Mysticism and Ethics in the Theology of Religions and Interreligious Dialogue: Re-Reading Paul Tillich and Jacques-Albert Cuttat
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article's focus on the potential for mystical theology's integration into the recent development of Theology of Religions in Christian thought is astute and a good contribution to make.
The first issue to note is that the narrow focus on the work of Tillich and Cuttat is potentially justifiable, but has not been justified enough here. Has no one working in the Theology of Religions engaged with them or their understanding of mystical theology before? This needs to be made explicit to the reader.
Second, related to this point, the range of sources is too narrow. A closer reading of Tillich and Cuttat, (when justified properly) is acceptable, but the argument that Bernhardt singularly represents the contemporary context for the Theology of Religions is not justified nor fair to the many others working in this field. Some of who are named by the author, who does not show engagement with their work. In particular, it needs to be shown what engagement with mystical theology there has already been in this literature. This would in turn help better justify the focus on Tillich and Cuttat because they can either be brought into a conversation that is already happening, or they can be used to ground that conversation. Especially in section 2 and 5 this needs to be addressed.
Third the article assumes a Christian perspective. There is nothing wrong with adopting this approach, but both interreligious dialogue and Mystical theology are ongoing points of dialogue outside of Christianity too. Maybe the author feels that Christian thought is the most mature on this topic, or has made advances that allow for the argument about the co-belonging of mysticism and interreligious dialogue to be made clear. But this needs to be argued rather than assumed. In particular on this point the suggestions made, especially in relation to Cuttat's work, that the end point of dialogue is harmonisation with Christianity. This is likely to turn many non-Christians away from such a project unless it is better explained how exactly this is different from the critical apologetics approach that preceded it. This may just be an issue that needs to be clarified in Cuttat's work, but in which case it feeds into the issue noted elsewhere about the justification for the focus on these two thinkers alone. The framing of the article perhaps should be an argument for how the mysticism in Tillich and Cuttat's work offers a vision for what a Christian approach to interreligious dialogue should be.
A minor point about accessibility for a broader audience would be to offer translations for the lengthy quotations in French and German. Even better would be paraphrasing them and putting the ideas in the author's own English.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer sincerely for the careful and thoughtful reading of the manuscript, as well as for the constructive comments provided. The observations have been extremely helpful in clarifying the scope, positioning, and methodological framing of the article. Below I respond point by point, indicating how each suggestion has been incorporated into the revised version.
1. On the justification for the focus on Paul Tillich and Jacques-Albert Cuttat
I am grateful for this observation. While the article implicitly assumed the relevance of Tillich and Cuttat for the contemporary Theology of Religions, I fully agree that this choice needed to be made more explicit for the reader.
In the revised version, I have therefore strengthened the Introduction by adding a methodological clarification that explains why these two figures are selected. The revised text now explicitly argues that, although both authors are occasionally mentioned in broader discussions on religion and dialogue, they have not been systematically integrated into recent developments of the Theology of Religions, particularly with regard to the role of mysticism as a theological and epistemological category. Tillich’s pneumatological intuition concerning the “mystical a priori” and Cuttat’s spiritually grounded model of interreligious encounter are thus presented as under-received resources that can fruitfully illuminate current debates.
2. On the limited range of sources and the role attributed to Reinhold Bernhardt
I appreciate this important remark and agree that the original version risked giving the impression that Reinhold Bernhardt alone represents the contemporary context of the Theology of Religions.
In response, the revised manuscript now broadens and clarifies the status quaestionis, especially in sections 2 and 5. Without transforming the article into an exhaustive survey, I have made explicit reference to wider contemporary discussions (including Comparative Theology and recent hermeneutical approaches), with particular attention to how spiritual or experiential dimensions have already been addressed in a fragmented way within this literature.
At the same time, the role of Bernhardt has been more carefully specified. He is no longer presented as a singular representative of the field, but rather as a strategic interlocutor whose epistemological and pneumatological understanding of truth as a relational event provides a meaningful point of dialogue with Tillich and Cuttat. This clarification allows the latter to be positioned not in isolation, but as offering theological foundations and criteria for conversations that are already underway in contemporary theology.
3. On the Christian perspective and the concern about teleological harmonisation
Thank you for this perceptive and nuanced observation. I fully agree that adopting a Christian perspective requires explicit justification, particularly in an interdisciplinary and interreligious context such as that of Religions.
Accordingly, the revised version now includes a clearer methodological statement indicating that the article does not aim to provide a universal theory of interreligious dialogue, but rather to reflect on how a Christian theological approach—when shaped by mysticism and pneumatology—can understand and practice dialogue responsibly.
In relation to Jacques-Albert Cuttat, I have further clarified that the notion of “assumptive convergence” does not imply a programmatic harmonisation or an apologetic strategy directed at non-Christian interlocutors. Instead, it is presented as an internal Christian hermeneutic of faith, articulating how Christianity understands its own capacity to recognise, welcome, and discern spiritual truth in other traditions without instrumentalising or negating their alterity. This clarification also helps to distinguish Cuttat’s proposal from earlier forms of critical apologetics.
Following the reviewer’s helpful suggestion, the overall framing of the article has been refined to emphasise that the study argues for the way in which the mystical dimension in Tillich and Cuttat offers a vision of what a Christian approach to interreligious dialogue can look like, rather than proposing a universally binding endpoint for dialogue.
