LIFE SUSTAINING PLURALISTIC PERSPECTIVE
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
LIFE SUSTAINING PLURALISTIC PERSPECTIVE
LIFE SUSTAINING PLURALISTIC PERSPECTIVE
1
Introduction
Human beings never lived without practicing one or
another form of religion. They always
attempted to comprehend the ultimate mystery in manifold forms, as their
intellect and cultural context permitted.
Thus,
plurality of religion is as old as human history. Our time has witnessed a shift from plurality
of religions to religious pluralism.
That is, religious pluralism has become a significant subject matter
concerned with all religions. It is not
just accepting the diversity of religions but venturing to fuse a cooperative
relationship among religions in order to actualize the real purpose, of
religions-protecting and enhancing life. It is not uniformity but unity without
losing individuality.
This paradoxical context of our time devolves Christianity
to formulate theology of religions relevant to pluralistic contexts in the
light of the life and work of Jesus Christ who was committed to the ultimate
mystery on the one hand and life sustaining on the other. Hence, exploring the
possibilities for a life sustaining pluralist perspective is the immediate task
of any contemporary and relevant Christian theology of religions
It is necessary because the global
and religious context and new sciences have brought different peoples,
cultures, and religions much closer than ever before. People are face to face with traditions once
foreign and alien to them.
The specific Indian context, particularly the neo-Hindu
assertion reveals that each religion needs to be left unintervened because each
is complete and sufficient enough for the votaries to attain the purpose of
religion. And no religion or religious person has anything significant, which
the other religions or religious persons do not posses.
The ever increasing misuse of
religions for extremist purposes and political gains and the large scale human
made disasters, which threaten the existence of life on the planet earth
require that the religions should be united without damaging the differences
for the sake of life itself. This is
possible only in a life sustaining pluralistic perspective. It is the enabling of different religions to
address the issues, which challenge and threaten life as a whole.
.
2 What is Life Sustaining Pluralistic
Perspective?
As Christians are
committed to Jesus, who lived a life sustaining vision and the present
realities of the world demand for a life sustaining pluralist perspective, it
is essential to expound it further.
Beyond religion, culture,
language, race, geography, climate, history etc., the common core of humanity
is life. It is unfortunate that
often religions are used to separate people and destroy life rather than
uniting and strengthening. Such untoward
developments need to be countered at all levels. It is possible if, life the only uniting
principle across religious boundaries is taken in to the heart of inter
religious endeavors.
Each individual is
earnestly engaged in the daily struggles of life. This striving is not
specific to any single religious community. Struggles of life may vary from
person to person, yet every one is struggling to live. The struggle for
existence is a day-to-day reality. No single being can escape the stark reality
of life – happiness, sorrow, poverty, sickness etc. In other words, the struggles of life-
threats and challenges concern every one beyond religious boundaries. Therefore
the struggle for existence can bring people of all walks of life, who
are committed to the genuine quest for the mystery, together for common action
in order to sustain life.
An analysis of ordinary
life will reveal that, human beings are striving to make a better life.
Similarly every collective effort of humanity including religious, is devoted
to sustaining life in all its possible fullness or committed to achieve better
life on the planet earth. The problem of
religious pluralism too, will not be applicable unless it concentrates on the
issues confronting life, besides the other regular objectives. It is not just human life, but human life in
relation to the rest of creation. Arvid P. Nirmal writes, “the primary object
of any theology is certainly the concept of God, but we need to recognize the
fact that the primary datum for doing theology is human life.”[1]
Religions had embarked to
support and strengthen life in many ways including, moral and spiritual. The moral and spiritual nature of humanity
distinguishes it from other forms of life. The program of inter-religious
understanding cannot be substantial if it ignores the necessity of a strong
spiritual and ethical foundation. Of
course, today, religions are used for selfish reasons. To restore the pristine purity of religion,
there should be a sound theology of religions.
A sound, relevant and contemporary theology of religions should emerge
from the concrete religious and ethical commitment of the individuals. So that it can evolve lasting and fruitful
solution to the current threats and challenges of life. The problem of the
current world is lack of genuine and strong spiritual life. Only those who are
spiritually matured alone will be able to see the commonality of life beyond
all the human-made differences. They alone will be able to realize the equality
and the significant dynamic nature and purpose of human life.
It is established beyond doubt that reality is
not plural but it has been understood in manifold forms in consonance with the
cultural backgrounds. The diverse understanding of the mystery is manifested in
various forms of religions. As the reality
is mystery, humanity cannot be divided on religious grounds. Various religions are the different, humble
and modest attempts of people who lived in diverse circumstances-culture,
climate, language, geography, etc to understand the one mystery, which is still
beyond the thus far conceptualized dimensions.
It is necessary to accept
the plural structure of reality. It is not that the reality is plural
but the one reality can be understood in manifold forms. Plurality of religions is purposeful. They are testimonies to the incomprehensible
and the transcendental nature of the mystery besides its immanence. Different
religions are independent in their own rights.
But they cannot function in isolation, if they have to serve the real
purpose of enhancing human life at a time when the world is torn with religious
strife of all shorts and degrees.
As practical life and religion
are intertwined, the issues related to life cannot be approached in
isolation from the rich religious resources at our disposal in the form of many
religious traditions. Any solution that
ignores the significance of spiritual foundation for life and the
problems threatening it will be incomplete.
Hence, it is necessary that the issue of religious pluralism be pursued
from a life sustaining pluralistic perspective, which is the result of one’s
earnest commitment to the ultimate mystery.
Here, concern for life and commitment to the quest for the ultimate
mystery go hand in hand in order to gather all the dynamic religious resources
without any discrimination, for the promotion of a better life in harmony with
God’s creation.
