INTRODUCTION
This paper that I
am going to write is about the four models of inter-religious dialogue. Scholars have been trying to find out the
best model that they can use. In the
beginning the church was practicing inter-religious dialogue with the Jewish
religion and the pagan Rome. But in the
course of time this type of inter-religious dialogue died out when the Church
gained political and economic power. For
centuries, the Church thought and taught that there is no salvation outside the
Church. In the contemporary period, the
Church is re-examining its exclusive conviction and it becomes more open to
other religions as never before.
In the first
chapter, we are seeing the biblical and theological basis for inter-religious
dialogue. There are many sources from
the Bible both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. These sources clearly show that there is
salvation outside the Jewish world as well as outside Christianity. Hence, the need for inter-religious dialogue
especially in the contemporary situations.
But in this enterprise, there are also problems and obstacles that are
to be met head on.
The second chapter
deals with the four models of inter-religious dialogue. The first model is Jesus Christ outside the
World Religions, the second is Jesus Christ within World Religions, the third
is Jesus Christ above the World Religions and the fourth is Jesus Christ
together with World religions. The first
model is becoming obsolete and a very few scholars follow it in the
contemporary period. The most attractive
model is the fourth model; which is typically Asian in its approach.
I have used two
abbreviations i.e., LG for lumen Gentium and NA for Nostra Aetate. These are the famous documents of the Second
Vatican Council for a healthy inter-religious dialogue. These documents are very rich in theology and
serve as guidelines for those engaging in inter-religious dialogue.
CHAPTER ONE
INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE: BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
REASONS
1.1.
Biblical and theological Basis for respecting Pluralism:
There are many
sources from the Bible that indicated explicitly of the pluralistic forms in
the world. In the creation story itself,
God made different things - different animals, birds, reptiles, and human
beings. God is a creative creator and he
likes varieties. We are seeing the
varieties of people not only in colour but also in height, intellectual
capacities, etc.
Kunchuria Pathil gives some biblical and
theological basis and sources that respect pluralism.[1] I just mention them because it is important
that we take notice of them too while having inter-religious with the other
faiths. They are found in both the Old
Testament and the New Testament, and also in the teaching of St. Thomas. They are the following:
i)
Universal creation story (Gen 1:1-2:4) where creation
itself is pluralistic.
ii)
God’s covenant with Noah (Gen 9:8-10, 15)
iii)
Genesis Chapter 10 – The first version of the story of
the Tower of Babel
iv)
The book of Jonah considers the Ninevites who were
called pagans as God’s people.
v)
Some great personalities and saints of the Old
Testament were from the so-called gentiles or pagans world. E.g., Ruth (Moabite) Sadok, Job (Idemean)
Melchizedek (Canaanite Priest).
vi)
Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus not limited to Israel and
the Church (cf. Lk 17:1-10, Lk 10:25-37, Mt 25:31-46).
vii)
Conversation with Samaritan woman – worshipping God in
Spirit and in truth (Jn 4:1-42).
viii)
Rom 1:16-23, 2:7ff, Acts 10:34-35. Salvation is for all nations. The righteous lives by faith.
ix)
Logos theology of John
x)
‘Every truth comes from the spirit and hence we have
to accept wherever they are found’ as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas.
The recognition of the one God as the common origin and goal of all the
religions can lead different religions to discover their
communion-in-difference before the one Absolute.[2] It is in this that they will recognize the
richness of unity in diversity.
So inter-religious dialogue is not new.
It is based on the faith in the divine.
What unites human beings is faith, a gift of God, and an inspiration of
the divine spirit dwelling in every human heart. This is the basis of all religions[3] as well
as inter-religious dialogues. All
religion have the same basis i.e., faith.
And as such no religion can claim to have a monopoly of faith. Faith is given to any human being who
responded to God’s call.
1.2. Salvation outside the Church?
Vatican II
recognized ther reality of salvation in other religions, hence creating an
atmosphere for the healthy growth of inter-religious dialogue. It recognizes the salvation outside the
Church prudently. For example, the
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states,
“Nor is God
remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he
gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since
the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do
not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with
a sincere heart, and, moved by Grace, try in their actions to do his will as
they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve
eternal salvation” (LG 16).
The
other document of the Second Vatican Council i.e., The Declaration on the
Relation of the Church to Non–Christian Religions states “throughout history
even to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain
awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the
events of human life.” It also speaks about Hinduism, Buddhism and others. “The Church rejects nothing of what is true
and holy in these religions” (NA 2).
Pope John Paul II describes the works of the Holy Spirit in his
Encyclical Letter. “His (The Spirit’s)
presence and activity are universal, limited neither by space nor time. … Again, it is the Spirit who sows the ‘seeds
of the word’ present in various customs and cultures, preparing them for full
maturity in Christ”(RM 28). In the same
document he writes, “Every authentic prayer is prompted by the Holy Spirit, who
is mysteriously present in every human heart” (RM 29). Both these documents show clearly that there is salvation outside the
Church. Salvation is not the monopoly of
the Christian Churches.
