CURRENT 37 DIALOGUE June 2001 Editorial Hans Ucko 2 Thinking together Thinking together — an interreligious process — Hans Ucko 3 Jesus the Christ: the ONLY Way to God and to Human Flourishing - M. Thomas Thangaraj 5 Soteriological Fundamentalism and Interreligious Dialogue - Mahinda Deegalle 9 Reconciliation in Christianity and Pluralism — Henk Leegte us) Judaism and Pluralism — Tikva Frymer-Kensky 16 What Can Be Closed in Relation to God? — Jay T. Rock 19 Religion and Plurality: Central Theological Issues in the Christian Faith - S. Wesley Ariarajah 22 The Significance of the Hindu Doctrine of Ishtadeva for Understanding Religious Pluralism - Anantand Rambachan 26 Truth or Truths — Hans Ucko 30 Towards Communal Harmony — Report of the National Convention on Communal Harmony in Kanyakumari 38 Statement of the Global Network of Religions for Children 40 Inter-faith Consultation on Peace, Security and Reconciliation in Sierra Leone 42 The contribution of Africa to the religious heritage of the world Excerpts from the welcome address — Hans Ucko 44 Report on the meeting — John Mbiti 46 List of participants 50 “Interreligious dialogue is not an ambulance” — a discussion on religious tolerance, conflict and peace-building 51 Office on Interreligious Relations staff: Dr Tarek Mitri Rev. Dr Hans Ucko, Editor Ms Yvette Milosevic Current Dialogue can be found on: www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/index-e.html WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES Office on Inter-Religious Relations 150 route de Ferney — P.O. Box 2100 — 1211 Geneva 2 / Switzerland EDITORIAL This issue of Current Dialogue presents among other things two of the present programs of the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue, a multifaith process called ‘Thinking Together’ and the other a study project in cooperation with the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID) on the contribution of Africa to the religious heritage of the world. A couple of weeks ago, the office published “Striving Together in Dialogue — a Muslim- Christian Call to Reflection and Action. This document, also posted on the web, is available from the World Council of Churches, Office on Interreligious Relations, att.: Ms. Yvette Milosevic, 150 route de Ferney, P.O. Box 2100, 1211 Geneva, e-mail: [email protected]. The office is presently preparing for a consultation, involving resource people with a long time involvement with the office, aiming at a revision of the Dialogue guidelines. This consultation should give us an occasion to reflect on the role and changing aspects of interfaith dialogue during the last decades. Such a rethinking is necessary. The concluding contribution in this issue of Current Dialogue is a press feature of the Media Relations Office of the WCC picking up some of the possibilities and challenges of our days in interreligious relations and dialogue. | hope this issue will be interesting and helpful in our commitment to and work in dialogue. With the best wishes from the staff of the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue. Hans Ucko Editor REDS EES PLUS RATA ATE YAN EGE POISONS BOSE ODF HME OEE N ERIS ELE EE BE TE ILI ETE ETERS DLP GELE EE DIE LEPINE LIER ELON LSE BOLI LIE LOLLY LEELA TEED ETE WRRIHO PT Striving Together in Dialogue i A Muslim-Christian Call to Reflection and Action i This document is published by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and other | partners, including Islamic organisations and specialised journals to be widely | '| circulated and used in discussions and educational programs. / : I It is the fruit of a Muslim-Christian meeting held in Amersfoort, Netherlands in | November 2000. Convened by the WCC, it took stock of the various Christian-Muslim || dialogue initiatives of this organisation since 1991. '| During the last nine years, Christian and Muslim religious leaders, educators and | activists have discussed the thorny and sometimes divisive issues of religion, law and | society, human rights, religious freedom, community rights, mission and da’wa and ', communal tensions. The document draws largely on their questions, reflections and ‘| conclusions. } PRI ER ESL CP STL AL LY EY SE OE IR TDP LIE NS BE SM ED TIES PEN NES ETS I ELIE EEE LE ES DIE A TD ASTI TIE EEO ESA EE ESE TINIE J Thinking together — an interreligious process Hans Ucko In 1999 the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue (IRRD) organised a workshop at the Ecumenical Institute Bossey entitled “What difference does religious plurality make?” This workshop was an attempt to address if and how religious plurality informs us in our work and as people of different faiths (see Current Dialogue no.34). At the workshop in Bossey, some of us felt that an important follow-up would be to focus together on some basic issues of belief, to see how we, in the midst of our religious diversity, express our common convictions and how one could explore core issues present in all our religious traditions. Our religious traditions relate to religious plurality in different ways and certain issues of faith are more or less important in each religious tradition. What is a key issue in one religious tradition is not