Participation in the
struggles of people and commitment to the ultimate mystery are the two sides of
the same coin. They make a complete
paradigm. One without the other is incomplete, counterproductive and
unacceptable. Insisting the one and sidelining the other is risky. One who is
committed to the mystery will not slack in his/her responsibility to life and
its paradoxes. Without intimate relation
with the mystery one’s concern for the life of the other will be shallow and
short lived.
It needs to be noted that
the theology of religions pursued from life sustaining pluralist perspective is
committed to friendship and co-operation among religions without interfering in
the personal religious interest of the individual. It is committed to life and
its realities. It seeks friendly
cooperation between religions to pool their resources to sustain life at all
levels. Religions are to guard life. If they fail to do so, they cease to be
religions. As the challenges to life are
increasing, one or two religions alone cannot salve them in isolation. To protect and enhance life, all religions
should work together without losing their individuality and differences. This is possible only if theology of
religions is developed from the ‘life sustaining pluralistic perspective’,
which reflects its ontological base in the mystery.
3 Premises
of Life Sustaining Pluralistic Perspective
3.1
Mystery as the Center
The primary premise of life
sustaining pluralist perspective is the mystery. Treating the ultimate as the
mystery is the only answer to the diverse forms of religiosity of humanity to
which life alone is the uniting/common principle. Commitment to the genuine quest for the
better understanding of mystery automatically calls for concrete concern for
life. Concern for life without
commitment to the mystery will be short lived.
Thus these two are inter- connected.
Scholars who are committed to the problem of
religious pluralism are convinced that the ultimate reality is beyond the
comprehension of human beings and therefore, it is a mystery. Paul F. Knitter writes, the ‘divine mystery
which we know in Jesus and which we call Theos or God, is ever greater
than the reality and message of Jesus’.[2] Panikkar explains this mystery from pluralist
point of view as “pluralism dethrones monism, and with it monotheism. Reality does not need to be transparent and
intelligible in itself.”[3] In the words of S.J. Samartha, “...religions
should be recognized as having responded differently to the mystery of the
ultimate.”[4] Further “a sense of mystery provides a point
of unity to all plurality.”[5] This point of unity holds all religions
together with a common purpose. Without
a sense of this point of unity, the scope of religious pluralism shall remain
bleak.
This is the meeting point of the
horizontal and vertical dimensions of Christian theology of religions. Vertically, theology of religion revolves
around the mystery and horizontally the mystical root inspires people of all
faiths to actively engage in the struggles of humanity. Thus the unceasing quest for the mystery is
the ontological uniting point and the contemporary energizer for a life
sustaining pluralistic perspective.
3.2 Jesus is Life - Centered
Jesus was both God-centered and life-centered. Life-centered because he always subjected
himself to the will of God. He repeated
that he came to do the will of God.
Jesus, because of his intimate relation with God, called Him father. This father-hood of God is the way God is
addressed by Christians. But the Reality
is still a mystery beyond the nomenclature ‘father’. The mystery is the axis around which all
faith-traditions revolve to seek meaning.
Jesus was life-centered. He wanted
religions and religious practices to be life sustaining and not life destroying. Whoever, or which ever faith tradition, is
involved in fulfilling the will of God was in the company of Jesus. He said ‘whoever does the will of my father
is my brothers and sisters’.[6] Even if such action took place, in an
unexpected environment, Jesus appreciated.
Jesus esteemed the faith of the centurion and said ‘even in Israel kingdom of God
Jesus’ concern for the needy is outstanding. His selection of people for the reward was on
the basis of the amount of service they did to the needy.[10] This is what, is declared in the ‘Nazareth
Jesus’ main enemies were people who used religion as mere ceremonial
observance, as means of oppression and as means to escape from the
responsibilities.[13] He wanted to restore Sabbath as a source of
life for the needy. He said ‘Sabbath is
for man and man is not for Sabbath’.[14] A taunting question he faced was ‘whether to
save or destroy life on Sabbath’.[15] He proved in his life that, saving the life
of the needy is the chief concern of people who are committed to the ultimate
reality, of course, in manifold forms.
Thus any inter religious ventures need to work on these two
dimensions. One is the conviction that,
all are committed to the ultimate through diverse channels. And the other is that, that commitment
demands that life is strengthened in all possible ways to achieve, harmony,
peace, Justice and equality for all.
3.3
Life Struggle-Threats and Challenges
The next premise of life
sustaining pluralist perspective is life. That is, the struggles of life-the
challenges and threats, which life as a whole confronts in manifold forms. These are common to every individual beyond
the boundaries of religions. Every one
can join in the fight against the odds of life.
Religious convictions and differences cannot intervene in the
process. As life is common for all,
religious cooperation can be effected on the premise of life, because life is
same but religions are many.
Life realities are the real testing
ground of one’s commitment to the ultimate mystery and his or her life
sustaining vision of life, which is the reflection of one’s genuine submission
to the continuous quest for the real knowledge about the ultimate mystery.
3.4
Love the Linking Point
Life is prior to religion. Religion is to add meaning to life. But both life and religions find their
ontological root in the mystery. The
connecting point between the one life and the many religions is love. It is the
love of god that motivates love for all living beings. And the sincere concern
for life at large deepens one’s commitment to the ultimate mystery. The love of god and the love for god bring
people closer to god and closer to the struggles of life. It is agape that
produces philial love.
