INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IN ASIA
AT A TURNING POINT TOWARDS NEW CHRISTOLOGIES & ECCLESIOLOGIES
by Fr. S.J. Emmanuel
l
propose to present here my humble understanding of the progress and problems of
inter-religious dialogue in Asia ,as it reaches a turning point towards
demanding as well as evolving new Asian christologies and ecclesiologies. l
attempt to do this in two parts - first to see how the Asian inter-religious
dialogue after Vatican 11 has grown from being an exercise in good, religious neighborliness
to becoming more fundamental and
challenging obligation to all Christians and churches of Asia. And in the
second part to see how in the fulfilment of this dialogical obligation, some
questions are posed to the traditional christologies and ecclesiologies and
consequently how new raw materials and directions for their future developments
are indicated.
PART 1
FROM BEING AN EXERCISE IN GOOD RELIGIOUS NEIGHBORLINESS TO
BECOMING A MORE FUNDAMENTAL AND CHALLENGING OBLIGATION
1.
Jewish Christianity dialogued with the
Greco-Roman world and found a favorable home- but not so with Asia where it is
still considered foreign and at times even as a threat to the traditional
religions of the land.
Christianity
from its very birth out of a Judaic religion and culture, has grown and
encountered many other religions, cultures and philosophies, and lived for
centuries through various socio-political climates. Its present form has been
deeply influenced and even shaped by them. Historians speak of at least three
long stages of encounter, namely, that with the Greco-Roman world, with the
religious and political power of Islam, and later with the revolutions and
reformations of Western Europe. These encounters and climates have given
Christianity such a strongly institutional form, and dogmatically a defensive
stance, that the Asian encounter with Christianity in the first phase of evangelization
could not affect much of the needed change.
Christianity,
born in Judaism, cradled in Hellenism and grown up in the Roman Empire for long
centuries has been transplanted, as a well institutionalized and stands as not-
reform able religion in Asia. Even after three to four centuries of
Christianity. the churches are still, justly or unjustly, linked up with
colonial arrogance and absolutist-exclusionist claims about salvation. In spite
of their assurance of salvation to their followers and their massive social
action in favor of the poor masses, the churches of Asia are still seen as
foreign bodies. In some countries they are even considered as foreign agents,
threatening the very indigenous religions, cultures and ideologies which have
given life and direction to millions of people for thousands of years.
Fortunately after Vat.ll, the church has initiated a new renewal of self and a
new vision of the world that the accusations and suspicions of the past are on
the decrease.
2)
The call of Vatican 11 for renewal within and without the church necessarily
becomes an urgent call for the Asian churches to dialogue with people of other
faiths.
With
the advent of Vatican II all the churches of the world were called to an up-to-
date self-renewal (aggiornamento) as well as to an optimism and openness to the
whole world of life-realities. It was the undoubted vision of Vatican 11 that a
deeper renewal from within the church as the church of Christ is intrinsically
bound up with its renewed relationship to the religions, cultures and
ideologies of the modern world. It was its conviction that a sincere openness
to the Spirit in dialogue and collaboration with people of other faiths, cultures
and ideologies will result not in depreciating our own specific identity' as Christians
and churches, but in strengthening and enriching our very identity and strategy,
not for conversions, but in the overall
plan of God for all mankind.
Naturally
such a call for renewal and openness sounded a special urgency for the Asian
churches, especially at a time when they were facing new and crucial
challenges. In the recent wake of neo-nationalism, Christians have been
increasingly viewed as followers of a foreign religion and culture. Even their
good actions were tied up with suspicious motives and consequently curtailed by
restrictive laws of the land. These churches were challenged, on the one side,
by wide-spread dehumanizing poverty and oppression of the masses to make a clear
option for the poor and the down-trodden, and on the other side, by the massive
presence and renaissance of religious traditions and ideologies to work
together for the salvation of humanity.