1.3. Need for Inter-religious Dialogue:
Inter-religious
dialogue is a concept used for interactions between different religions. It was already present in the Hebrew
Scriptures. But down the centuries, the
Catholic Church did not see its significance.
It is only in the contemporary times that it opens up itself to inter-religious
dialogue. This is because of many
reasons of which I am going to list them down.
In the past (particularly during the Christendom), the Christian society
considered itself as a perfect society.
But in the modern contemporary world, this is seen as a farce. There cannot be a perfect society as long as
society is composed of imperfect human beings.
In the past, people of the other faiths were simply called pagans or
gentiles or non-Christians. These terms
indicate non-religious people. In the
contemporary society, we cannot use these terms because these so-called pagans
or gentiles are also deeply religious people.
The new term used is ‘people of the other faiths’. They too have their own faith and rich old
traditions even more ancient than Christian tradition itself.
The other
religions are also world religions embracing a large number of followers
extending to many continents and countries of the world, not limiting
themselves to a particular territory.
With the
rise of secular countries, these religions were given equal status before the
law. Hence, the claim of Christianity as
a superior or better religion was pushed to the ground. There is no difference between a Christian
and the other member of the other church in the eye of the law.
Mass media
and communications too call for inter-religious dialogue between
religions. Each religion represents
itself different from the other through mass media. Different channels are airing worldview of
different religions. People would have
to make use of their own fundamental discretion i.e., choice. They have to choose for themselves. Christianity has lost its monopoly.
With the
collapse of colonialism, there was a revival of Hinduism and other tribal or
traditional or indigenous religions in the colonized countries. They reaffirmed their own identity and self
respect and their stress is no longer on things that are contrary to religion
but in spirituality.
The church too is realizing within itself of the need for
inter-religious dialogue. The church’s
language had been one of ‘monologue’ till the Second Vatican Council. The Church sees itself more and more as a
community and fellowship of believers in Jesus Christ. Every one is directly linked with Christ even
outside the Church. It is also affirming
itself of its pilgrim nature together with the other world religions.[4] The Church is seeing the other good elements
existing in the other religions and therefore its altitude is that of
dialogue.
In
inter-religious dialogue, we are trying to find out as to how Christians are
able to see other religions from their own perspectives.[5] In the past, Christianity considered other
religions as a threat to its own existence.[6] This attitude is changing in the present
times. We are beginning to see them as
co-pilgrims to salvation.
When we are
face to face with people in whom we recognize the presence and action of the
spirit of God, the proper attitude is one of dialogue and in this dialogue
there is a sharing of religious experiences.[7] Each religion may have enriching spiritual
experiences that others may not have. Each can learn from the others.
The aim of
Jesus is to gather all things into a unity so that all may be one and God may
be all in all.[8] So inter-religious dialogue is willed by
Jesus Christ himself.
Human
beings are social beings. It is their
very nature to interact with the other.
They are beings who know the meaning of sharing and listening. There may be times that some people are beset
with variety of problems and doubts, which they could not keep to themselves
but seek to find an outlet. They are
finding outlets in their sharing with each other. There are people who seek out others to learn
from them because the same problem can be seen from different angle.[9] The sharing of people of different religions
could be very enriching.
By sixteenth century
C.E. (Common Era), changes took place in the mentality of the Church members in
Europe. Missionaries were sent to the
so-called mission countries. There they
witnessed a deeply religious people wherever they went especially in the Asian
context. The people in these missionary
countries have a deep religious sense inculcated in them since the ancient
times. They have their own religion be
it animistic, secular or indigenous.[10] Therefore, they felt the need of inter action
with these religions and hence, the need for dialogue.
In a
country like India where multi religions exist, dialogue at first level
(socio-political level) is not optional; it is a civic duty.[11] But in the second level (religious level) too
is the need of the moment. It is the
signs of the time. We can no longer live
by the law of the jungle where might is right.
We are civilized citizens of our own country and we ought to behave as
such. Hence our need for inter-religious
dialogue.
1.4. Three interior requisites:
To start
dialogue, Michael Amaladoss notifies that we need three things to be kept in
mind.[12] These things are so important in helping us
to become more effective in our endeavour. They are:
(i)
Our motivations and goals should be clear.
(ii)
We have to remember that our own religiousity is
mixed. We carried so much from our
ancestors.
(iii)
We have to become totally
Indian. The Hindutva people call our
religion as foreign and there is some truth in that. How much Indian is our Christianity?
1.5. Obstacles to
Interreligious Dialogue:
There are many obstacles and blocks to a
fruitful and enriching inter-religious dialogue between people of different
religions in the contemporary world.
Michael Amaladoss gave some obstacles that may hinder this fascinated
inter-religious dialogue[13]. They are ignorance, communalism,
fundamentalism, fear of losing self-identity and historical memory.