4
Promise and Prospects of Life Sustaining Pluralistic Perspective
4.1 It is based upon the Life and Work of Jesus Christ
The paradigm for life
sustaining pluralist perspective is found in the life and work of Jesus
Christ. All through his life, he was
life-centered, that is, he dedicated his life to sustain the life of others in
all possible ways. His concern for the
value of life was the result of his commitment to his father, who is understood
as mystery in the Indian context. He was
always conscious about his responsibility to the father and acknowledged the
people, who involved in such responsibility as his brothers, sisters and mother
irrespective of their backgrounds. Thus,
life sustaining pluralist perspective is a great promise to Christian theology
of religions and prospective to the Indian context, which witnesses the intricacies
of an intensively pluralist context.
4.2
The Real Purpose of Religions is Upheld
Religions are to protect
and strengthen life in all possible ways.
Jesus wanted that all form of religious observances-sabbath, offering,
law etc. should not become hindrance to life-giving or life-saving acts. When
inter religious cooperation is pursued from the point of life sustaining
pluralist perspective the struggles and concerns of people take precedence over
the other formal observances. Be they of
poverty, sickness, disasters, cast hierarchy, women concerns, ecological
imbalance or any other issue.
Once Swami Vivekananda
said, ‘the crying evil in the East is not want of religion, but want of bread’.[16] He saw god in man and said, “since God dwells
in man, He can be worshipped by serving man.”[17]
Similarly, “Gandhi always appealed to
the religion of humanity underlying all religions.”[18] Thus life sustaining pluralist perspective
promises commitment to one’s own religion and offers prospective service to
life as reflection of god’s love.
4.3
Plurality of religions accounted for
Any model that is used to bring
about unity and fellowship among religions should take into account the fact
that each religion is unique on its own merit and at the same time it could
relate with the other. In other words a
balance should be established to maintain the individuality of religions on the
one hand and the unity of religions on the other. The unity is not uniformity or monolithic
structure, but the collective efforts of individual religions without losing
their individual identity. Gandhi said, “the correct
attitude is one of firm adherence to one’s own religion coupled with an equal
reverence towards all other religions.
It is not simply a question of tolerating other faiths, but of believing
that all faiths lead to the same goal.”[19] Again he said, ‘let Hindus become better
Hindus, Muslims and Christians better Muslims and Christians’.[20]
The promising aspect is that the life sustaining pluralist
perspective treats different religions as various attempts of people to comprehend
the ultimate mystery through the ways and means familiar to them in their own
context. It is prospective because it
pursues inter religious cooperation with the assumption that unity of religions
is possible without losing individuality and differences. In other words,
there
is scope for diversity of religions on the one hand and unity of religions
without uniformity on the other.
4.4
Convergence of Spirituality And Life
The life sustaining
pluralist perspective is the convergence of deep spirituality, which is the
result of one’s paramount religious conviction and commitment for establishing
better life, which is the reflection of one’s intense relation with the
ultimate mystery. Without deeper spiritual footing the theology of religions
would remain a mirage. For Ramakrishna
Paramahamsa “it is only by releasing a flood of enlightened religious feeling
that society can be cleansed and men and woman made to grow to their spiritual
heights.”[21]
According to Gandhi
“religion is best propagated by the noble lives led by its followers.”[22] For him “preaching the Gospel means to live
the Gospel.”[23] Again he said “religion can be defended only
by the purity of its adherents and their good deeds, never by their quarrels
with those of other faiths.”[24] This is what the need of the hour in India
4.5 Mission
People of other faiths
categories the reconciliatory and confidence building effort of the church in a
pluralist society as indirect ways of conversion. Thus a theology of religions proposed
from life sustaining pluralist perspective can convey the message that
Christian initiatives are not for conversion but to create awareness among
people about the need for cooperative action among religions to avert the
misuse of religions and to consider the possibilities of creatively utilizing
the dynamic potentials of religions. It
is not to convert people from one religion to the other but extending
invitation for people of all walks of life to a change of attitude towards
people of different faiths and the realities of life. Of course, in a
developing society, change of religion is the freedom and fundamental right of
the individual concerned according to his or her conviction and necessity. We
need change of attitude but not religion.
Such an approach promises
possibility for the furtherance of the great commission of the lord relevant to
the context. Its prospect is the hope
that all religions will be sensitive to the problems of life and function to actualize
the supreme expectations of religions in the day today life.
5 Why
Life Sustaining Pluralistic Perspective?
5.1
Global Context
There were remarkable
changes in the global context from fifteenth century onwards. These changes resulted from the impact of
geographical explorations, advancement in science and communication technology
and the collapse of colonial power. The geographical explorations, starting
from fifteenth century onwards, expanded the horizon of human knowledge. They revealed that, there were diverse
people, faiths, cultures etc., in the world.
These discoveries ‘stimulated a new interest in other religions’[25] among
the people, who once thought that there was no other religion besides their
own. The interest was to learn other
religions and see their difference from Christianity.
Scientific
developments brought tremendous change in communication technology, including
transport. They have reduced the
distance between people at all levels-information of all shorts including
religious. V.F. Vineeth writes, ‘our
world has been reduced to a ‘global village’ and contact with men of other
faith has now become a day-today reality for many, both in the East and in the
West’.[26] It is not mere contact with the other, but
chance to learn from the other and exchange ideas, especially, religious. In
the words of J. Paul Rajashekar, “…people from different religious traditions
have not only come into greater contact but are also being exposed to mutual
claims and commitments.”[27] This situation is a challenge for the
missionary religions.
Added to these two was the collapse of colonial power. Discoveries revealed the realities of the
expanded globe. Communication reduced the distance of the globe and brought
them together. It was the break of
colonial power that provided adequate freedom at all levels. There emerged the ‘revivalism of indigenous
cultural and religious values of the people of the liberated nations’.[28] It affected the church as well. According to
S.J. Samartha, ‘it was only a couple of decades after the dismantling of
colonialism that both the Vatican (1965) and the World Council of Churches
(1971) came out rather reluctantly, with more positive statements about people
of other faiths’.[29]
These developments have created the awareness that humanity
can no longer be separated on the basis of faiths and creeds. In short, these developments have enabled
people to move from the plurality of religions to religious pluralism. That is, it is not just accepting the
existence of many religions, but working towards the cooperation of religions
for the sake of better life.
