INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE VIS-À-VIS FAITH IN CHRIST
Dr. Ishanand Vempeny
Part 11
I. DIALOGAL
APPROACH TO OTHER RELIGIONS
In a situation of
religious pluralism as in India, inter-religious dialogue is of paramount
importance. With our unenviable past of communal squabbles, rivalry and riots,
it is natural for us to wish for cooperation among the various religions.
Indeed, in today’s world the problem should not be between this religion and
that religion, but between religion and irreligion, between dharma and adharma. If religions exhaust all their energies in inter-religious
rivalry, the anti-religious forces may do immense harm to the fundamental human
values which all the religions wish to protect. Besides, no religion is an
adequate response to the basic religious drives in man but rather to their
partial fulfillment, and so inter-religious dialogue can enrich and complement
each religion in man’s perennial quest for the Absolute Truth, Absolute Love
and Absolute Bliss.
1. Dialogal Approach
Before Vatican II the approach of
Western theology had been, by and large, non-contextual. This theology, to a
great extent, approached other religions as objects without getting into the
experiential and commitment dimensions of other religions.
These aspects of religion can be illustrated through an example. A collegian
said in an inter-religious meeting: “My mother may be ill-mannered and ugly,
but no other person can be her adequate substitute. Islam is my mother.” How
shall we interpret such a standpoint? The collegian admits that his mother, in
the eyes of an “impartial” observer, may be ill-mannered and ugly. He might
have come to know this by comparing his mother with other women. But his filial
commitment establishes an irreplaceable relation between him and her, and his
filial love makes him see her imperfections in a very different light from the
one in which an impartial observer would see them. He therefore wants others to
know that unless they understand and experience, from his own point of view,
his loyalty to Islam, they would not be able to appreciate what his religion
means to him.
The Post-Vat. II official Church documents and the
authoritative statements of national and international theological conferences
and seminars on inter-religious dialogue are encouraging, enlightening and
forward-looking. The Church had said, through the council of Florence, that “no
one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews,
heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life” (ND. 1005). The
same Church after a little more than five centuries could say through Vat. II:
“And so the Church has this exhortation for her sons: prudently and lovingly
through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and
in witness to the Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve and promote
the spiritual and moral good, as well as the socio-cultural values found among
them” (NA 2, Cf. LG. 16). When we read these two documents we are reminded of
the presence of the Spirit of God in the Church to interpret the revealed
truths in a way relevant and challenging to the people of different epochs.
As in the immediate Post-Vatican period even today
there are voices in the Church against inter-religious dialogue. Even the Encyclical
of Pope Benedict XVI, Dominus Jesus
is not very dialogue-friendly. In fact Jeevadhara
itself devoted a whole issue with a number of articles by international
theologians opposing this anti-dialogal stance of this encyclical[1].
Referring to the negative reaction to this document, the spokesperson for FABC
(Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference), Edmund Chia wrote six months after
the publication of this document:
Even as six months have passed, more articles continue
to be churned out and many regard the Dominus
Jesus document a pastoral disaster.
A look at some of the article-headings on the Yahoo sites is revealing. For
instance, one article begins with The
Much-maligned Vatican Document…and another
had this for title: Dominus Jesus Exalts
Her Throne. Yet another hit the nail right on the head by entitling it
explicitly as: Catholics are the Best: I
know you mean it, but did you have to say it that way? Others carried
titles such as Negative Reactions to Dominus Jesus , Vatican Vatican Magnifies Divide Among
World’s Religions. Rome
But a recent official statement of Pope Benedict XVI
on the NCRs has been very positive and it encourages all the Christians for
inter-religious dialogue. The Pope when
receiving in audience the members of The
Foundation for Inter-religious and Inter-cultural Research and Dialogue
said:
“I repeat with insistence, research and
inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue are not an option but a vital
necessity for our time”[3].
No other Pope has
so emphatically and unambiguously spoken about the necessity of inter-religious
dialogue as John Paul II. This Pope has not only stressed its need but also has
given directions as to how to practice it both by his teachings as well as by
his example. The international inter-religious conference, organized under the
guidance of the Pope, in 1986 in Assisi was indeed a high point.