Hence,
the call of Vatican 11 for interreligious dialogue with people of other faiths
was a God-given chance and a radical obligation for us, to get rid of the last
vestiges of our foreign character and become more indigenous, relevant and effective
to the socio-political - and-religious-cultural realities of Asia. The Churches
are called to make a dear option in favor of the poor and the oppressed and in favor
of more collaboration with all religions for the ultimate salvation of the
whole human race. But for this task, a courage and creativity - comparable only
to that of the early Jerusalem church in the face of Hellenistic- gentile
realities - called for, Hopefully the Christian leadership of Asia realizes
more and more'' the seriousness ,of this call and continues its sincere efforts
to respond.
3) Asian
response to the call for inter-religious dialogue is attempted and articulated,
not through any planned institutions nor through any authoritative or a-priori statements,
but through grassroots- experiences in a dialogue of life and their praxis-oriented
theological consensus.
Having
lived at least for three centuries as missionary and under-developed'' churches
under a paternal Congregation of Propaganda Fide, and having depended largely
on the older churches of the west, not only for personnel and finances - but
also for theology, spirituality, life style etc. the call for a serious
encounter and exchange with religions and cultures of Asia can come to be
understood by the young Asian churches only slowly and with some hesitation.
At
first, all condemnations and condemnatory statements and open hatred or
antagonism towards people of other faiths come to an end. Pope John XMl1 led
the way for an optimistic view of other religions. Along with this initial
euphoria a new interest to - increase knowledge about other faiths appeared,
But even this study of religions was very often undertaken with an air of
religious superiority and only by a few theologians and philosophers of
religions. These few-steps, we reckon, are probably the benefits of a first
understanding of the Vat. ll documents GS, LG, NA DH. The enthusiasm and
euphoria that characterized this first reaction were also expressed in
fellowship gatherings, common prayers and summit-meetings between religious
leaders on various occasions.
The
minority and dispersed situation of the Asian churches (except the Philippines)
among the non-Catholic or non-religious (Hong Kong) majority, naturally imposed
a dialogue of-life before any organized institutional dialogue. Very often the socio-political
and economic threats served as common challenges to intensify ecumenical and
inter- religious collaboration.
Even
these initial reactions are not without problems and con-fusion. The objections
raised by a minority at the Second Vatican Council against the declaration
about non-christian-religions (NA) continues to be heard even now after the
council. For-some, the call for new missionary dynamism was still incompatible
with-the call for better relation with other religions.
For
some others, it caused confusion, with respect to the traditional missionary
methods of proclamation and conversion. Consequently the Asian churches devoted
a good part of their post-Vat ll missionary zeal to clarifying and renewing
basic notions about evangelisation, missionary activity, proclamation,
conversion etc. In this process fortunately some characteristic elements of a
church that is truly missionary and at the same time open to other religions
and ideologies have emerged.
Asian
churches will no more be self-centred institutions, for uprooting people from
their native religions and cultures and
planting them within their boundaries (no more proselytism) They will be
other-centred -communities striving to contribute their specific share as light
of nations in dispelling the evil and darkness that inhibits our society. They
will accompany humanity in their search for the ultimate reality. (LG. l6d).
Thus our dialogical attempts, though fraught with problems, difficulties and
suspicions, are the ,,incipient raw materials'' and locus theologicus for
evolving a future theological consensus. It is for this reason that theologians
of the third world (e.g. EATWOT) strongly opt for dialogue of religions and a
praxis-to-doxie method in theology
4)
It is the dialogical experiences at grass-root level that contribute most
towards theological consensus and provide initial raw material for new
christologies and e|clesiologies
lf there is any progress in the theology of
inter-r|ligious dialogue, it is happening, not so much in our catholic
institutions seminaries and theologates, nor are they initiated by professors
of theology, but in the grass-root experiences of basic groups initiated by
radical Christians. These latter, guided by the Spirit have courageously at
great risks and under discouraging suspicions, launched out into new ventures
with people of other faiths. Although the ecclesiality or Christian
authenticity of such groups or persons and their actions may have beer initialy
under suspicion from the. institutions of the church, the fruits we reap
today confirm the genuine ecclesiality of such groups and the authentic
Christian discipleship of the people involved. The numerous ashrams,
fellow-ship centres basic human communities, their inter-faith experiences,
exchanges and sharing have contributed largely to the emergence of new ideas
and consensus towards Asian theologies, They help US to rethink and reformulate
the traditional theological formulae still echoing in our lecture halls in the
light of the history of our churches and in the context of our religio-cultural
pluralism.