5.2 Religious Context
The urgency for the
church to respond to the challenge of religious pluralism was fastened by the
scientific study of religions. It has helped ‘for the first time Christian
scholars with full factual information on the other world religions’.[30] According to John Hick, “perhaps the most
important factor has been the modern explosion of knowledge among Christians in
the West concerning the other great religious traditions of the world.”[31] In the words of Kuncheria Pathil ‘discovery
of the other faiths and the recognition of their role in the universal salvific
plan of God is perhaps the greatest challenge to Christian theology today’.[32] It
changed the perception of Christianity about other religions. Harold G. Howard
writes, “no longer can Christians view Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims as
heathens living in far off lands to be converted by Christian missionaries.”[33]
Along with the knowledge of other faith
traditions, there was ‘a knowledge of other religious persons’.[34] This is
to say that adhering to a particular faith tradition does not change the
natural course of events in life. In other words discriminations on the basis
of religions is unwarranted for. Paul F. Knitter writes about the others that
“they are normal happy human beings, getting their jobs done, raising their
families as well, perhaps better, than we, and living lives of love, of
service, of commitment.”[35]
It is not just the
knowledge of many religions and many people that was brought to light but also
it revealed the ‘multi religious context of humanity’[36]
everywhere. This is to say that
plurality of religions is natural and that cannot be ruled out. What can be
done is that the plurality of spiritual traditions may be enabled to work
together to face the threats and challenges that the globe is facing.
The other challenges to
Christianity are the ‘growing Western interest and openness toward Eastern
religions’.[37] Jacques Dupuis writes, “while thousands of
Westerners, especially the young, journey to India
The missionary nature and
monotheistic structure of fast growing Islam was another challenge to
Christianity. In the words of Owen C.
Thomas “with the rise of Islam the Christian church was faced for the first
time with a new and powerful missionary religion.”[39]
The scientific study of
religions revealed that no religion could be treated as absolute, because there
are elements of truth in every religion. Added to this was the critical study
of the New Testament, which questioned the authenticity of some of the unique
claims of Christians.
5.3 New Sciences
The modern scientists are
convinced that, even in science, there is nothing called the truth. It changes always. This idea is reflected in
modern philosophy as well. According to
Paul F. Knitter “the catch phrase is that we are not in a state of being but in
a state, or better a process of becoming.”[40] It means, including religion nothing is
static. His main argument was that,
science, philosophy, sociology, economics and politics of contemporary world
indicate that, the global scenario demands the co-operation of all to face the
common challenges. His list of
challenges is ‘starvation and malnutrition, economic inequality, dwindling
resources, exploitation and poverty, official flouting of human rights and
nuclear weaponry’.[41] In
order to avoid the possible irresponsible question of the few he writes, “to be
religious and to be serious about it one must, generally belong to a religion.”[42]
There is a great
awareness among sincere people of all religious traditions to be a member of a
particular religion in order to be a member of wider religious family for the
sake of establishing better community life.
5.4
Response From India
5.4.1
Reaction From Hindu Thinkers
C.V. Mathew takes the
readers way back and says “in short, by the middle of the 19th
century we see the slow but steady emergence of a resistant Hinduism in the
national context.”[43] It should be kept in mind that Hinduism does
not subscribe to single line of thought pattern in matters of religion. Yet their aversion to the Christian
missionaries and the superior claims of Christianity is uniform.
5.4.1.
1 Swami Dayananda Saraswati
His reaction to Christianity and Christian
mission is stated as, “Dayananda firmly believes that the world would be better
of without such an ensnaring and superstitious faith as Christianity.”[44] Paul J. Griffiths quotes extensively from the
Light of Truth to show similar reactions. Regarding the birth narrative
of Jesus Christ Dayananda said, “only people in a state of barbarism can believe
them.”[45] Jesus’ temptation proves that ‘He is not
omniscient’. Referring to the preaching
of Jesus he argued that if only righteous could be saved what is the use of
Jesus. Again he said if all will be
punished according to their deeds why preaching about salvation. For Swamy Dayananda Saraswati, Christianity
is not at all necessary for the Indian soil.
He writes, rather using harsh expression, as “in a country where no trees
are seen to grow, even the –castor oil plant is considered to be the biggest
and the best tree, in like manner in a country where none but the ignorant
savages lived, Christ was rightly considered a great man but Christ can be of
no count among the learned and wise men of the present day.”[46]
5.4.1.2
Swami Vivekananda
Swami Vivekananda had
great respect for the teaching of Jesus Christ, but not for Christianity as a
religion. He said about Jesus that “He was unfettered, unbound Spirit”.[47]
Paul J. Griffiths quotes
from ‘Christ the messenger’, to explain the grievances of Swami
Vivekananda about Christianity. For
Vivekananda, Christians have ignored the teachings of Christ and insist upon
the divinity of Jesus Christ. Their
argument looks, if you credit the master you will be saved; if not, there is no
salvation for you’. Thus for
Vivekananda, “…the whole teaching of the Master is degenerated and all the
struggle and fight is for the personality of the Man.
His reaction to Christian propagation was so
vehement. For him Christianity ‘failed
to satisfy the spiritual longing of educated and scientific folks’.[49] He also said that, “what the nation wants is
a religion of strength based on the inherent divinity of the human soul, and
not a religion of weakness teaching that man is a born sinner.”[50] This, of course, is his attack upon the
Christian doctrine of sin.