One of the major causes of inter-religious
conflicts is the ignorance of one religious group by the other. Ignorance is often fuelled by prejudice. Religious groups also tend to think of
themselves as superior to the others.
They feel they have nothing to learn from others.[14] Such ignorance and prejudice can be removed
by knowledge of the other. The encounter
between religions can also lead to a much-sought mutual enrichment. [15]
The most
visible obstacle against dialogue is communalism. It is the political use of religion. Because of communalism, so much bloodshed and
tensions had been created throughout the world down the centuries. This was caused due to lack of trust in each
other. And this is not over yet it is
still a present reality.
Religious fundamentalism
is another obstacle. Fundamentalism is
derived from absolute literal interpretation of the Scriptures. E.g., evolution is seen as denying God’s
creative agency.
Another
obstacle is the important contribution of religion to a sense of identity.[16]
When we are going for
inter-religious dialogue, our religious identity is being threatened. This sense of identity makes inter-acting
with others very difficult. This
identity many at times is the source of superiority complex and conflict among
members of different religions.
The
final obstacle to religious dialogue and collaboration is historical memory. Hurt memories are not easily forgotten and
forgiven.[17] There had been misuses of religion in the
past by many world religions against one another. And this will add fuel to any slight
provocations against the offended partner.
“Religion
is not and must not become, a pretext for conflict, particularly when
religious, cultural and ethnic identity coincide” says John Paul II.[18] He spoke out from the experiences people
faced in history. Religion is a
tremendous force in mobilizing people either for building or shattering the
world.
Dialogue
should not aim at syncretism but reconciliation. Reconciliation means confessing the guilt,
asking and receiving pardon. It is not
one way. Without confessing and
receiving, pardoning does not lead to reconciliation.[19]
These
obstacles have to be removed if we want to have a genuine and meaningful
inter-religious dialogue with the people of the other faiths. The responsibility rests much more on our
shoulders because it was mainly Christianity that has widened the gulf between
world religions. Inter-religious
dialogue will narrow down or heal this gulf between different religions.
CHAPTER TWO
THE FOUR MODELS OF INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
There are four models for inter-religious dialogue proposed by different theologians and scholars. It is to be noticed that the Church followed one of them in different periods and situations.
2.1. The First Model – Jesus Christ Outside The World Religions:
The first model is also called Exclusivism or Absolute
Christocentrism. This means that
Christianity has nothing to do with other religions. It is the one and only true religion. Jesus Christ is its only Lord and Teacher and
no one else. He is the only Christ, the
Son of God made man. It is based
on the ‘ego emi’ sayings of Jesus (Jn 8:58, 14:9, 10:38) and the logos
Christology (Mt 11:27, Acts 4:12, Rom 5-8).[20] Acts 4:12
confirmed to this view. Salvation is in
no one else but Jesus Christ. He is not
only the Saviour of all but also the judge of the living and the dead. The judging character of Jesus Christ is
explicitly expressed in the Apostles’ Creed.[21]
This model was very powerful in the second
century C. E. during the time of Hippolytus.
Eventually this model became part and parcel of the Christian tradition
for many centuries till the modern times.[22]
Kunchuria
Pathil calls this model as the first stage of inter-religious dialogue where
Christianity made absolute and universal claims to the extent of considering
other religions as a threat to its own existence, survival and growth. They were considered as false religions, man
made religions or magic or even the devil’s work. St. Francis Xavier was no exemption of this.[23]
This model is based on the literal interpretation of certain text from
the Bible. For example, “the one who
believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will
be condemned” (Mk 16:16), “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”
(Jn 14:6), “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under
heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), and the
separation of the sheep from the goats (Cf. Mt 25:32). These texts have to be interpreted according
to their own contexts to arrive at meaningful interpretation.
No
salvation outside the Church was first taught by Cyprian and Origin, and later
endorsed by many official Church documents (Lateran IV (1215), Boniface VIII in
Unam Sanctam (1302), and Florence (1442).[24]
Pope
Boniface VIII declared in his bull Unam Sanctam, the supremacy of the
spiritual over the temporal power and that it was necessary to salvation that
every creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff.[25]
In the modern times,
the theologians who were holding this view were Karl Barth and Henry Kramer of
the other denominations. Karl Barth
presented an extremely exclusive theology by distinguishing between religion as
the human effort to reach God, and revelation as God’s spontaneous
self-disclosure to humanity[26]
According to him, only revealed religions are true religion.
For many Muslims throughout history, and continuing in our time, Islam
remains the only path that lead to salvation.[27] They are still holding this model in their
interaction with people of the other faiths.
But this situation too is changing especially in the contemporary times
spearheaded by the late pope John Paul II.
2.1.1.
Criticism:
This approach or
model is based on two fundamental principles.[28] They are,
(1)
True Religion is the one that has grace.
(2)
True Religion is the revealed religion because grace is
given by God.