Many
of our catholic institutions do in fact gratefully acknowledge and recognise
these contributions.
5)
The FABC and its structures have done well in encouraging and fostering much of
the diological experiences.
The
role of the FABC and its structuring with respect to persons and groups
involved in inter-religious dialogue, have been positive but not encouraging.
Far from being a “regional magisterium'' for monitoring diological encounters.
the FABC activities in general, and those of the OEIA in particular. have
prompted, encouraged and profitably orchestrated diological efforts towards the
emergence of some regional theological consensus and plan for action.
The
very first Plenary Assembly of the FABC at Taipei in 1974 recognised, in
strongly positive terms, the religious experiences of other faiths in Asia and
encouraged dialogue with them as a means of learning and receiving from these
faiths.It recognised these religions, as those “from which our contemporaries
do not cease to draw light and strength” as the “home of their contemplation and prayer
which have given shape to the histories and cultures of our nations, and as
those through which “God has drawn our people to Himself'' (nnl4-18). lt. has kept
up to these words in all its later ventures. A wider call for serious dialogue
at all levels (BIRA – l), an exhortation to go beyond introductory euphoria
regarding knowledge about religions to a leper sharing in prayer (BlRA-ll) and
a commission to be with 'the total life of all people (B1RA-1ll) are examples
of this encouragement.
Without
allowing the experiences at grass-root levels to get lost as free lance
conclusions, the numerous BIRAS of the OEIA have done well to cc-ordinate those
conclusions and at the same time inspire the leaders of our churches with them.
6) The
Pontifical Council for inter-religious Dialogue has the vital role of mediating
the challenges and fruits of Asian diabolical experiences for the benefit of
the universal church.
The
Asian experience at dialogue with other faiths has awakened the whole church to
view religio-cultural pluralism, not merely as a barrier to be overcome, but as
a fact, revealing the total plan of God for the whole humanity. In a
way, it has helped Us Asians to an optimistic view of the ultimate plan
of God, as one that includes and provides for the final fulfilment of all
peoples. religions and cultures. lt. 15 also a more realistic vision of God and
his goodness of salvation for all.
The
Pont. Councils as the organ of the universal church, having the vital
responsibility to keep open all the doors and windows thrown open by Vat ll
(Thanks to John IXXIII and Paul V1 - Ecclesiam suam). must mediate the
above experiences of the Asian churches regarding pluralism to the universal
church. lt. will help the so called “churches of the Christian west'' to
liberate them from their narrows vision of God's plan.
The
Asian experience at dialogue Is also fraught with many challenges and risks.
But for that reason, we are not to bury our specific task (talent) in a
pluralistic context, nor are we discouraged from following the spirit, wherever
he leads Us. With increasing encounters and experiences new doubts and
questions will naturally emerge, namely - what is the final goal of our dialogical
efforts, how will dialogue affect our missionary enthusiasm, will our specific identity as Christians and
Catholics be erased, is dialogue a gradual way to syncretism etc. But all these
vicissitudes form part of the Asian journey “ of growing and straining towards the consummation of the
Kingdom'' (LG.5). These questions and attempts at responses really help US
purify and strengthen our faith in God, in Christ, and in His church.
The
Council , can calm down protests from some quarters and instead - muster
support and encouragement of the universal church for our difficult journey
with the Spirit. And on the other hand it can mediate the fruits of our Spirit-guided
experiences to the others of the universal church. (This ls the cross and
resurrection of inter-religious dialogue).