4. On accessibility and the use of non-English quotations
I am grateful for this practical suggestion. In the revised manuscript, lengthy quotations in French and German have either been translated into English or paraphrased within the main text, with the original language retained in notes where appropriate. This change improves accessibility for a broader readership and enhances the overall flow of the argument.
Once again, I thank the reviewer for these insightful comments. I am confident that the revisions undertaken in response to them have significantly strengthened the clarity, positioning, and accessibility of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA very interesting paper dealing with comparative study of Paul Tillich and Jacques-Albert Cuttat. Article's structure is very clear, logical, the sources and references are solid. Both thinkers are also placed within contemporary debates on pluralism and interreligious dialogue making the study urgent.
Yet I kept noticing that the reading of Cuttat is very sympathetic, with a praising vocabulary (e.g., the word "fruitful" appears on lines 40, 438, 490, 494, 541, 556, 566 - maybe some editing is needed to introduce synonyms). I would suggest 1. adding a section specifying the conceptual transfer from "mystical structure" (Tillich) to "mystical experience" (Cuttat), perhaps addressing phenomenological vs. metaphysical presuppositions, might be after section 4.2; 2. adding a section addressing the question why is it valid to compare Tillich and Cuttat, who operate with seemingly different epistemological and metaphysical foundations (as already mentioned in section 4.1)?
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer sincerely for the careful and generous reading of the manuscript, as well as for the positive assessment of its structure, clarity, and engagement with contemporary debates on pluralism and interreligious dialogue. I am particularly grateful for the precise and constructive suggestions offered, which have helped to refine both the conceptual articulation and the scholarly tone of the article.
1. On the evaluative tone in the reading of Jacques-Albert Cuttat
Thank you for this perceptive observation. I agree that the original version of the manuscript occasionally employed a vocabulary that could be read as overly appreciative, particularly in relation to Jacques-Albert Cuttat’s proposal.
In the revised version, I have therefore revised the wording in several places in order to reduce the repetition of evaluative terms such as “fruitful” and to replace them with more analytically precise expressions. In addition, I have slightly strengthened the critical balance of the presentation, especially in the sections dealing with the theological tensions within Cuttat’s model, in order to make clearer that his proposal is both significant and open to critical discernment.
2. On clarifying the conceptual transfer from “mystical structure” (Tillich) to “mystical experience” (Cuttat)
I am very grateful for this suggestion, which touches a central conceptual transition in the article. While this movement from Tillich’s understanding of mysticism as an ontological and structural a priori to Cuttat’s emphasis on lived mystical experience was already implicit in the argument, I agree that it needed to be made more explicit.
To address this point, I have added a short sub-section following section 4.2, in which the distinction and continuity between these two levels are clarified. This new passage explicitly addresses the different presuppositions at work—ontological and metaphysical in Tillich, phenomenological and spiritual in Cuttat—and explains how the comparison is justified within a fundamental-theological framework that understands experience as the historical verification of theological structures.
3. On the legitimacy of comparing Tillich and Cuttat despite differing epistemological and metaphysical frameworks
Thank you for raising this important methodological question. I agree that the legitimacy of the comparison required further clarification.
In the revised manuscript, I have therefore introduced a brief methodological clarification explaining that the comparison between Tillich and Cuttat is not undertaken at the level of comprehensive metaphysical systems, nor does it presuppose epistemological homogeneity. Rather, the comparison operates at the level of theological function: both authors place mysticism at the centre of their reflection on religious plurality and interreligious encounter, and both articulate a pneumatological understanding of truth as relational and transformative. This shared theological concern provides the basis for a meaningful and non-reductive comparison, despite their different conceptual frameworks.
Once again, I would like to thank the reviewer for these insightful and constructive remarks. I am convinced that the revisions undertaken in response to them have strengthened the conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and academic balance of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe changes made in response to the first point is good. The choice of focus on the work of Tillich and Cuttat is well justified in the revisions.
On the second point. The choice of Reinhold Bernhardt is much better explained here. However, more needs to be done to connect his work to the broader literature. Is he unique in making the claim about truth as a relational event? If so, then why do others not agree? If not, then why not mention these others as well. The main concern sitting behind this point is less the choice of Bernhardt, and more the demonstration of broader engagement with this literature. I still think more explicit connection to the broader literature is needed here, ideally through referencing those others who are working in this work and showing how their work relates to Bernhardt's.
Your answer to the third point is good, and well reflected in the revisions.
The addition of the translations in the revised text is great.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First and foremost, I’d like to express my sincere thanks for your careful reading and insightful feedback during this review round. It’s truly gratifying to hear that the initial revisions have clarified the choice of focusing on Tillich and Cuttat.
Regarding the second point, I completely understand your call for a broader engagement with the literature on truth as a relational event in the Theology of Religions and Interreligious Dialogue. Given the specific scope of this article, it’s not feasible to delve deeply into that topic here without straying from the main aim. However, I’ve now included references to several other scholars who have engaged with this issue from similar or differing perspectives. This should help situate Bernhardt’s contribution within a wider context and show that he’s part of a broader hermeneutical conversation rather than a singular outlier.
I’m grateful for your suggestion, as it has allowed me to enrich the manuscript with a bit more contextual framing that underscores the robustness of the argument. I’ve uploaded the revised version to the platform and trust that this addition addresses your recommendation.
Please feel free to let me know if there are any further adjustments needed.
With best regards