Basing on
these two principles, many people have been misunderstanding the meaning of
religion. For some, religion is simply a
way of attaining salvation, which itself is differently understood by different
people.[29]
There are
many forces against this model of Inter-religious dialogue. We have seen in the beginning of this paper
that there are many passages from the Bible and their theological implications
of Pluralism. Peter reacted against the
Jewish particularism and exclusivism in Acts 10:34-35.[30] Peter understood that God shows no partiality
but accepts everyone who does what is right.
Exclusivism and absolutism can be
seen as the consequence of Jewish thought of ‘chosen people’ of God.[31] The Jewish concept of exclusivism was very
powerful. And the Christians who emerge
from this exclusivistic theology would naturally be affected by it.
We have to
understand the position of Cyprian and Origin.
They were facing hardcore heresies from the Novatian group who stood for
the purity of the Church. Christians
ware being persecuted and many denied their faith just to save their endangered
life. They would not accept them back
into the church. It was against them
that Bishop Cyprian coined the famous sentence Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
(outside the church there is no salvation).
In fact, it was a pastoral warning to the Novatians.[32] St. Cyprian may have been thinking only of
Christians and not members of other faiths when he stated his famous
phrase. But the Church misinterpreted
the context in which it was pronounced and it became the attitude of the Church
throughout the centuries.[33]
Due to the influence of the missionaries from the
non-European countries, the council of Trent recognized the validity of the
Baptism of desire, which went against the council of Florence. The Council had taken a bold step by reading
the signs of the time.
There was a
controversy in the United States in 1949 regarding baptism of desire. It was called the Leonard Fleency’s
controversy. He refused to recognize the
baptism of desire and Pope Pius XII condemned his view.[34]
Salvation outside
the Church is expressed clearly in the Second Vatican Council, “God gives them the necessary help for
salvation if they lead a good life and live according to their dictate of their
conscience” (LG 76).[35]
This model is
loosing ground in the Catholic Church itself.
The Second Vatican Council no longer held this view. It became obvious that there is salvation
outside the Catholic Church.
2. 2. The Second Model
– Jesus Christ Within World Religions:
This model
was based on the texts “For there is one God; there is also one mediator
between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a
ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5-6) and “no one comes to the Father except through
me” (Jn 14:6). The same text could be
interpreted differently according to the one’s context. For instance, John 14:6, could be
exclusivistic or inclusivistic approach.
It depends on how one interprets it.
This model
is also known as Inclusive approach or Inclusivism or Inclusive
Christocentrism. Christ is presented as
part of the world religions. Karl Rahner
is reputed as the major architect of this transition of Christian thought from
exclusivism to inclusivism.[36] The concept of ‘Anonymous Christians’ sprang
from this approach. His position is
based on the principle of ‘transcendental Theology’. He was raising a few questions and he tried
to answer them.[37]
Is there a
basis for incarnation in creation? Is
incarnation intrinsic or extrinsic to creation?
These questions gave rise to Transcendental Christology. He has to create a condition for the
possibility of the incarnation in creation.
This is reached from the idea of self-transcendence in the evolving
universe.[38]
Karl Rahner
said that the matter is endowed with capacity for higher evolution or
self-transcendence. How did creation
come to be? It was a process from the
inorganic to the organic, from the organic to the animal kingdom and then to
the rational sphere. The highest sphere
is the rational sphere where the human beings belong. Therefore a human person is a transcendent
being or existent. He is capable of
thinking and willing. He always tends
towards the ultimate communion with the divine.
He has a beatific vision. A
Christology based on this is called Transcendental Christology.[39]
Incarnation
is already intrinsic to creation. In
incarnation, God comes to give completion to that intrinsic human longing to
that self-transcendence. In incarnation,
God assumes humans’ intrinsic longing for a completion or communion.[40]
God
assuming human nature is God’s final communion with the world. This takes place in terms of Incarnation,
death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and this is the vindication of God to
the world. Hence, the uniqueness of
Christ. This manner of God’s self
revelation took place only in Jesus Christ.
This is at the same time the work of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, God’s plan of salvation is
Trinitarian.[41]
Wherever
there is faith, there is the Holy Spirit.
Wherever the Holy Spirit is at work, there is grace. Other religions are saved because the Spirit
is at work in them through grace. But
the Spirit is working through Christ hence all graces is through Christ. Therefore, wherever faith is assumed, Christ
is at work. But the people of the other
faith do not recognize this wonder that Christ is doing for them. Hence, the term ‘anonymous Christians’.[42]
From the reading of Redemptoris Missio, it seems
that the late Pope John Paul II was an inclusivist.[43] He wrote, “No one therefore, can enter into
communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit”
(RM 5). All are included within the
Church
J.N.
Farquhar claims in his The Crown of Hinduism that though every religion
has some truth, Christianity alone has the full truth.[44] Therefore, to attain salvation one has to
have some connection with Christianity.
And this connection can be established only in Christ. Other people of the other faiths too are
saved in and through Christ.