7)
We are now called for a reversal of vision' in situating Christianity in the
religious pluralism of Asia.
One
conclusion that emerges clearly from the past experiences is about the new
place of Christianity in Asia. There are still among us elitist Catholics, who
consider their Christian belief as ,an absolute and exclusivit heritage'.
Coming to terms with religious pluralism means to them a weakening of a long
cherished tradition and a move towards syncretism. Belonging to the church has
given to many a false superiority. We are now cajoled to renounce this
supercilious stance in the new world of religions, cultures and ideologies. Unless
and until we give up such a narrow vision, and the false superiority, and
accept a realistic vision, we cannot
assume our true identity and our specific roles along with other religions of
Asia and in the total plan of God.
For
US it is no more a question of how to relate other religions to our
Christianity - directly or indirectly, visibly or anonymously, but more a
question of how to situate our Christianity in the midst of other religions and
cultures. lt. is no more “Howshall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign
land?Ps. 137:4, but “How can we sing a
foreign song in the Lord's land? (S.J.Samartha, Courage for Dialogue, p.88). This
is the Copernican Revolution called for in
our
Christian. vision.
Thus
a challenge to Christianity, that went unanswered or smothered during the first
phase of evangelisation in Asia, is emerging now with a new vigour and
vitality. The emergence is enhanced by the new religious renaissance evident in
all asian religions as well as by the common challenge to all religions, from
the growing oppressive situation in Asia. That this challenge went unanswered
by the earlier Asian churches and its foreign missionaries is understandable
and even excusable. But who will forgive us-leaders and animators of Asian
churches tody - if we do not accept the-challenges of a God-given
religio-cultural ,pluralism, and a man-made-unjust oppressive System?
Hence
inter-religious dialogue in Asia is no more a means to subdue or avoid
religious conflicts or to find a passive way of co-existence with other
religions (good- neighborliness. Nor is it a mere tolerant act towards other
religions. It is a radical and existential response to the demands of our Asian
situation as well as to the call of the Universal Church in Vat.ll. It is basically a rediscovering of the imperative
of the Incarnation of Christ and his church in Asia. lt. is a privileged gift
and a crucial challenge to Us Asians, in our growing commitment to usher the
Kingdom of God in Asia.
Part 11
AT A TURNING POINT TOWARDS
NEW DEMANDS AND PROSPECTS
We have reached a turning point in our dialogical
efforts.
Having
completed the initial phase of a general openness and optimism towards people
of other faiths, we now appear to be at a turning point. The larger sections of
our churches, being not involved and active in dialogue, may not recognize any
such turning point. But as front-line leaders having the obligation to make
others aware of the progress of our journey in dialogue, we have to take timely
and sufficient notice of this turning point.
Vat.
11and the universal magisterium, and even some theologians of the older Western
churches - all encourage US to face courageously, the God-given challenge of
religious pluralism in Asia and to move past this turning point, towards a new
future. Hence the relevant question -
what is this turning point'? In what does it consist? What demands does it make
in our theologies?
In
the recent decades we have rightly pre-occupied ourselves in searching the
reasons for dialogue, and establishing the need and necessity for it. It is no
more a question about the need and necessity of dialogue. Nor is it even trying
to reach more and more agreement on commonalities and shelving back the
unpleasant differences and difficulties for the future. It is now time for a
sincere and committed review of our own faith, of the form (formula) and
content of our belief and for facing the consequences of such a renewed faith
for our Asian Churches moving towards God's Kingdom.
In
the light of our new experiences in Asia, with the people of other faiths, in
the light of our own histories and the religio-cultural heritage, God has given
to US, in the light of all socio- political challenges facing US in Asia, we
are called to justify, express and witness our belief in a new way in Jesus
Christ and his church. In-the Asian continents defined as one rich with
cultures and religions, but poor in socio-political-economic realities, it is
only right and fitting that Christianity be conceptualized both in the
richness and poverty of Asia. In responding the challenges of the turning
point we do not overlook or under-value our Christian sources. The sacred
scriptures will continue to inspire US, the heritage of Christian tradition and
magisterium (as constitutive elements of an evolving Christianity) will
continue to guide and help US. It will be our sacred responsibility to be
faithful to these, as well as to the new demands of our Asian journey around
the turning paint.