Swami Vivekananda’s view
of religions is stated as “let us, therefore, find, God not only in Jesus of
Nazareth but in all the Great ones that have preceded him, in all that came
after him, and all that are yet to come… They are all manifestations of the
same infinite God.”[51]
5.4.1.3
Mahatma Gandhi
D.S. Sharma writes, ‘like
every true Hindu, Gandhi believes that all religions are branches of one and
the same tree-the Tree of Truth’.[52] Nirmal Minz states, “all religions, he held,
are appropriations of Satya under the condition of cultural limitation and
human finitude… They are equal in the sense that no single religion has the
absolute or exclusive truth.”[53] Further, “it is my conviction that all the
great faiths of the world are true, are God-ordained and that they serve the
purpose of God and of those who have been brought up in those surroundings.”[54] Gandhi
believed “as all religions were rooted in faith in the same God, all were of
equal value, while each was specially adapted to its own people.”[55] He has put in a nut-shell his view as “after
long study and experience I have come to the conclusion that: [1] all religions
are true, [2] all religions have some error in them, [3] all religions are
almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism.”[56]
Apart from the acceptance
of the empirical realities of religion he also talked about a philosophical
view that “the one Religion is beyond all speech.”[57] For
him, “God [Truth] is one and so humanity also is one.”[58]
Mahatma Gandhi had a
distinct understanding of Christianity, Christ and the activities of
Christians. He had not much good to
speak about Christians. But he declared
that, “though I took a path my Christian friends had not intended for me, I have
remained for ever indebted to them for the religious quest that they awakened
in me.”[59]
Gandhi always accused
Christians of busy in preaching, but never practice what they preach. “Christians generally seemed to him to be
rather poor disciples of their master.”[60] The reason for his dislike over Christianity
is stated as “in those days Christian
missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth,
pouring abuse of Hindus and their gods.
I could not endure this.”[61] The reasons for further dislike are worded
as, “surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink
liquor, and change one’s own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already
begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their
country. All these things created in me
a dislike for Christianity.”[62] Of course, this is what he heard about a
person who was converted to Christianity.
It cannot be the right presentation.
Nevertheless, certain facts every one must learn. They are regard for culture, nation and
religion of others.
He firmly believed that it was not necessary
for him to become a Christian in order to get salvation. He said “it was impossible for me to regard
Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions.”[63] The main reason is that the pious lives of
Christians did not give him anything that the lives of men of other faiths had
failed to give.
Mahatma Gandhi’s view of
Jesus Christ can contribute to the formulation of a viable Christology in India Krishna , Rama, or Mohammed.”[64] For Hindus Jesus is one among the teachers of
dharma, and not the only teacher of dharma.
He also accepted ‘Jesus
as a model not the only model’.[65] It is also to be noted that Mahatma Gandhi
never considered Jesus as the perfect man.
He says, “I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice,
and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born.”[66] No doubt Mahatma Gandhi has put Christians in
a challenging task.
According to him
“religion is best propagated by the noble lives led by its followers.”[67] “Preaching the Gospel means to live the
Gospel.”[68] Again he said “religion can be defended only
by the purity of its adherents and their good deeds, never by their quarrels
with those of other faiths.”[69] This is what the need of the hour in India
Mahatma Gandhi has suggested as to how
religions should approach each other. For
him “the correct attitude is one of firm adherence to one’s own religion
coupled with an equal reverence towards all other religions. It is not simply a question of tolerating
other faiths, but of believing that all faiths lead to the same goal.”[70] Again he said, ‘let Hindus become better
Hindus, Muslims and Christians better Muslims and Christians’.[71] Working to this end can be the right mission
of Christians in India
Another remarkable
contribution of Mahatma Gandhi for religious pluralism is the acceptance of
common humanity. “Gandhi always appealed
to the religion of humanity underlying all religions.”[72] He always disbelieved in the illusion of
forming one single religion. He believed
in the harmony of religions. Once he
said, “if the Hindus believe that India
5.4.1.4
Dr. Radhakrishnan
He was of the opinion
that Hinduism does not lack anything.
From the point of religious pluralism he was thinking of an absolute,
which is active and present in all revelations.
For him “such an absolute is the ground of transcendental unity as well
as historical differences of religions.”[74]
Similarly ‘Radhakrishnan
had a vision of the religion of the spirit which he proposed as a possible
solution to the problem of religious pluralism in the world’.[75] Being an Indian, he too subscribes to the
view that all religions are the same.
And they lead to the same goal.
In summary Hindus consider Christ as one of the revealer and
Christianity one of the revelations. Hinduism lacks nothing, which Christianity
is in hold of.
5.4.1.5
Buddhism and Islam
Despite the theological
differences between Buddhism and Christianity there had been dialogue between
them. In the words of S.J. Samartha,
“the Buddhist response to Christian initiated dialogue is not one of
confrontation and controversy, but of responsible participation in the
conviction that the message of the Buddha has a distinctive contribution to
make to the world today.”[76]
The traditional Muslim
response to religious pluralism was negative.
They understood the western missionary work as power play. “They think that Christian missionaries from
the West came to destroy the religion of Islam and help the foreign powers,
especially the British, to conquer and subjugate India
Now there is a positive
attitude towards Christianity. S.J.
Samartha points out that “a significant response to Christian initiatives is
the Muslim attempt to work out a theology of dialogue based on Islam even as Christians
are seeking to develop a Christian theology of dialogue.”[78]
On the whole, the people
of other faith-traditions were unhappy with the way Christianity was
insensitive to their feelings, perceptions and requests. Thus it is necessary that Christian theology
of religions ventures to propose a new paradigm, which is life oriented without
involving in wordy tussles.