Jesus Christ is working not only within the Church but also in other
religions in a mysterious way.[45] This is a mystery and we would not be able to
explain it satisfactorily. Jesus Christ
can do it because he is the Son of God, the Logos prevailing in the world of
the Greeks as well as in the present world and in the world to come.
2.2.1. Criticism:
The
inclusivistic response has a much more positive view of other religions
comparing to the exclusivistic view.
This view (inclusive) is very attractive to many Catholics as well as to
other denominations (Protestants), although many do not view people of other
faiths as ‘Anonymous Christians’.[46]
The
solution of Karl Rahner’s ‘Anonymous Christians’ may not be acceptable. Christians may be equally called ‘Anonymous
Hindus’, ‘Anonymous Muslims’, ‘Anonymous Jains’ etc.[47] Therefore better solutions are to be hunted
for.
Since
Christianity is a historical representation of Christ in an ongoing history of
salvation, therefore, one who explicitly recognizes Christ and becomes
explicitly Christian he or she has got better grasp of salvation than one who
is anonymous Christian. Therefore the
Church has the duty to convert members of the other religions to Christianity.[48]
Various
saviour figures are indication and affirmation that human kind always moved
everywhere by grace. Therefore other
saviour figures are anticipations of the full revelation of God’s
incarnation. And this revelation is
irreversibly taken place in the person of Jesus Christ.[49]
Fr. John
Romus arrived at certain conclusions after examining this approach[50]. They are listed below:
1.
Jesus Christ is unique in the sense that he is the only
absolute unsurpassable incarnation of God.
2.
Jesus Christ is universal in the
sense that all people are saved only through him.
3.
People of the other faith traditions too are saved.
4.
In and through their religions, the grace of Christ is
working in them.
2.3. The Third Model – Jesus Christ above the
world Religions:
Jesus is
seen as the only mediator and saviour. Other
saviour figures are not comparable to him.
Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of the other religions especially the
tribal or indigenous religions. Jesus
stands out clear above others. And the
religion founded by him is also seen as above others.
If the
Gospel is truth, infallible truth, then every religion has to be error or at
best some imperfect understanding of the truth.[51] Therefore they need Jesus Christ who is the
personification of Truth itself. The
truth found in Jesus is incomparable with the truth found in other
religions.
This is advocated by Hans Kung in the 1980s. There are many saviour figures like Buddha,
Muhammad, Krishna and others. These are
all archetypal men because they point out the path of salvation, grace working
through them in the world. Jesus Christ
is the ultimate archetypal man.
Therefore, he is the normative and decisive expression of God and
therefore he is the definitive standard to judge all religions. He is the revelation and mediation from God
and he corrects and fulfills all the other mediations.[52]
Pathil calls this as
the second stage of inter-religious dialogue.
In this stage, Christianity began to acknowledge and accept the findings
of sciences in the modern period. “Other
religions were accepted to some extent as having truths and human values, but
they were not seen as a par with Christianity”.[53]
Jesus is unique in the sense that he stood for the cause of God and the
cause of human kind. He stood for the
kingdom of God. He represented God’s
will for the well being of a human person.
He is the Son of God while other saviour figures are not Sons of
God.
In his
resurrection, Christ was raised to divine status. And as the exulted divine being he is
unique. He stood for the cause of God as
well as human cause. Wherever God is
acknowledged, Christ is acknowledged.[54] This is because of his resurrection. This is the basis for his universality.
As ultimate
archetypal man he is the normative and decisive expression of God. There are three criteria to judge other
religions according to this approach.
(1)
Ethical: Here
there is no question of salvation. The
truthfulness of other religions is judged.
Religion is true in so far as it is humane or as long as it acknowledges
the fundamental human values in the society.
(2)
Religious: A
religion is true in so far as it remain faithful to its canon or its original
religious experience.
(3)
Christological or Christic: A religion is true in so far as in that
religion there are Christic human values, the values stood by Christ. Christianity itself is to be judged by
Christic elements present in it.
Therefore,
Hans Kung calls for inter-religious dialogue for different religions to correct
themselves. Religions need mutual
understanding. They need to respect and
cooperate with one another.
2.3.1. Criticism:
This model has many defects. It
has been called ‘adoptionism’ by the Christianity and criticized by other
religions on the criteria business. But
it is only a proposal. Hans Kung has a
noble message to convey to all the religions of the world.[55]
A minority
of theologians sees this approach (Christocentrism) as unacceptable to other
religions and as a serious obstacle to inter- religious dialogue. They ask for a shift from Christ to God
(Theocentrism).[56]
This model
could face negative responses from the other religions. People would not want to enter into dialogue
with other religions who considers themselves as above them. What is needed is mutual cooperation and
understanding.
2.4. The Fourth Model
– Jesus Christ Together with world religions:
The fourth model is also called as Pluralism or Theocentric or
Dialogical model. It is essentially
centered on God, the Absolute Mystery.