1) Our
convictions are strengthened about new directions for the Future.
a) We
can move only forward
What
is for US beyond doubt is that we cannot go back on Vat.ll. We can move only
forwards.
( Final
statement of the Extraordinary Synod -1985). As far as the third world churches are
concerned, Vat. ll is a great stride forward, in the direction of the coming
of God's Kingdom'. ( Enelbert Mverg, Africanisches Profl von theologie und
Kirche, in ZMR Heft 2/8 1986 p. 154).
We
cannot stop with Vat. ll either.-as a conclusion valid for all times.
The fruit of Vat. ll lies not merely in concluding a counter-reformation
period, but more in initiating and encouraging a progress for the future. The universal magisterium of the day is
obliged -therefore not to stifle, but to discern optimistically the Spirit of
Vatican 11, moving also over Asia. The very Holy Spirit who inspired Vat. ll with the renewal of the
church from within (LG, GS, AG,) and opened the church to the world outside
(GS, NA, DH,) continues to operate in the Asian churches and even in other
religions too, on their journey towards the Kingdom.
b) Our
search with others not against authentic Christian faith.
There
is no such thing as a partial renewal of the churchy only from within. The
inner and outer renewals are inter-dependent and simultaneous. A deeper renewal
of the church as that of Christ, will imply a new relationship with the world
of religions, cultures and ideologies. And a sincere openness and collaboration
with the world of religions and cultures will result in appreciating and
strengthening our own faith and life in the church in an authentic way. In
other words, a life of deep faith in Christ, and within his church, is not to
be falsely polarized as against a sincere and collaborative search with people
of other faiths for ultimate truth and realities.
c) Nor
are we giving up our specific richness.
The
dialogue experience with other religions do not demand a giving up or a
watering down of the specific richness that is revealed in the mystery of Jesus
Christ - nor of any specific richness, that was assumed by his church through
the early encounters with other religions and cultures of the-West. On the
contrary, dialogical experiences will only help US to situate the mystery of
Jesus Christ on a wider perspective of the divine presence in the whole world
and show how the Divinity is active also in other eastern-religions. lt.
will also help US to situate Jesus the Christ, in the right order of divine
revelations and the church which came after him - in the proper context of
world religions. Exclusivity and isolation with respect to Jesus Christ and to
his church, will only amount to hiding the light under the bushel, or
preserving the salt and leaven in a bottle.
d) Jewish
Christian Revelation does not exhaust all divine revelations.
We
have had in the past a concept of revelation which limited all divine
revelation to Jesus Christ and his church in a narrow sense. The truth that we
profess that all revelations reach their fullness in Jesus Christ or that Jesus
Christ being the fullness of revelation must not be interpreted to limit and
impoverish the infinite revelatory action of Cod to sonly in and through Jesus
Christ, but must be understood only in relation to the revelations made to the
Jews in their history.
Hence
a distinction must be made between the Jewish Christian revelation that has
come to us through the medium of the
church and the other non-Christian revelations (of the same God) in the
religion's and cultures aroused us. We need to complement our Jewish-Christian
linear notion of revelation with a God-centered but all radiating and
all-pervading notion of divine revelation.
History
of Israel is no longer the unique place where God's actions for the salvation
of the world is realized. It is a paradigm, a powerful example of how God's
mission makes its way into the history of the nations of the world. What
happened in Israel happened in the history of other nations as well (JAN VAN Butsela,
Israel in ecumenical thinking: an
analysis, in IRM July 1988, p. 444).
Accepting
Christian revelation should not lead us to deny or depreciate the revelatory
force of other religions and cultures, but on the contrary, show us a christian
way of praising and thanking God for his marvels among men.
e )
False fears of syncretism could impoverish our idea of God
False fears that. dialogue with or openness to
other religions will lead to syncret|sm havc made some of us unwilling to open
ourselves to anything outside the church and outside the Christian revelation.