5.5
The Urgency of the Problem
5.5.1 Religious Extremism
The original life
sustaining vision of religions is lost in the contemporary world. Often religions are misused. One such misuse is religious extremism. It is
identified that, “for whatever the root cause, religious extremism is fast
turning out to be the most potent source of violence and human suffering in the
world today.”[79]
Today religions are used
as a pretext for war, terrorism, power, and in short for selfish purposes of a
few. They shatter the pluralist vision
of religion and use religions to divide people rather than uniting. In the words of Paul F. Knitter “still today
the battle cries of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, of Muslims
and Jews in the Middle East, of Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka, of Sikhs and
Hindus and Muslims in India are sad testimonies that religions continue to be
more effective at motivating war than peace.”[80]
Another growing tendency
is to attribute religious colors to general riots. In the words of A.
Pushparajan “many non-religious factors very often influence the riots. However it is undeniable that the riots have
been colored by religious considerations.”[81]
5.5.2
Politicization of Religion
A specific Indian
requirement is that, religion should be saved from politicization. It is said “the RSS fears of Islamisation and
now the Christianisation of India belong to the world of make believe. They serve the purpose of the consolidation
of the Hindu vote bank and the politics of Hindu Rashtra.”[82] In the
words of S.J. Samartha, “religions are used as handmaidens to political
interests.”[83]
The reason for such
deterioration is the outcome of greed for power. In order to grab power, thousands of lives
are rooted out, in the name of safeguarding religions. Religions and gods are meant to protect
humanity. But now humanity is
championing the cause of protecting religions and gods in order to exploit the
innocence of thousands of souls. Added
to this are the crafty fabrications in the form of conflict between majority
and minority religions.
5.5.3 Life is at Peril
At the global level, life
the only factor common to all living beings is threatened from various human
made disasters. Nuclear war, economical imbalance, poverty, disease,
corruption, ecological degradations, gender discriminations etc., are not the
problems of one religious community. The
persistence of these threats can make life difficult in the planet earth. Life can be saved from these threats only by
the co-operative and conscious efforts of all people across religious
boundaries. Therefore, there is an
urgent need for co-operation between religions. Wilfred Cantwell Smith writes,
“unless men can learn to understand and to be loyal to each other across
religious frontiers, unless we can build a world in which people profoundly of
different faiths can live together and work together, then the prospects for
our planet’s future are not bright.”[84] Paul F.
Knitter writes “religions must speak and act together because only so can they
make their crucially important contribution to removing the oppression that
contaminates our globe.”[85] In the words of S.J Samartha, “it is agreed
that the most helpful relationship between persons of different faiths in the
world today must be one of co-operation in pursuing common purposes like
justice, peace and human rights.”[86]
The growing misuse of
religions and the increasing threats to life call for committed action from
people of all faiths to restore the original purpose of religions and to bring
about closer fellowship among religions from the point of life-struggles,
threats and challenges.
5.6
Tuff Task Ahead for Christianity
5.6.1 Suspicion
The Christian attempts
for co-operative action of religions are looked at with suspicion. S.J. Samartha writes that there is “always
the fear of hidden agendas”.[87] Further, “the suspicion that dialogue may be
used for purposes of Christian Mission is an ever present fear among neighbors
of other faiths.”[88]
Conforming this, Sita Ram Goel maintains that “the “dialogue” does not seem to
be a sincere attempt at reconciliation; on the contrary, it is only a strategy
for survival on the part of Christianity.”[89] He called indigenization, inculturation etc.,
as fraud and said “it is high time for the Christian theologies to come down to
earth and recognize every person’s right to seek truth and salvation in his or
her own way.”[90] Writers like, Arun Shourie has interpreted
all the contributions of Christians in India
5.6.2
Time to Listen
Most initiatives for
inter religious relations have came from Christians. S.J. Samartha, while discussing the issue of
dialogue, writes, “in all these the initiatives have invariably been Christian
although in recent years some meetings have been organized by others as well.”[91] Nevertheless, he has devoted a full chapter
in his One Christ Many Religions to reflect upon the responses of
people of other faith-traditions to the Christian initiated dialogue etc. In
his own words, “neighbors of other faiths also ask humbly and sometimes not so
humbly: what about our centers and our names?”[92] E.C. Dewick says ‘to-day the claim of
Christianity to be the final and perfect religion for the whole world is being
sharply challenged by a large number of people’.[93]
This is a pertinent
issue, which should be addressed by all who are sincerely committed to the
problem of religious pluralism. Paul J.
Griffiths had to say that,
Christians
have said a great deal about how they see Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims
and about what place they are prepared to allot the members of these
Communities in God’s plan for human salvation; they have as yet not learned to
listen very carefully to what members of these Communities have said and are saying
about them.[94]
There is
a remarkable change in the approach of people of other faith-traditions towards
Christians. Earlier they listened to
what Christians said. Even in the 19th
century many accepted the greatness of Jesus Christ but not Christianity. This too is challenged. The reason for the resistance to the
Christian initiated dialogue is that this is an attempt to continue traditional
Christian Claims.
5.6.3 Christianity Introspects
Earlier, the Christians
thought that they could easily convert the whole humanity to Christianity with
the help of a few missionaries. To their
dismay “today Christians are recognizing that far from disappearing, the
religions of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are alive and well in spite
of all the Christian missionary efforts.”[95]
Another failure is that
in attempting to change the world, Christianity perpetuated exploitation and
oppression on large scale. The best
example is the crusades. Again, Christianity
was always knit together with colonial activity. Further Christianity was insensitive to the
injustice of the world, especially to the Jews.