God is the ultimate goal of all religions. Human beings by their own efforts can never
reach the Absolute Mystery because of their finiteness and limitedness. Some people functioned as the way or
door. Some call him Christ, others Rama,
Krishna, Durga Buddha, Muhammad etc.
To
understand this model, it is appropriate to quote Harold Kasimow, “I am a
Jewish pluralist. As such, I am
committed to the Jewish path, not because it is superior, but because it is my
path.”[57] This is the model proposed by Asian
theologians and it is accepted by other religions. Religion is only a path that leads to
God. There are many paths as there are
many religions.
Inter-religious
dialogue is not at all communicating a message or good news to the other but
rather a struggle together to understand the absolute and incomprehensible, to
attain truth.[58]
Ashoka practiced this model of inter-religious
dialogue in his edict VII & XII.[59] He was respecting all religions, though
himself converted to Buddhism. This is
the genius who saw the importance of inter-religious dialogue at that point of
time.
This approach is brought up theologically by Raimund Panikkar in his
book ‘the Unknown Christ of Hinduism’.
He shifted the focus from Jesus of Nazareth and historical Christianity
to the divine Logos.[60] In doing this, he based himself on the
following principles.[61]
1)
Religiousness:
He connects religion with the ontological reality or the basic sense of
incompleteness/finiteness. It is an
ontological experience that human beings would like to overcome. He calls it human predicament. This feeling of limitation is
religiousness.
2)
Act of Faith:
This realization of limitation and the desire to overcome, brings him to
the sphere of faith but not yet an act of faith. Faith is an existential dimension. The desire to complete and the hope that some
day, or somehow he will overcome is very strong in him.
Each
religion is a path connecting to God. No
religion can claim absolute superiority in this context. A person who makes an act of faith is freely
and consciously accepts a particular way for the completion of his life. He may follow any saviour figure or ideology;
still he can make an act of faith.
Therefore, religions are paths that lead people from incompleteness to
completeness.
3)
Theandric thing: Each religion is founded by saviour
figure. He/She is the gulf between the
finite and the Ultimate Being. Therefore
the link is presupposed. This link is
theandric thing. The saviour figure is a
theandric thing
Theologically,
this link is the historical concrete action of the divine providence. God keeps on acting in human history. For Christianity, this link is Jesus
Christ. The common thing is that Grace
is at work in other religions too. It is
not limited to Christianity alone. God
may be the same, but ways of understanding God are not the same.
What is
important is that, these saviour figures lead people to that Absolute Mystery
i.e., God. Therefore, there are many
mediators and Jesus is one among them.
There is no superiority and inferiority of religions. What is needed is that religions have to come
for dialogue to enrich each other with each one’s experience. Religion is only a path or a door. This is typically eastern or Indian approach.[62]
Dialogue is
between equals and who seeks only to be present to each other.[63] There cannot be dialogue with one who
considers himself higher to the other.
Dialogue takes place only when the partners are equal. If one is superior to the other, then there
can only be monologue.
Pathil calls this
model as the third stage of inter-religious dialogue where, Christianity
acknowledges and accepts other religions as ‘religion’ and as ‘ways to
salvation’ to their respective members.[64] Gen 1:27 says that God created man in his own
image. If God created man in his own
image, then why should some people consider themselves superior to the
others? Are we not equal in the eyes of
God?
2.4.1. Appraisal of the Fourth Model:
Christian
Faith affirms the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ in the divine
realm of salvation. This position is as
old as Christianity itself. But today,
it is being questioned. It has become a
controversial issue. It is a faith
affirmation not necessarily unreasonable or false.
It is true that all religions have to be considered equal for building
inter-religious dialogue. But when we
accept other religions as ‘legitimate ways of salvation’ or as equal, it does
not mean that they are equal de facto.
Respect is one thing and equality is another. All religions, including our own, can become
distorted and it is the task of each religion to prove its authenticity in
dialogue with each other.[65]
But even while following the fourth model, still
we can claim the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ. There is no question of compromising in the
new encounter with other faiths. The place
and role of Jesus Christ in God’s plan is unique and universal. The way Jesus is and his message is not only
for Christians but for the whole humankind.
Jesus demands from all ‘the conversion of heart’. In the same say, Kuncheria Pathil says that Koran,
Hindu Scriptures, Buddha’s teachings etc., have also a unique place and role in
God’s plan of human salvation. They are
meant for the whole humankind.[66]
The
uniqueness and universal significance is not something to be granted but
something to be proved and established by history. So there can be different levels of
uniqueness and universal significance.[67] Jesus did not only reveal to us the face of
God but also unveils to us the being of man.
He is the parable of God and paradigm of humanity. He is the concrete individual man as well as
a concrete embodiment of universal meaning.
