Let me state upfront and clearly: this book has been for me both rewarding and frustrating—rewarding in what it has to say and frustrating in the way it says it. Unfortunately, the frustrations keep getting in the way of the rewards. I want to focus on the rewards, since I do believe that Paul Hedges, drawing on his long-standing engagement with things interreligious, makes a needed contribution to the present, often complex, academic discussion about comparative theology (CT).

The intent of his brief but compact investigation is to further the cause of CT by addressing what he feels it lacks—namely, a more intentional and careful exploration of how it works. A conscious methodology, he believes, is essential to a fruitful practice. He proceeds in four major steps: (1) first, a bird's-eye view of what's going on among comparative theologians; (2) then a necessary detour to respond to contemporary critics who debunk all talk of “religion”; (3) a critical appraisal of power dynamics within the CT community; and finally (4) a proposal for more solid hermeneutical foundations for CT.

For the most part, Hedges accepts, but then critiques, the broad project of CT as originally proposed and ongoingly developed by Francis X. Clooney. A theologian who describes herself as “comparative,” according to Clooney, goes about her job convinced that she cannot really interpret her own tradition unless she is in dialogue with at least one other tradition. Hedges staunchly sides with Clooney rather than Keith Ward in insisting that CT is confessional and therefore distinct from comparative religious studies. The comparative theologian begins with his own faith and beliefs, but then puts those beliefs (not his faith) on the line in dialogue with other religious believers. Hedges laments that such a comparative way of doing theology is still on the fringes, if there at all, in most theology departments.

On the controversial question of whether CT requires grounding in a theology of religions (TR), Hedges is clear in principle but fudges on particulars. To critics of TR such as Marianne Moyaert and Klaus von Stosch, who declare all theologians of religions to be “essentializers,” Hedges offers the reminder that all religions, insofar as they make universal claims, are unavoidably essentialist. He clearly affirms that TR must provide the necessary theory for an efficient practice of CT, but he is unclear as to what kind of a theology of religions is needed, suggesting, only, that some form of “inclusivism” seems to be the minimal requirement (16).

Hedges is equally dismissive of the widespread deconstructionist claims of academics that religion is a Western fabrication that doesn't really exist, pointing out how such critics, in rejecting religion, are immediately in search of synonyms. He concludes that “religion” is a necessary but also an “essentially contested concept” (23). Use it, but be careful.

Hedges’ examination of power dynamics in CT echoes much of what is heard among the new generation of comparative theologians: so far, CT has been too Western, too male, and too textual. If CT is true to its inherent affirmation that no religion or truth claim is sufficient unto itself but in need of input from others, then CT, by its very nature, is “inherently subversive” (51), even “an inherently queer discourse” (58).

In his efforts to provide CT with more secure hermeneutical foundations, Hedges draws primarily on Gadamer's understanding of our given “horizons” as both limiting and expanding. His proposed “hermeneutical tools” sift down to recognizing that in any interpretative exchange, no perspective holds a privileged center but that there is always “a multitude of centres” (73). That sure sounds like a pluralistic theology of religions.

Finally and briefly: my frustrations. I cannot comprehend how this book ever passed Brill's copy editors. Incomplete and run-on sentences abound, as do dangling participles and missing words. Hedges seems to have an aversion to commas after introductory phrases or clauses and confuses the proper use of commas and semicolons throughout. Given the book's disregard for English grammar, I could not recommend it for classroom use, especially for undergrads. It's unfortunate that Hedges’ fine analysis of CT is clouded by such shabby syntax and style.