Our understanding of God and Jesus Christ has been nourished only by a Christian
revelation - and that too filtered through scholastic philosophy and theology
of the West. As a consequence we tend to impoverish our concept of God and
forget a fact that is evident in all world religions - God is A11 in All. This
does not mean that the christian revelation is imperfect and wanting. It only
means that the wholeness of God be not denied for the excellence of the part.
f) The
need for a Kingdom-centered Christology and ecclesiology
The
Jewish-christian revelation, though linear, yet points towards an
understanding' of the finality and goal of all religions and cultures. Revelation
of Jesus was all about the kingdom and
he presumed a whole variety of religions
and cultures from East and West meeting on the last day (Is. Lk. 13.29: 60:4-
7; Ps. 72: 10) . Instead of developing a kingdom-centred christology,
eschatology and ecclesiology, we have been influenced probably by the earthly'
kingdoms, principalities and powers, and moved away in other directions.
Consequently we have inherited only a narrow understanding' of revelation,
salvation and even of the Kingdom! This narrowness has mrade us somewhat
uncomfortable in the total context of' the God-given religions and cultures,
and made us less concerned, or even unconcerned about the Kingdom for the vast
majority of humanity.
We
used to interpret the “ May thy Kingdom come'' into “ may thy church grow”
and
consequently interpret missionary zeal and activity in terms of' quantitative
church-growth. Vat. 11 has helped us to rediscover the Kingdom-centred Christ and
the Kingdom-centered Church so that all our missionary efforts will be within the
parameters of a Kingdom centered Christology, ecclesiology and missiology. In
this perspective inter-religious dialogue is an integral and indispensable
dimension of the new missionary vision of the church.
g) We
Asians can contribute to the enrichment in the understanding of Christ and his Church
In
the first phase of evangelization, the Asians accepted Jesus Christ and his
Church in the dress and language in which he was accepted by the Jews, the
Greeks and the Romans. What was presented then to the Asians was not the
historical person of Jesus Christ and the form of' early communities of
believers in him. It was an already developed Christology and an already
fortified institutional church. We have gone along with such a Christology and
ecclesiology for three to four centuries.
But
such a Christology and ecclesiology, by their monopolistic-exclusivist
absolutism cannot meet the demands of the Asian pluralisrn. Nor are we
wanting in the necessary religio-cultural and socio-economic categories that can
grasp and express belief in Jesus Christ
and his Church. Hence we are faced with the obligation to re-discover Jesus
the Christ from the biblical sources through Asian categories wild allow an
Asian Christology to evolve in history. Similarly we have to re-discover the
constitutive elements of the early Christian communities ( Word, Spirit, Faith, Worship, Eucharist, Service
etc. ) and allow Asian christian communities of believers to move towards new ecclesiologies
(new local churches, basic Christian communities
etc. ).
Such
a re-discovery with respect to Christology and ecclesiology is not counter to,
nor a denial of the one faith, one baptism, one church, nor even a
contradiction of the scholastic Christology and ecclesiology that is taught in
Europe. The Asian Christologies and
ecclesiologies by their diversity, will only help enrich the universal
understanding of Christ and his Church.
2. The
New Testament origins of Christology and consequent development in the first
centuries will still remainfundamental and constitutive for future development.
We
who are familiar with the origins and foundation of the New Testament
christology are also aware
a) that
behind all christological developments, there stands the historic figure of
Jesus and the claims - direct and indirect - which he made for himself in the
midst of a judaic audience.
b ) that it was the resurrection of Jesus
which gave the decisive stimulus to christological thinking of Jesus as Lord and Messiah.
c) of
various tools - Palestinian Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism, hellenistic Gentile vocabulary
used in evolving Christology and
d) that
the roots of Christology were in the application of expectant wild nostalgic
categories from the O.T and Judaism to Jesus.