Perhaps one of the
most enlightening of his allocutions on this topic was the one addressed to the
members of the different religions in Madras in February 1986. Here the Pope
enumerates a number of reasons for dialogue and points out its way: “The
Catholic Church recognizes the truths that are contained in the religious
traditions of India. This recognition makes true dialogue possible… The
Church’s approach to other religions is one of genuine respect; with them she
seeks mutual collaboration. This respect is twofold: respect for man in his
quest for answers to the deepest questions of his life, and respect for the
action of the Spirit in man”[5].
To the members of
the Plenary Assembly of the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions, in 1984,
the Pope said:
In fact, no one can fail to see the
importance and the need which inter-religious dialogue assumes for all
religions and all believers, called today more than ever to collaborate so that
every person can reach his transcendent goal and realize his authentic growth
and to help cultures preserve their own religious and spiritual values in the
presence of rapid social changes. Dialogue is fundamental for the Church, which
is called to collaborate in God’s plan with its methods of presence, respect,
and love towards all persons.[6]
The Secretariat for Non-Christian
Religions (Rome
Dialogue is thus the norm and necessary
means of every Christian mission, as well as of every aspect of it, whether one
speaks of simple presence and witness, service or direct proclamation… Any
sense of mission not permeated by such a dialogal spirit would go against the
demands of true humanity and against the teaching of the Gospel”[7].
Three great events
that took place in India after Vat. II gave great momentum to the cause of
inter-religious dialogue. One of them was the International Seminar held in
Bombay almost in the beginning of Vat. II and in connection with the
Eucharistic Congress in 1964, which pointed out the salvific value of
Non-Christian Religions. Then, the All India Seminar, held in Bangalore, in
1969, and the International Seminar in Nagpur in 1973, declare forcefully and
effectively the need of inter-religious dialogue. To this we may add the impact
of the Patna National Consultation in 1977 and the three conferences of Indian
Theological Association held in 1987, 1988 and 1989 which triggered the cause
of inter-religious dialogue in India.
B. Reasons for Dialogue According to these Documents
In his Chennai
address to the Non-Christians Pope John Paul II said:
The Catholic Church recognizes the truths
that are contained in the religious tradition of India. This recognition makes
true dialogue possible. Here today the Church wishes to voice again her true
appreciation of the great heritage of the religious spirit that is manifested
in your cultural tradition. The Church’s approach to other religions is one of
genuine respect, and with them she seeks mutual collaboration[8].
The International
Seminar held at Nagpur gives a very profound reason for dialogue. After
explaining how the Vat. II helps us to see the World Religions in a new light,
the Seminar declares:
We see at work in them Christ and His
Grace An ineffable mystery, the centre and ground of reality and human life, is
in different forms and manners active among all peoples of the world and gives
ultimate meaning to human existence and aspirations. This mystery which is
called by different names, but which no name can adequately represent, is
definitely disclosed and communicated in Jesus of Nazareth[9].
The Indian Theological Association in its
1989 session gives a very interesting sociological reason for the dialogue
imperative:
One insight, among many others, that
contemporary thought on human nature has brought to light, is the radical
insufficiency of any isolated human existence and its need for dialogue for its
own self-understanding and authenticity. This principle is valid also in the
realm of our religious existence. A religion, however exalted, can no more
define itself in splendid isolation from other religions. Rather it has to
evolve its own self-understanding in its manifold forms of relatedness to other
religions. This takes us to the reality of dialogue in our life[10].
Most of the reasons
given in the above documents depend on Vatican II. The documents by the
Secretariat referred to earlier give quite a few references to Vatican II in
the following statement:
This vision induced the Fathers of the
Second Vatican Council to affirm that in the religious traditions of
non-Christians there exist ‘elements which are true and good’ (OT 16);
‘precious things, both religious and human’ (GS 92); ‘seeds of contemplation’
(AG 18); ‘elements of truth and grace’ (AG 9); ‘seeds of the word’ (AG 11, 15)
and ‘rays of the truth which illumines all mankind’ (NA 2). According to
explicit conciliar indications, these values are found preserved in the great
religious traditions of humanity. Therefore, they merit the attention and the
esteem of Christians, and their spiritual patrimony is a genuine invitation to
dialogue (Cf NA 2, 3; AG 11) not only in those things which unite us but also
in our difference[11].
