoming the disciples of Christ, not by adhering to an abstract conviction. This personal, experience-based relationship makes the witness to Christ an authentic one, and this authenticity is the biggest asset in evangelization as interreligious dialogue. It is always people, not religions, who dialogue.

Therefore, I find the chapters that reflect such personal authentic relationship in dialogue the most convincing ones, for example, Martino Diez's account of the translation of the book of Psalms by the Muslim scholar Muḥammad aṣ-Ṣādiq Ḥusayn and the French Dominican Serge de Beaurecueil (163–86) or Gabriel Said Reynolds’ look at a core-Christian tenet through the lens of the Muslim other explaining why they necessarily see things differently and did not just preserve an ancient Christology (143–62). It is justifiable to lament the “Christian misrepresentations of Judaism” (118) and plead for Christianity's growing up, as Richard Cohen does, or, like Deepak Sarma, to castigate Nostra Aetate as “a futile attempt at engaging in a one-sided dialogue” (207), which, according to postcolonial standards “is rather a theological justification for continued exploitation and perhaps, well-intentioned, condescension” (190). Yet these issues, coming to terms with the factual plurality of religions and how one's own religion positions itself toward the others, belong to the realm of theology of religions. This is not yet interreligious dialogue. It can pave the way toward it; however, at times, it may still seem a long one.