immediately a relevant concern in another tradition. Exploring key issues in our respective religious traditions and relating our efforts to the reality of religious plurality, is above all about how we can be truthful to our religion, faith, heritage, belief and at the same time truly open to the religious diversity in which we live. Which core-issues are in need of a focused interreligious thinking? Are there possibilities for a rethinking? And can we do this thinking and rethinking together? We have usually formulated what we are about in the absence of the other. Our self-understanding has been reached without much consideration for who the other is or how the other wants to be understood. When we reflect upon what we are or want to be, could we do so in the presence of the other? Could one theologise together with people of other faiths? In our world of religious plurality, where we live with each other, is there also scope for some intentional theological thinking together? We, a few Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists, held our first meeting at the Serra Retreat Center in Malibu, CA, USA November 4-8, 2000. Regretfully our Muslim participant had to cancel his participation at the last minute. We had plenty of time to listen to each other and to discuss with each other the implications of our reflections. The introductory presentations are part of this issue of Current Dialogue. We listed for our continued work that :- - In the context of interreligious dialogue it is important to delineate the core commit- ments in our respective traditions. Otherwise we spend our time arguing about boundary issues that may not be central to our faith commitment. What are these core commitments? What is the relation between our core commitments and the proposition of faith we are accustomed to? Is exclusivity a part of these core commitments? Do these core commitments offer us alternative visions of our traditions? - Authority and use of Scripture must be intentionally addressed. We need to focus on the propriety of proof-texting, norms of interpretation, different understandings of the nature of authority today, fixed or flexible canon, scripture and tradition. We must try to describe the relation of scripture to other sources of authority. How is this related to the question of truth? - In relation to the question of understanding Truth, truths, and truth-claims, we need to learn to what degree truth is discovered, received, or constructed by the faith community. What is the historical character of our religious traditions? What are the issues involved in revelation and on-going revelation? How do we develop self-critical attitudes to our particular tradition? How do we combine our historical consciousness with the honouring of our sacred traditions? - We need to clarify our understandings of ultimate goals in each of our traditions recognising the multiplicity of views such as reconciliation, liberation, enlightenment, etc.. We must seek to identify the meanings of salvation, salvation as life after and/or life before death, the delineation of desired life in each tradition and its relation to the ultimate goal, immediate and penultimate goals vs. ultimate goals, and the particularity of our understandings. - We need to articulate the problems in our understanding of mission in a pluralistic society. Are there forms of mission that are unacceptable? Is there a place for mission? If there is, what are acceptable forms of mission that do not alienate people of other traditions but would be acceptable to the recipients? How do we articulate such a mission and what would be its purpose? Are there common tasks that could constitute a collaborative mission of people of various traditions? - We need to consider how religions impact the lives of people. What criteria could one use to assess the positive impact of religion on personal and social life? In this respect, what place does violence play in religious life? Is violence embedded in our religious traditions? How do religions support and maintain the violence embedded in the structures of religious communities and the larger societies? How can religions address this issue? - The nature of religious language needs to be properly understood. What way is language used differently for intra and inter religious conversation? What are the features and functions of insider and outsider languages - for example, mahatmya language (insider language of love and commitment)? Are there negative aspects to insider language that create a boundary of exclusion? Does this help understand exclusive claims about God, the idea of chosenness etc.? - We need to understand what we mean by pluralism. Is it simply an appreciation of plurality? Are there limits to plurality? What is the purpose and benefit of pluralism? How do we develop positive evaluations of diversity within our own traditions? Can monotheism be totally pluralist? There is a need for the development of theologies of religions in each of our traditions. Could /shtadeva (the God of one’s favour) serve as a possible approach to address a pluralistic religious situation? - We need to distinguish which features of the approach to religion are conducive