We are
also aware that the development of Christology during the first few centuries of the church
has been stimulated by heresies and erroneous claims made by different churches.
Hence the teaching of the Universal Church assumed the form of an apologetic Christology
which gradually reduced the functional claims of Jesus as Christ and increased
an ontological absolutism about his being and nature. This led to an exaggerated
Christocentric sense in phraseology and revelation, to the detriment of a Theo-centric
sense in them. The experience of dialogue with other faiths can help us to move
away from such an exaggerated pre-occupation with Christ to a more realistic
and beneficial understanding of Christ in human history. The first Christ-event
is not an end in itself, but an effective pointer (Sacrament of God) to the
wider presence of God in history. The factors that contributed to early Christology
also remind us of' the new factors from our own time and place, which can shape
the future Christologies.
3. Need
to think and revise the absolutist and exclusivist claims of Christology and
ecclesiology
We
have passed the initial stage of joy and consolation at discovering some similarities
between christianity and other religions, at seeing Christ and christianity
latent in other religions and at seeking other religions and their scriptures
as having a preparatory role in relation to Christianity similar to that of
Judaism to christianity.
With
the official statement given by Vat.II against the absolutist and exclusivity
stance of the church with regard to itself, with regard to salvation, with
regard to the non-Catholic Christian churches (LG.15,16, 8; N.A.1,4), we are
slowly led to discover the kernel of that openness of Vat,II in things such as
universal salvific will of God, possibility of salvation in other religions,
the true church of Christ only subsisting in the Roman Catholic Church, the
action of the Holy Spirit outside the Church etc. All these have the cumulative effect of
calling for revision and re-understanding of our old theological formulae - and
among these eminently, those of Chalcedonian Christology and
counter-reformation ecclesiology.
Contrary
to the accusations that dialogue with other faiths can relativize (reduce) our
faith in God, in Christ, in Church etc., we Asians have a different experience. We
start from the experience how God the Infinite has relativized Himself as man
in order that he be understood, how he has revealed himself in various forms
and in stages in the history of humanity, and how he has been active and still
active in our cultures and histories. In such a perspective we feel that the Christian
revelation and its contents have been too much isolated and absolutized
Vat.II,
realizing the difficulties of harmonizing the traditional Christian teaching
with that of the local religions and cultures, admits that such difficulties
must stimulate the mind to a more accurate and penetrating grasp of the faith
through new theological investigations. Hcnce its exhortation that theologians
take “to more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to the men of their
times'' (Gs. 62 abc).
Further
the conviction that we are responsible for our own salvation and that we Asians
must take more seriously and evaluate positively all the God-given native
religions and cultures of Asia, is growing. The fear of syncretism decreases
and the heroism to take risks increases - especially after Vat.II's clear
statement that the deposit of faith or revealed truths is one thing, the manner
in which they are formulated without violating their meaning and significance
is another'' (GS 62c).
Hence
many of the Asian theologians reject an unparalleled, unsurmountable
uniqueness, absolutism and exclusivity in their Christlogy and ecclesiology.
It
is only God who is “absolutely absolute, exclusive and unique”. Religions, Christianity inclusive, can only
opt for a unrestrictive absoluteness'' that can. compromise with religious
pluralism, with salvific values in other religions and even salvation in other
religions. Thus each religion enjoys a “relative absoluteness'' which is
different from the absoluteness of God. Religious beliefs and their practices
are only experiences of an Absolute Reality far beyond their limits.