This is categorically stated as, “the picture would be very different if
Christianity, commensurate with its claim to absolute truth and unique
validity, had shown a unique capacity to transform human nature for the
better.”[96]
The same idea is
expressed with strong words as “the Holocaust that took place in the country
that gave birth to the Reformation, the first use of the atom bomb, and the
more recent threats to humanity because of environmental pollution and the
shadow of nuclear annihilation hanging over all life, have raised profound
moral and spiritual questions about the credibility of Christianity.”[97] S.J. Samartha’s introspective question was
“if Christianity was unable to prevent these horrors in countries over which it
held sway for so many centuries, why export it to people in other countries who
live by other faiths?”[98] Thus there is a great need for
reconceptulising Christian understanding of other religions as to make it more
life centered.
5.6.4 New Context for Co-operation
Paul F. Knitter writes
that “this world of suffering, which provides the context or Kairos for
dialogue.”[99] Overcoming this suffering and establishing
peace is the concern of religions. Thus
he writes further that, “…peace can and must become a common commitment and
common ground for conversation and action.”[100] His wider plan of action was comprehensively
called the soterio-centric approach. But
later he said, “working for eco-human justice becomes a common context in which
we find ourselves using our different religious stories and symbols.”[101] He was of the opinion that the liberation
theology and theology of religions should work together in meeting the
challenges of life. He wrote “their
encounter, may be even their marriage, can bear much fruit for the Christian
churches and the world.”[102] How amazing is his progress from unitive
pluralism to thus far!
Paul F. Knitter has made
it very clear that theory and action should go hand in hand. It is not mere relationship among religions
that is important, but the culmination of that relationship in the form of
constructive action for the sustenance of life.
This, he relates to his living experience. He says “so people and events in my life have
led me sometimes lured me, to what has become for me the moral obligation to
join “pluralism and liberation” or “dialogue and global responsibility.”[103]
Aloysius Pieris proposed
a new paradigm for the theology of religions in the Asian context. His main contribution was that he brought to
light the importance of considering the poor as the target of any theology. Because in Asia
there are many religions and cultures at the same time there are many
poor. His paradigm consisted of three
aspects. “The first is the
acknowledgement of a third magisterium, namely, that of the poor; the second is
the liberational thrust that defines our theology of religions; and finally the
social location of this theology is the Basic Human Communities (BHCs).”[104] It is
true that, any contemporary theology of religions should be based upon life and
its realities i.e., the struggles of life. This is the earnest vision of
the many Indian Christian theologians of religions.
6
Conclusions
The current global situation
requires that religions be united without losing their individuality and
differences for the sake of presenting better life. A viable paradigm for such an undertaking is
the life sustaining pluralist perspective.
It dos justice to the many forms of religion on the one hand and
struggles of humanity on the other. This
is also in consonance with the life and mission of Jesus Christ, which the
church is expected to bear witness.
By S. Robertson
Religion and Dialogue
[1]Arvind
P. Nirmal, Heuistic Explorations, Madras
[2]Paul
F. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, New York
[3]Raimon
Panikkar, A Dwelling place for Wisdom, Trans.by Annemarie S. Kidder, Louisville , Kentucky
[4]S.J.
Samartha, The Lordship of Jesus Christ and Religious Pluralism, Madras
[5]S.J.
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, Op.Cit., p. 5.
[6]Mark
3:35.
[7]Luke
7:9.
[8]Luke
10:29.
[9]Luke
13:29.
[10]Matthew
25:35.
[11]Luke
4:18-19.
[12]Mark
12:30&31.
[14]Mark
2:27.
[15]Matthew
12:10, & Mark 3:4, & Luke 6:9.
[16]D.S.
Sharma, Op.Cit. p.151.
[17]Swami
Gokulananda, ‘Vivekananda – Unifying Vision and Mission
[18]Nirmal
Minz, Op.Cit., p. 50.
[19]D.S.
Sharma, Op.Cit., pp. 193, 194.
[20]Mahatma
Gandhi, Op.Cit., p. 20.
[21]D.
S. Sharma, Op.Cit., p.122.
[22]Ibid.,
p. 193.
[23]Nirmal
Minz, Op.Cit., p. 47.
[24]Mahatma
Gandhi, Op.Cit., p. 46.
[25]J.
Paul Rajasekar, ed., Religious Pluralism
and Lutheran Theology (LWF Report 23/24), Geneva
[26]V.F.
Vineeth, “Interreligious Dialogue : Past and Present a Critical Appraisal”, Journal of Dharma, Vol. XIX, NO. 1,
(January – March 1997), p.42.
[27]J.
Paul Rajasjekar, ed., Religious Pluralism
and Lutheran Theology, Op.Cit., p.9.
[28]V.F.
Vineeth, Journal of Dharma, Op.Cit.,
p.42.
[29]S.J.
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions;
Towards a Revised Christology, Bangalore
[30]Harold
G. Howard, Religious Pluralism and the
World Religions, Madras, The Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Institute for Advanced
Study in Philosophy, University of Madras, 1983, p.25.
[31]John
Hick ‘The Non-absoluteness of Christianity’, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness; Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. By, John Hick and Paul F.
Knitter, New York
[32]Kuncheria
Pathil, ‘Christian Approach to Other Faiths, A Historical Perspective’, N.C.C. Review, Vol. CX, NO.2 (February 1990), p. 66.
[33]Ibid., p.25.
[34]Paul
F. Knitter, No Other Name?; A Critical
Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions, London, SCM Press Ltd., 1985, p.3.
[35]Ibid., p.3.
[36]Jacques
Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of
World Religions, Translated from the French by Robert R. Barr, First Indian
Edition, New Delhi, Intercultural Publications, 1996, p.3.