to pluralism? What is the relationship of this approach to self-critical attitudes and a historical consciousness regarding religion? How do we best describe and name these features? Jesus the Christ: the ONLY Way to God and to Human Flourishing M. Thomas Thangaraj | have been asked, along with others in this Consultation, to elaborate “on a core-issue in our religious tradition, which in a world of religious plurality requires and would benefit from a renewed reflection and consideration.” | have chosen to elaborate on the Christian affirmation that Jesus the Christ is the ONLY way to God and to human flourishing. | chose this for two reasons. First, in my encounters with Hindus in settings of interfaith dialogue, this particular belief of Christians has been a great stumbling block for further dialogue and understanding. Hindus have found it incredible that Christians would make such a claim, while Christians have wondered how they could possibly maintain their Christian identity without such an affirmation. Second, when | recommend dialogical ways of relating with people of other religions to congregations, they frequently ask, “What about John 14:6? Is not Christ the only way to God?” Even dialogue-minded Christians feel some unease about this claim and are asking for reinterpretation of it. Therefore, we must address this issue of the salvific necessity of Christ in the present context of inter-religious encounter. This exercise is of particular interest because it allows me to elaborate on this issue in the presence of my friends from other religious traditions. My project here is to lay bare the various dimensions of this core-issue and point out some of the possible directions or possibilities that are available for either reinterpretation or rejection. | argue that there are at least eight such dimensions to be considered: historical, theological, soteriological, eschatological, hermeneutical, ecclesiological, psychological and epistemological. Historical Dimension: The exclusive claim of Christ is always made in concrete historical settings. It is not an idea held up in the sky somewhere, but is maintained in the concrete realities of history. Therefore, we must admit right away that the exclusivity of this claim simply cannot be maintained because there are in fact, right in front of our eyes, a multiplicity of competing claims for other ways to God and human flourishing. Our contemporary historical experience does not allow us to contradict that. To do so would be to simply write off Tikva, Anantanand, and Mahinda (the Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist representatives in this Consultation) from our discussion. Our historical experience of people of other faiths, and of interfaith dialogue tells us that it is becoming more and more difficult to affirm the exclusivity of Christ in a multi-religious setting. There are, in fact, many ways to God and many paths to human flourishing. In addition, we are increasingly aware that our visions of God and human flourishing are OUR visions and they are products of our history and our imaginative and creative construction. Once we recognize that they are products of such a kind of human historical creativity, they are instantly relativized and removed from the venue of absolutes. One might even say that what Christians in a multifaith setting need is a strong dose of historical consciousness! Theological Dimension: The vision of Jesus as the Christ functions as a normative category in Christian thinking about and understanding of God. We have come to think of “God in Christ” as our peculiar and proper talk about God. The normative character of Jesus the Christ cannot be sacrificed if Christian thinking and acting desires to be “Christian.” Yet such a claim to normativity often fails to recognize and appreciate other religions’ understandings of God. At the same time, are there ways in which we can talk about this normative category in non-exclusive terms? | have myself used the idea of “window” to address this issue. The vision of Jesus as the Christ is our window into God, and as such it is one of many windows available through which to gain a vision of God. Another way | have adopted is to use phrases, such as, “formative vision” and “transformative orientation” to understand the centrality of Christ in Christian life (See: The Crucified Guru: An Experiment in Cross Cultural Christology, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1994, chapter 6). Jesus the Christ offers us a formative vision of God, a vision that does not frame God but rather forms us in our particular, Christian orientation to God. It also offers us a “transformative orientation” for our daily living and acting, not a restrictive regimentation. Exploring the idea of Trinity is another way to expose an aspect of Christian thought that has been consistently unwilling to limit the history of God to the narrative of Jesus the Christ. In affirming the Trinity, Christians are acknowledging that there is more to God than the vision of God in Jesus as the Christ. This affirmation necessitates further exploration of the idea of God as creator and the role of Holy Spirit in the history of the universe as possible