He is not only Jesus of Nazareth but also Jesus the Christ.[68]
The mystery of God and that of the Second Person of the Trinity, the
Christ, the Logos, the Word, cannot be exhausted by the history of Jesus of
Nazareth. What Jesus said and did in his
humanity was limited by the finiteness of human nature. What has been revealed in history has to be
supplemented by God’s revelation elsewhere in other religions and vice versa. In unfolding revelation of the mystery of
Christ, other religions do play a role and this is one of the important
prospects of inter-religious dialogue.[69]
Looking at other faiths from within one’s own faith may be natural and
legitimate. There can be Christian
theology, Hindu theology, Islamic theology etc.
These theologies may be in conflict with one another yet they can be the
starting point for inter-religious dialogue.
But we have to articulate a common theology of religions. And this could come only from a religiously
pluralistic context where different religions are mutually, fully and
wholehearted involved in inter-religious dialogues, inter-religious liberative
movements and inter-religious programmes of inculturation.[70]
Evangelization and dialogue have to go hand in hand.[71] And as
co-pilgrims we dialogue with others in pursuit of the inexhaustible mystery of
the divine and we share with others our experience of God in and through Jesus
Christ (Evangelization).[72] If
there is conversion in the process we accept them and make them formal
disciples through baptism.[73] In Redemptoris Missio, the pope writes
that the Church is not seeing any conflict between ‘proclaiming Christ’ and
‘engaging in inter-religious dialogue’ (RM 5).[74]
When
we accept a shift from Christocentrism to theocentrism, it does not mean that
we abandon Christ as the center of our Faith.
For us, theocetrism is essentially trinitarianism. Hence theocentrism also implies
Christocentrism.
CONCLUSION
The fourth
model of inter-religious dialogue will be very effective in our ministry. But at the same time we can not compromise
our faith. So too the people of the
other faiths are not called to inter-religious dialogue in order to compromise
their own faith. We come for dialogue in
order to understand and respect each other.
When engaging in inter-religious dialogue, one of the
questions often asked by other believers in Christ was about the uniqueness and
universality of Christ. In the divine
plan of salvation Jesus Christ is unique because he is the Son of God and his
salvific/saving significance is universal on account of his redemptive death on
the cross, which is constitutive of salvation of all. This is the doctrinal claim based on the council
of Nicaea i.e., the doctrine of Homoouisios (one indeed with the Father)
and the Chalcedonian doctrine of Hypostatic union (substantially united
with the Father). He is the divine Logos,
pervading the universe before anything was made.
We are
supposed to be guardian of the Church in the parish or school where we will be
posted. As such we need to run the
parish or school. Education of the
faithful and education of the students will be our primary aim. Therefore inter-religious dialogue in the
parish or school context will be very useful if we want to maintain peace in
the area where we may be working.
There are many ways of conducting inter-religious dialogue in the school
context. We can try to have a meditation
on peace, where children and students would be meditating on Jesus or any other
saviour figures as peace givers. A
chapel in the school may be constructed as a place of silence with Sacred
Scripture of each religion prevalent in the area. This may be a very useful method to keep them
together inspite of their religious differences.
The ‘signs
of the time’ is that we should not be enemies of each others especially in the
sphere of religion. We are all
believers in God and that salvation will be attained if we do good and avoid
doing evil.
One last
but not the least is that we all should learn more and more about other
religions but at the same time we are not supposed to forget our own if we are
convinced that it will lead us to salvation.
The future
of inter-religious dialogue will depend on the model we prefer. If we are still holding to the first three
models, we are not going to make any headway to a fruitful inter-dialogue. The only model that is accepted by majority
of other faiths is the fourth model i.e., ‘Jesus Christ together with world
religions’.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
AMALADOSS, Michael, ‘The Challenges and Opportunities of Dialogue with Other Religions’, Prophetic Dialogue, Challenges and prospects in India, eds. L. Stanislaus and Alwyn D’Souza, Delhi: ISPCK, 2003. pp. 103-119.
CHETHIMATTAM, John B. (ed.), ‘Nature
and Scope of Inter-religious today’ (Check) Jeevadhara, vol. xxii no.
131, Kottayam: Jeevadhara, Sept. 1992, (pp. 331-355).
FLANNERY, Austin, (Gen.
ed.), ‘Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non–Christian Religions (Nostra
Aetate)’, Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post-Counciliar
Documents, Mumbai: St Pauls, 2001, pp. 653-656.
FLANNERY, Austin (Gen. ed.),
‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)’, Vatican
Council II, The Conciliar and Post-Counciliar Documents, Mumbai: St Pauls,
2001, pp. 320-385.
JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical
Letter On the Permanent Validity of the Church’s Missionary Mandate
(Redemptoris Missio), Mumbai: St. Paul’s Publications, 1991.
KASIMOW, Harold, ‘John Paul II and Inter-Religious Dialogue: An Overview’, John Paul II and Inter-religious Dialogue, eds. Byron L. Sherwin and Harold Kasimow, Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis Books, 1999, pp. 1-23.