C. Love-centredness Leading to Rootedness with Openness
Most of the official documents stress the
need of love and respect for the partners in dialogue. Pope John Paul II,
quoting Ecclesiam Suam of his
predecessor Pope Paul VI, affirms that “Dialogue proceeds from the ‘internal
drive of charity’”. The Vatican Secretariat too stresses the need of love when
it says: “Each aspect and activity of the Church’s mission must therefore be
imbued with the spirit of love if it is to be faithful to Christ who commanded
the mission and continues to make it possible throughout history”[12].
The CBCI guidelines too emphasize the need of love: “There must be a pervading
atmosphere of a deep love of God and love of the other partners in the
dialogue. Like all Christian activity, dialogue can be genuine and profitable
only if it is the expression of love”[13].
If this approach
demands that one has to be committed to one’s own religion as deeply and as
honestly as possible, how can one enter into the heart of the religions of
others with openness? The simple answer is that it is through the door of
genuine love, the nature of which is sensed both by the child and the grown-up,
the educated and the illiterate. And this doctrine is preached by all the
religions in the name of ahimsa, karuna,
agape, etc. As Erich Fromm says, “In love the paradox occurs that two
beings become one yet remain two”[14].
According to this author one of the intrinsic elements of love is mutual
respect which makes one look at the other as he is, and view things from his
own stand-point. Knowing a person intimately and existentially is essentially
connected with loving him[15].
About the connection between knowledge and love in a personalistic situation,
Victor Frankl says: “Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the
innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very
essence of another human being unless he loves him”[16].
D. Re-reading the Bible for Dialogue–friendly Texts
When we re-read the Scriptures from the
context of dialogue we will come across a number of themes and texts which are
inclusive and dialogue-friendly. Even in the OT there are many texts which
seemed to have been inspired by the Dialogal Spirit. The Book of Jonah, the
prophesies of Balaam and of Malachi are very inspiring for dialogue[17].
We shall later on make passing references to the Biblical texts which are
exclusive or even fundamentalistic. In the NT, in spite of the bloody
persecutions that were going on against the Christians both by the Jews and by
the Romans during the coming-to-be of the Gospels, there are numerous texts
which can guide us in our Dialogal ventures. We shall select just three texts:
(1) The Wise Men from the East (Mt. 2:1-12), (2) The Cornelius Episode (AA 10:
1 to 11:18) and (3) Paul’s Speech in Athens (AA. 17:23-31)[18].
1.
The Wise Men from the East (Mt. 2:1-12)
The word used in Greek is ‘magus’ which
had various meanings among which one signifies a member of the Persian priestly
caste and another, the possessor of occult knowledge and power. The occult
knowledge was usually understood in terms of astrology. Since Babylonia was the
traditional home for astrology, one could guess that these men had come from
that region. Even a midrashic
interpretation of this text does not rule out the probability of the incident
narrated or the lesson we would like to learn.
Here come three Gentile Wise Men to
Jerusalem, the heart of the nation of the Chosen People. They inquire about the
birth of the Messiah about whom there were many prophesies and whom the Jewish
people were expecting. At first the Jewish leaders looked not much bothered
about the birth. But they began to look into the sacred books, perhaps chiefly
due to the insistence of Herod, who had many things at stake in such an
eventuality. The Jewish Religious Authorities agree with a possibility inquired
about by the Wise Men. The news was no source of pleasure for Herod. The Magi go to Bethlehem guided by the same
star and pay obeisance to the new born Messiah.
This story bears comparison with that of
Jonah both with regard to the dramatic style and with regard to the content. Jonah,
a Jewish prophet goes to a non-Jewish people at the bidding of Yahweh. In the
whole story Jonah is the villain. Here, some Gentile Wise Men come to the
Jewish capital and the reaction of the Jewish people was quite opposite to that
of the Ninivites who repented of their sins. The Magi Story tells us that there
is revelation among the gentiles. The revelation is understood of the religious
symbols of the gentiles concerned, and the revealed truth as practiced by these
men.
2.