venues for a fresh understanding of the christological dimension. Soteriological Dimension: Talk about the uniqueness of Christ is closely related to how Christians view the salvation of humanity and the universe. The primary affirmation is that Christ is the only way to human flourishing or salvation. God's salvific activity in the world has traditionally been restricted to, constitutive of, and/or defined by that which has been accomplished by Jesus the Christ, and quite often narrowed even further to only what he accomplished on the cross. There are two tasks at hand here. First, our discussion on the various views of reconciliation exposed how certain views on the salvation offered in Christ make better sense in a multi-religious setting than others. One needs to explore this area and work on pictures of salvation that accommodate less absolutist claims. Second, we can move in the direction of Mark Heim who uses the word “salvation” in the plural. In his book, Salvations (New York: Orbis Books, 1995), he radically pluralizes Christian talk about salvation. In his latest book, The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans, 2001), he uses the phrase “plurality of religious ends” as a way to deal with the plurality of understandings of the goal of religious life, privileging “salvation” as a peculiar Christian understanding of a religious end. According to Heim, salvation as defined in the Christian tradition is available in Jesus the Christ and him alone. Each religion has a different destination and therefore the multiplicity of religious paths is due to the multiplicity of ends or intended destinations. Yet, these different destinations can all find their place in the Trinitarian plentitude of God. Admittedly, this needs much more nuanced discussion than | go into here, except to point out that Heim’s approach is one option, among many, in reinterpreting the exclusive claim of salvation in Christ. Eschatological Dimension: The claim that Christ is the only way to God and salvation is undergirded by certain eschatological visions, while at the same time informing and shaping those same eschatological visions. How do we proceed in addressing this dimension? One has to accept that there is no single eschatological view within the Christian tradition. There are, in fact, at least two major views. One view sees the eschaton, or the end, as a time of division when the sheep and goats, or believers and unbelievers will be separated for eternity. The other view holds that in the end all will come together in a community of justice and peace, perhaps beyond history, which means that everything will cohere in God at the end. Quite often the exclusive claim about Christ is maintained by the view of the end as eternal separation. However, there are possibilities in the unitive view of the end for alternative ways of dealing with the claim of Christ. Perhaps we should abandon the eschatological talk altogether and concern ourselves with the here and now, joining hands with our Buddhist friends’ skepticism regarding speculations about either origin or end. In any case, a reinterpretation of eschaton is required to re-envision the Christian claim to exclusivity. Hermeneutical Dimension: | find that many Christians often base their claim of the exclusivity of Christ and Christianity on two Bible verses. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6), and “There is no other name given under heaven by which humans can be saved (except Jesus)” (Acts 4:12). There are two ways in which Christians approach these verses. There are those in our congregations and parishes who see these texts to be so clear and straightforward that any attempt to question these texts’ claim to the uniqueness of Christ is seen as totally unwarranted. For these Christians, the two texts are clear markers of the need to shy away from any trace of dialogical engagement with the other religionists. On the other hand, some Christians find that their positive and appreciative experience of people of other faiths contradicts the traditional interpretations of these verses. In response, they seek ways to reinterpret these texts in light of their experience of goodness, truth, and beauty among people of other faiths. In addressing this issue, it becomes clear that a reinterpretation of these texts cannot be done either by simply tweaking these texts or by bringing in other biblical verses that contradict this position. For example, one can say that the word “the” in John 14:6 has been unduly emphasized, or another can escape to a text in Acts that claims universal access to God’s favor (Acts 10:34). Yet these explanations do not satisfy a Bible-lover’s demand for clarity. One needs, in fact, to address a much more fundamental question regarding the nature, place, and authority of the Bible in Christian reflection and action. Ecclesiological Dimension: The role of the institutional church in the divine scheme of human well-being is an important dimension of this core-issue. If the church, as it now exists, is an integral part of the divine economy, then exclusivist claims about Christ will lead to particular understandings of mission as evangelism and church growth. Wesley