4. The
distinction between the historic person of Jesus and his Christological titles
is necessary and important
The
unity of' the person Jesus Christ was established in Chalcedon (451 ) as a
definitive answer to all the christological errors that arose in the 4th and
5th centuries. But an uncritical acceptance of this dogmatic truth has led
catholic theology to overlook an important distinction between the historical
Jesus and his christological titles and has helped to identify totally Jesus as
Christ, and Christ as Jesus. It is now questioned not for any heretical reasons
as in the 5th century, but by those who see an important and necessary
distinction between the once and for all definitive event of a historical-Jesus
and the Christological titles given to him later by particular beliefs and
cultures that accepted him. Seeking a re-understanding of the Chalcedonian Christology
is not to go back to anti-chalcedonian heresies or watering down the
christological belief of the present Church. It is precisely to make real and
integrated our christological faith in Jesus that such a revision, rethinking
and reformation is demanded. An example of how experiences and expressions of
the ultimate reality are conditioned by languages and cultures of people is
seen in the distinction and parallel Aloy Pieris draws between Jesus the Christ
and Gautama the Buddha. He brings out the dangers of a closed and total
identification between the human person and the titles they inherit from their
believing communities and indicates a prophetic phraseology vis a vis the
buddhology. (The Buddha and the Christ, Part III, in: EAPR l 9 8 8 / 2 . )
Asians
will accept and acknowledge the historic Jesus and profit from the Christological
titles given by the early christians of the Judeo-l-Hellenistic communities,
But we will not stop with those titles. We will accept and acknowledge the same
Jesus in our own categories.
5. Asian
Christologies and ecclesiologies must have a cultural and liberative dimension
In
the language of the West, a neat distinction has been made between religion,
culture and between social, political and economic conditions. That this
distinction cannot hold water in Asia is
the experience of Asian Christianity. It is struggling to live as an
institutional church, foreign to the religio-cultural character of the people
but promoting inter-religious tolerance or dialogue. Even the socio-economic
development services are being attempted through a superiority of Western funds
and technology. In recent times parallel to its openness and optimisms towards
other religions, there are also attempts at inculturation and contextualization
. But the futility of promoting culture and at the same time attempting
development in the above way, namely, without a dialogue with the culture and
religions of the people, without harnessing the local potentialities and
without involving them directly in the process, is emerging clearly in many
instances.
Asian
theologians, taking religions, cultures and socio-economic realities of the
people as constituent components of the one emerging society, will find
theological value not merely in a purely restricted inter-religious dialogue of
the word nor in a restricted inculturation or contextualisation, but in a
dialogue (dialectic) of life that encompasses religion, culture and
socio-economic conditions. Hence Asian Christologies and Ecclesiologies must vibrate
with the religio-cultural richness as well as with the socio-political poverty
of Asia.
Conclusion:-
Dialogue
as dialogue or its goals and methods have not been our primary concerns here.
We have tried to see the demand and impact of inter-religious dialogue in the
evolution of Asian christologies and ecclesiologies, There are litany ways to
prepare raw materials towards Asian theologies. For example, the struggles of
the Asian masses on one side for justice and freedom - in the face of dehumanizing
injustice and oppression - and on the other side, the various images of Jesus,
as emerging even in popular Asian religiosity, will contribute to the future
cilristologies and ecclesiologies in Asia.
Christology
or ecclesiology is not the goal of dialogue, nor dialogue the goal of any Christology
or ecclesiology. But dialogue in so far it remains a movement of life, of sincere
searching together towards the Ultimate Truth and Ultimate Happiness will have the greatest impact and evolutionary
force on these sciences. And conversely a progress in these sciences, through
their praxis-doxis consensus will greatly enhance and enrich the movement of
humanity towards the Ultimate.
May
all attain this Ultimate Moksha, Nirbana, Eternal life and Kingdom!
(
This was a presentation I made on invitation to the meeting of the Pontifical
Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, its Asian consultors and the Office of
Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs of the Federation of Asian Bishops
Conferences (FABC) at Hua Hin, Thailand from 23rd Sept.- 29th
Sept. 1988. This was published in EAPR of 1988, in Manila, Philippines and an
extract in Zeitschrift fuer
Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft ZMR in Aachen, Germany. But the
Pont. Council agreeing with me to
publish it in their document in Rome, never published. I received 8 questions
in Italian, through the Nuncio Sri Lanka, to clarify. I clarified all. Again
asked to write an article to encourage their missionary activity. I did. But
appeared not satisfied! )