PAINADATH, Sebastian,
‘Theological Perspectives of FABC on Inter-religious Dialogue’, Jeevadhara,
vol. xxvii, no. 160, ed. Kuncheria Pathil, Kottayam: Jeevadhara, July, 1997
(pp. 272-288)
PATHIL, Kuncheria (ed.),
‘The New Encounter with Other Faith’, Jeevadhara, vol. xxiii, no. 136,
Kottayam: Jeevadhara, July 1993, (pp. 274-283)
Unpublished Material
DE ROMUS, John, Lectures
on Theology of Religion and Inter-religious Dialogue, Barrackpore:
Morning Star College, Sept 2005.
[1]
Cf. Kuncheria Pathil (ed.), ‘The New Encounter with Other Faiths’, Jeevadhara,
Vol. xiii, no. 136, Kottayam: Jeevadhara, July 1993, p. 77-79
[2] Michael Amaladoss, ‘The Challenges and
Opportunities of Dialogue with Other Religions’, Prophetic Dialogue,
Challenges and prospects in India, eds. L. Stanislaus and Alwyn D’Souza,
Delhi: ISPCK, 2003. p. 113.
[3]
Cf. John B. Chethimattam (ed.), ‘Nature and Scope of Inter-religious today’
(Check) Jeevadhara, vol. xxii no. 131, Kottayam: Jeevadhara, Sept. 1992,
p. 352
[4]
Cf. John De Romus, Lectures on Theology of Religion and Inter-religious
Dialogue, Barrackpore: Morning Star College, Sept 2005.
[5] Cf. De Romus.
[6]
Cf. Pathil, p. 275.
[7] Cf. Amaladoss, p. 109.
[8]
Cf. Ibid., p. 110.
[9]
Cf. Chethimattam, p. 332
[10]
Cf. De Romus
[11]
Cf. Amaladoss, p. 119.
[12]
Cf. Amaladoss., p. 116.
[13]
Cf. Ibid., p. 111-115.
[14]
Cf. Ibid., p. 111.
[15]
Cf. Ibid., p. 112
[16]
Amaladoss, p. 114.
[17]
Cf. Ibid., p. 115
[18] Harold Kasimow, ‘John Paul II and Inter-Religious Dialogue: An Overview’, John Paul II and Inter-religious Dialogue, Eds. Byron L. Sherwin and Harold Kasimow, Maryknoll, N.Y., Orbis Books, 1999, p. 2
[19]
Cf. Amaladoss, p. 117
[20]
Cf. De Romus.
[21]
Cf. Ibid.
[22]
Cf. Ibid..
[23] Cf. Pathil, p. 275
[24]
Cf. Ibid., p. 279.
[25]
Chethimattam, p. 335
[26]
Cf. Ibid., p. 339
[27]
Kasimow, p. 13.
[28]
Cf. De Romus.
[29] Cf. Chethimattam, p. 331.
[30]
Cf. Ibid., p. 334.
[31]
Cf. Pathil, p. 276
[32]
Cf. De Romus.
[33]
Kasimow, p. 3.
[34]
Cf. Pathil, 279.
[35]
Pathil, 279.
[36]
Cf. Chethimattam, p. 340
[37]
Cf. De Romus
[38]
Cf. De Romus
[39]
Cf. Ibid.
[40]
Cf. Ibid.
[41]
Cf. Ibid.
[42]
Cf. Ibid.
[43]
Cf. Kasimow, p. 5
[44]
Cf. Chethimattam, p. 338
[45]
Cf. Pathil, p. 280-281.
[46]
Cf. Kasimow, p. 3.
[47]
Cf. Pathil, 281-282.
[48]
Cf. De Romus
[49]
Cf. Ibid.
[50]
Cf. Ibid.
[51]
Cf. Chethimattam, p. 337
[52]
Cf. De Romus,
[53] Pathil, p. 275.
[54]
Cf. De Romus.
[55]
Cf. De Romus,
[56]
Cf. Pathil, p. 281
[57]
Kasimow, p. 4.
[58]
Cf. Chethimattam, p. 341.
[59]
Cf. Ibid., p. 332-333.
[60]
Cf. Ibid., p. 341
[61]
Cf. De Romus.
[62]
Cf. De Romus.
[63]
Cf. Chethimattam, p. 350
[64]
Cf. Pathil, p. 276
[65]
Cf. Pathil, 280.
[66]
Cf. Ibid., p. 282.
[67]
Cf. Ibid.
[68]
Cf. De Romus.
[69]
Cf. Pathil, 283.
[70]
Cf. Ibid., p. 283.
[71]
Cf. Sebastian Painadath, ‘Theological Perspectives of FABC on Inter-religious
Dialogue’, Jeevadhara, vol. xxvii, no. 160, ed. Kuncheria Pathil,
Kottayam: Jeevadhara, July, 1997, pp. 280-281 p. 281)
[72] Cf. Ibid., p. 281
[73]
Amaladoss, p. 109.
[74]
Kasimow, p. 7