Ariarajah’s discussion of religion in bipolar categories of established/prophetic or movement/institution has raised some important issues to be looked at in detail. There is yet another dimension to this discussion too. Even if Christ is the only way, it does not necessarily follow that we need to have a church like the one we have now. On the other hand, if Christ’s claim to exclusivity does not include a vision of a community of faith like the church, do we not then end up as disjointed individuals who are attached, singly, to Christ? These are questions to ponder. M. M. Thomas, a 20th century Indian Christian theologian, maps a way forward in his vision of the church as a “Christ- centered fellowship” that is not limited to the organized institutional church alone. Psychological Dimension: As an Indian Christian myself, | am aware that an exclusive claim about Christ is foundational for defining one’s Christian identity in a predominantly Hindu society. Given the understanding of multiple ways to God in Hinduism, Christians in India have always needed to have some pretty good reasons to be Christians. The exclusive claim of Christ is therefore very helpful in defining one’s Christian identity, because it offers a great sense of security to, and centered-ness for, the individual Christian in India. Indian Christians experience intense pressure to define themselves over against the Hindu and Muslim communities, because if they declare Jesus the Christ to be only one of the ways to God, their demand to be a separate ecclesial community would appear totally unwarranted. It is, in some ways, much easier to claim Christ as simply one among many ways to God in a predominantly Christian culture than to do so in a minority situation. Therefore, any evaluation of a universally exclusive claim must raise honest questions regarding identity, community, and belonging. Epistemological Dimension: Many have operated with a relativization of the claims of Christ by appealing to the principle that truth is always relative to historical, geographical, psychological and socio- political settings. In this sense, truth is always truth for us. This begs many questions, such as: Can there be both relative and absolute truth? To what category does the exclusivity of Christ belong? If Christ cannot be “universalized” can it be absolute truth? Can one live with relative truth when it comes to matters of “ultimate concerns?” | am leaving these simply as questions because | need the collective wisdom of this group to be able to address these questions. As you can see, | have sought here to uncover and expose some of the dimensions of the Christian claim that Christ is the only way to God and human flourishing. It is clear to me that, given the religious plurality of today and our awareness of it in ever more novel ways, we cannot simply hold on to this claim in its received form. It demands either rejection or reinterpretation. If one does not wish to reject it in toto, what options remain? | have hinted, in the eight dimensions discussed above, at some possible directions to take. These directions point to one thing: Christians must engage in conversation with people of other religious traditions to constructively and creatively deal with the exclusive claim that only in Jesus the Christ can one avail one’s self of the true and full knowledge of God and access the best of human flourishing. Mr Thomas Thangaraj is Professor of theology at Chandler School of Theology, Emory University, Atalanta, Georgia, U.S.A. Soteriological Fundamentalism and Inter-religious Dialogue Mahinda Deegalle Religious soteriologies provide ‘meaning’ for committed religious communities. Central guidelines in living religious traditions are identified here as_ soteriological fundamentalism; search for soteriological foundations are not necessarily negative in themselves. Within living religious traditions, they are primarily spiritual directions for religious inspiration and practice. While their major purpose had been providing directions in attaining respective religious goals, they Have occasionally functioned as potential obstacles for effective communication among religious communities and genuine inter-religious dialogue. However, these negative conditions arise when religious Communities use soteriological prescriptions for an exclusive purpose of undermining religious diversity at the cost of religious unity and harmony within a single tradition. The controversial term ‘fundamentalism,’ which is often characterized negatively, is used here in a positive sense as ‘religious basics’ essential for the realization of particular religious goals prescribed by respective religious traditions. This usage does not have the intention of excluding or denying the validity and significance of any person, ideology or a doctrine. As basics in a religious tradition, fundamentals are efficacious in enabling one to realize the religious goals prescribed by the particular tradition. As soteriological fundamentals, such doctrines aim to elevate humanity rather than downgrade human beings. Strictly speaking, soteriological fundamentals are doctrines which deal with religious salvation. While identifying two authentic