The Cornelius Episode (AA 10: 1 to 11:18)
Here three religions are involved: the
religion of the Chosen People, the New Israel, and that of a gentile military
leader. The revelation is in favour of the gentiles as in the case of Jonah,
Balaam and Magi. The leader of the New Israel, Peter, at first refuses to eat
the ‘impure animals’ as prescribed in Lv 11. But the heavenly message tells him
not to call anything impure that has
been made pure by God (Acts 10:15).
The big sheet being let down to earth by
its four corners with all sorts of animals can very well recall the Ark of Noah
(Gen 6). The Ark represented a ‘chosen few’ whereas the sheet represented the
whole of humanity in which none is too impure
not to be accepted. When the messengers of Cornelius came, Peter interpreted the
whole revelation in favour of the gentiles and he went along with the
messengers. The central message proclaimed here is interpreted by Peter in
these words: “The truth I have now come
to realize is that God does not have favourites, but that anybody of any
nationality who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him”
(Acts 10:34; Cfr. also 1 Pet 1:17 and Rom 2:11). He had heard from his Master
similar utterances: “But I say this to you; love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in heaven,
for he causes his sun to rise on bad men as well as good, and his rain to fall
on honest and dishonest men alike” (Mt. 5:44-45).
If Origen and Cyprian had had the
revelation of this Sheet let down from heaven, which is more representative of
the Church than the Ark of Noah, we would not have had the exclusivistic axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus (=Outside
the Church there is no salvation).
3.
Paul’s Athenian Speech (AA. 17:23-31)
This speech is considered in comparison
with his speech to the Jews in Pisidea in Antioch (Acts 13: 6-41) and to the
Christians in Ephesus (Acts 20: 18:35), and with the three speeches of Peter
viz. the one on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), another in the temple (Acts 3:12-20) and
yet another before Cornelius (Acts 10: 34-43).
This speech of Paul is considered to be a failure by some on the basis
of 1 Cor 2:2 where Paul looks down on human wisdom in comparison with the
divine wisdom and is often considered to be a model for how not to preach. But
in truth this was no more of a failure than that of Jesus in Nazareth (Lk
4:16-22).
Following the rules of rhetoric he tries
to enter through the door of the Athenians to bring them out through his door.
He uses quotations not from the OT but from the sacred writings of the ‘Greek
Prophets’, Aratos (ca 310 BC) and ‘Epimenides’, a pre-Socratic sage. He
appreciates their religiosity. He then speaks approvingly and appreciatively of
their religion taken collectively:
From one single stock he not only created
the whole human race so that they could occupy the entire earth, but he decreed
how long each nation should flourish and what the boundaries of its territory
should be. And he did this so that all nations might seek the deity and, by feeling
their way towards him, succeed in finding him. Yet in fact he is not far from
any of us, since it is in him that we live, and move, and exit, as indeed some
of your own writers have said: ‘We are his children’ (17: 26-28).
The tone of this speech is as important as
its content. There is no condemnation but approbation. Not a blind approval but
a critical one. The Jerome Biblical Commentary points out that the whole speech
of Paul had quite some resemblance to the initial stanzas of Arato’s poem. Aratos
too was a Silician like Paul.
[1] Cfr. Articles in Jeevadhara, vol.xxxi, no.183, May 2001. This whole issue of Jeevadhara
consists of articles by internationally reputed theologians who point out its
flaws and anti-Vat. II reactions.
[2] Cfr. Jeevadhara, op.cit., p.229
[3] Vatican City, Feb. 7, 2007,
www.zenit.org
[4] Cfr. Ishanand Vempeny, “Emerging India
and the Word of God”, Non-Biblical
Scriptures in Dialogal Theologizing, Fr. Paul Puthanangady, SDB (Edit).,
Bangalore: NBCLC, 1991, pp.418-420
[6] The Attitude of the Church towards the
Followers of other Religions, “Address of the Pope at the Conclusion of the
Plenary Assembly of the Secretariat”, Vatican: Secretarius Pro Non-Christianis,
1984, no.2, p.3
[18] Cfr. For wiper deeper
study, Ishanand, Raw Materials for an
Indian Theology, Chapter-9, pp.292-318
No comments:
Post a Comment