[37]Owen
C. Thomas ed., Attitude Toward Other
Religions; Some Christian Interpretations, London, SCM Press Ltd., 1969,
p.10.
[38]Jacques
Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of
World Religions, Op.Cit., p.4.
[39]Owen
C. Thomas ed., Attitudes Toward Other
Religions; Some Christian Interpretations, Op.Cit., p.11.
[40]Paul
F. Knitter, No Other Name?; A Critical
Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions, Op.Cit., p.7.
[41]Ibid.
[42]Ibid., p.13.
[43]C.V.
Mathew, The Saffron Mission [A Historical
Analysis of Modern Hindu Missionary Ideologies and Practices], New Delhi
[44]Ibid.,
p.74.
[45]Paul
J. Griffiths, Christianity Through Non-Christian Eyes, Fifth Printing, New York
[46]Ibid.,
p.201.
[47]Paul
J. Griffiths, Op.Cit., p. 210.
[48]Ibid.,
p. 213.
[49]C.V.
Mathew, The Saffron Mission (A Historical
Analysis of Modern Hindu Missionary Ideologies and Practices), Delhi
[50]D.S.
Sharma, Op.Cit., p.155.
[51]Paul
J. Griffiths, Op.Cit., p. 214.
[52]D.S.
Sharma, Hinduism Through the Ages, Bombay
p. 193.
[53]Nirmal
Minz, Mahatma Gandhi and Hindu-Christian Dialogue, Madras
[54]Nirmal
Minz, Op.Cit., p. 24.
[55]Mahatma
Gandhi, Fellowship of Faiths and Unity of Religions, Ed. by Abdul Majid
Khan, Madras, G.A Natesanand Co., No year, p. 20.
[56]Ibid.,
p. 12.
[57]Mahatma
Gandhi, Op.Cit., p. 17.
[58]Nirmal
Minz, Op.Cit.,p.1.
[59]Paul
J. Griffiths, Op.Cit., p. 225.
[60]Mahatma
Gandhi, Op.Cit., p. 19.
[61]Paul
J. Griffiths, Op.Cit., p. 217.
[62]Ibid.,
[63]Paul
J. Griffiths, Op.Cit., p.224.
[64]Nirmal
Minz, Op.Cit., p. 39.
[65]Mahatma
Gandhi, Op.Cit., p. 19.
[66]Paul
J. Griffiths, Op.Cit., p. 224.
[67]D.S.
Sharma, Op.Cit., p. 193.
[68]Nirmal
Minz, Op.Cit., p. 47.
[69]Mahatma
Gandhi, Op.Cit., p. 46.
[70]D.S.
Sharma, Op.Cit., pp. 193, 194.
[71]Mahatma
Gandhi, Op.Cit., p. 20.
[72]Nirmal
Minz, Op.Cit., p. 50.
[73]Mahatma
Gandhi, Op.Cit., p. 1.
[74]Bibhuti
S. Yadav, ‘Vaisnavism on Hanskiung : A Hindu Theology of Religious Pluralism’, Religion
and Society, Vol. XXVII, No.2 [June 1980], p.32.
[75]C.H.
Sreenivas Rao ed., Inter-faith Dialogue and World Community, Madras
[76]S.J.
Samartha, One Christ Many Relgions, Op.Cit., p. 31.
[77]Sam
V. Bhajjan, ‘Muslim – Christian Dialogue in India
[78]S.J.
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, Op.Cit., p.24.
[79]The Hindu, ‘Religions for Peace’,
Chennai, September 4, 2000.
[80]Paul
F. Knitter, ‘Inter-Religious Dialogue and the Unity of Humanity’, Journal of Dharma, Vol. XVI, No. 4,
(October – December 1992), p.284.
[81]A.
Pushparajan, From Conversion, to
Fellowship; The Hindu Christian Encounter in the Gandhian Perspective, Allahabad
[82]Ram
Puniyani, ‘Thou Shall be Banished’, The
New Indian Express, Chennai,
October 12, 2000.
[83]S.J.
Samartha , ‘Inter-Religious Relationships
in the Secular State
[84]Wilfred
Cantwell Smith, ‘The Christian in a Religiously Plural World’, Christianity and Other Religions, Op.Cit., p.95.
[85]Paul
F. Knitter, ‘Toward a Liberation Theology of Religions’, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness,
Op.Cit., p. 181.
[86]S.J.
Samartha, Courage for Dialogue:
Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationships, Geneva
[87]S.J.
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, Op.Cit., p.16.
[88]Ibid.,
p.22.
[90]Ibid., p.X.
[91]S.J.
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions Op.Cit., p.15.
[92]Ibid.,
p.18.
[93]E.C.
Dewick, The Gospel and Other Faiths, London
[94]Paul
J. Griffiths, Christianity Through Non-Christian Eyes, Op.Cit., p.3.
[95]Harlod
G. Coward, Religious Pluralism and the
World Religions, Madras, The Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Institute for Advanced
Study in Philosophy, University of Madras, 1983, p.15.
[96]John
Hick, ‘The Non-Absoluteness of Christianity’, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, Op.Cit., p.17.
[97]S.J.
Samartha, One Christ Many Religions;
Toward a revised Christology, Op.Cit., p.2.
[98]Ibid., p.2.
[99]Paul
F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions,
Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility, New York
[100]Ibid., p. 66.
[101]Ibid., p. 113.
[102]Paul
F. Knitter, ‘Religion and Liberation in Defense of a Pluralistic Theology of
Religions’, N.C.C Review, Vol. CXII,
No. 4 (April 1992), p.229.
[103]Paul
F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions,
Op.Cit., p.11.
[104]Aloysius
Pieris, Fire and Water, Basic issues in Asian Buddhism and Christianity, New York
Comments
Post a Comment