scriptures which are fundamental to Christian and Buddhist traditions, this paper examines the issue of genuine inter-religious dialogue and its place within these two traditions. It will be an investigation of social and political role of religious scriptures in the development of a sense of religious unity within religious communities. It does not propose that religious soteriologies are inherently bad. Rather it demonstrates that the way they are used by religious communities could produce negative results. Furthermore, it recognizes that people with negative agendas could quote sections of scriptures out of their original contexts in order to justify and achieve negative ends. Distorting the original meaning and the very purpose of scriptures, such persons could harm the religion itself. Recognizing this tendency, this paper asserts the importance of paying attention to the original socio-historical contexts of scriptures. Thereby one can avoid the misuse of scriptures and can create a healthy and a positive environment in understanding and the interpretation of religious message. Recognizing the importance of scriptures for religious inspiration, it highlights the way two traditions approach religious diversity and the way they attempt to accomplish particular religious goals. Obstacles for Christians to Engage in Inter-religious Dialogue Certain Christian scriptures seem to have prevented some Christians from engaging in genuine inter-religious dialogue. Some scriptures which can be interpreted in exclusive terms as soteriological fundamentalism can prevent genuine inter-religious dialogue. For example, the Christian assertion of Jesus Christ as the ‘only’ way to God stands out as an obstacle: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Certain conservative Christians can use this exclusive Biblical pericope taken out of its original socio-historical and religious contexts to prevent people in engaging in genuine dialogue with people of non-Christian faiths. Most moderate Christians agree that John 14:6 and its exclusive interpretation have been traditionally used in Christian communities, in particular, in pluralistic societies, to prevent dialogue with other faiths. Reflecting on Hindu and Christian contexts in South India, Dr. Thomas Thangaraj has pointed out that Christians have used John 14:6 for exclusive purposes; according to him, it is really a stumbling block for Christians to engage in genuine religious dialogue with their Hindu neighbors in India. As a clergyman of a Protestant denomination in his ministerial works in Indian churches, Thangaraj himself had faced the problematic situation of proposing a genuine dialogue with Hindu neighbors. The opposition to dialogue arises from a strict and literal interpretation of John 14:6 with emphasis on its soteriological content. The soteriological assertion of the centrality of Jesus for salvation can raise doubts in the minds of Christians with regard to the validity and efficacy of religious paths proposed by non-Christian faiths. In the context of soteriological fundamentalism, thus, the burning question for a Christian who is interested in inter-religious dialogue is how one genuinely appreciate one’s neighbors’ faiths and their diverse religious practices. With respect to authoritative scriptures, reinterpretation is equally important in recognizing their soteriological dimensions. With specific reference to Christian exclusive claims, Thangaraj attempts to explain their contexts in a theological setting employing a typology of eight dimensions.’ A close examination of the above mentioned pericope in the Gospel of John suggests that it is a historical assertion made within a particular context. Christian communities were struggling to define their identity in the historical development of Christian scriptures and soteriology in the religiously competitive Judeo- Christian world, proposing contested theories with regard to divinity and salvation. In modern pluralistic context, however, most religious people find it difficult to maintain such exclusive claims when many world faiths with good reasons propose alternative paths to religious salvation. Christians living in pluralistic religious contexts often find it extremely difficult to maintain exclusive assertions of the role of Christ as a means of salvation. Since there are contesting claims with regard to the nature of divinity, most tend to regard that various portrayals of divinity as a subjective process which produces a particular vision of divinity; such constructions say more about ourselves than the qualities of divinity; they represent our visions and understandings of the ultimate and less so on the reality itself. Going beyond religious absolutes, one has to understand the imaginative, constructive and historical aspects of religious assertions. ‘This is the Single Way’: An Early Buddhist Claim The Satipatthana Sutta, an early Buddhist scripture in the Pali canon of Theravada Buddhists, maintains that the path that it proposes is ‘the single way to the liberation of sentient beings’ (ekayano ayam maggo satthanay visuddhiya). Some can take this assertion on a ‘single’ path as an exclusive view and tendency embedded in the