THEOLOGY OF DIALOGUE
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
THEOLOGY OF DIALOGUE
THEOLOGY OF DIALOGUE
Introduction
Plurality of religion
is as old as human history but what is new now is religious pluralism. It is the recognition of the real existence
of different religions and their history and to sincerely attempt to live together.
This process has necessitated the planning and programs of dialogue. Dialogue
is not only between different faith traditions but also with ideologies both
political or any for that matter.
In the first place
there are many factors that have contributed to the development of “dialogue”,
particularly interreligious. Secondly there were genuine attempts whether
relevant or otherwise in today’s context, by both catholic and protestant
churches and individual thinkers /theologians which have moved the discussion
on dialogue much forward. In the third place, these initial attempts have
contributed to some of the major developments in the contemporary debates on
dialogue among religions and ideologies. In the fourth place, the paradigm of
dialogue is often attacked as Christian attempt to continue mission,
particularly in Indian context. And finally it is useful to present a “life
sustaining” paradigm to continue practicing dialogue in a multi-faith and
ideologies context.
FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED FOR INTERRELIGIOUS
DIALOGUE
Humanity has always
lived in the midst of many religions and ideologies consciously or otherwise.
Now there is a need to willfully develop principles to live together in harmony
and fellowship for the larger good of the globe. This was obvious from the
later part of nineteenth century may be because of the following reasons. They can be discussed under general and
Indian reasons.
In general European geographical explorations in the 15th to 17th
centuries stimulated a new interest in other religions.[1] It challenged the superiority and relevance
of Christianity to be the only world religion.
It also encouraged missionary zeal but definitely broadened the
understanding of early Christians and missionaries about their relation to the
people of other faith-traditions.
Collapse
of colonial power, particularly in Asia and Africa, helped revival ‘of
indigenous cultural and religious values of the people of the liberated
nations’.[2] 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’.[3]
Modern technology,
scientific developments and advancements in
communication have reduced the world to a global village. People of different religious persuasions often come face to face. They are ‘exposed to mutual claims and commitments’.[4] Towards the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, these developments helped people to encounter each other as never before. Added to this was ‘study of the religious traditions’ which ‘helped people to change their attitudes to religious traditions other than their own’.[5]
Knowledge of other faith traditions and setting up of departments of religious studies in the universities for the study of religions supplied Christians, ‘for the first time, with full factual information on the other world religions’.[6] John Hick calls this as ‘the modern explosion of knowledge among Christians in the west concerning the other great religious traditions of the world’.[7] This has become one of the ‘greatest challenges to Christian theology today’.[8] It is not just religious knowledge about other religions but also ‘knowledge of other religious persons’.[9] The study has helped realize the ‘humanity’s multi-religious context’.[10]
communication have reduced the world to a global village. People of different religious persuasions often come face to face. They are ‘exposed to mutual claims and commitments’.[4] Towards the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, these developments helped people to encounter each other as never before. Added to this was ‘study of the religious traditions’ which ‘helped people to change their attitudes to religious traditions other than their own’.[5]
Knowledge of other faith traditions and setting up of departments of religious studies in the universities for the study of religions supplied Christians, ‘for the first time, with full factual information on the other world religions’.[6] John Hick calls this as ‘the modern explosion of knowledge among Christians in the west concerning the other great religious traditions of the world’.[7] This has become one of the ‘greatest challenges to Christian theology today’.[8] It is not just religious knowledge about other religions but also ‘knowledge of other religious persons’.[9] The study has helped realize the ‘humanity’s multi-religious context’.[10]
The Sacred Books of the East edited by Max
Muller brought to light the Eastern
faith-traditions. As a result ‘there is in the West a growing interest in
openness toward Eastern religions’.[11] Thousands of Westerners, especially the
young, journey to India each year in quest of religious experiences. ‘Hindu
ashrams and Buddhist monasteries are built in Western countries, which attract
significant number of devotees’.[12]
It is also suggested that “inter-Faith Dialogue is the natural outcome and the
direct result of the challenging encounter of Christianity with Hinduism, after
a hundred and fifty years of missionary activity on the Indian soil.”[13]
With the Rise of Islam ‘the Christian Church was
faced for the first time with a new and powerful missionary religion’.[14] Further, ‘far from disappearing, the
religions of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are alive and well in spite
of all the Christian missionary efforts’.[15]
Struggle of the oppressed people who belong to
different religions and cultures, for a life of freedom, self-respect and human
dignity, prompted religions probably to come together and work together.[16] There was also the realization that “the
problem of the relations between the religions of the world is decisive in the
quest for world peace and community”.[17]
From academic point
of view, Ernst Troeltsch in 1902, in his book The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religions,
‘called into question Christianity’s claim to absoluteness’.[18]
Historically, due to
the ‘the rise of secularism and materialism’ after the world wars, the members of the Jerusalem Meeting of the
International Missionary Council called on the followers of other religions to
cooperate with them to fight against these evils.[19]
Although India
witnessed a negative Christian attitude towards people of other faiths, ‘the
freedom struggle brought together large number of Hindus, Muslims and
Christians’.[20]
ORTHODOX
APPROACHES
It is true that Christian attitude towards other religions has always
been evolving and accordingly Catholic and Protestant churches have responded.
These responses, though, in early stages, orthodox in nature have yielded scope
for more relevant and positive approaches leading to dialogue.
Christianity, even
from ‘apostolic times’[21],
attempted to influence other religions, often shrewdly. Such attempts continued
during the second and third centuries of the Common Era. It took back seat for
almost one thousand five hundred years and “in the nineteenth century it began
to appear again as an issue of major importance for the church and in our day
it is perhaps more vital than ever before”.[22] The missionary attitude to Hinduism during
the early part of 19th century was ‘one of stark hostility’.[23] It, of course, changed at the end of the
century.
The traditional Catholic attitude toward other faith-traditions as fond in the
declaration of the Council of Florence (1438-45) is that “there is no salvation
outside the Church”.[24] The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) decided
more positively and declared that “She therefore urges her sons, using prudence
and charity, to join members of other religions in discussions and
collaboration. While bearing witness to
their own Christian faith and life, they must acknowledge those good spiritual
and moral elements and social and cultural values found in other religions, and
preserve and encourage them.”[25] This helped the Indian church to be open and
encouraged the initial efforts of Indian Christians to relate with others.
The Protestants maintained that there was no
salvation outside Christianity. Only in
the first International Missionary Council in Edinburgh in 1910, for the first
time, they discussed ‘missionary approach to other religions’.[26] The commission for the International
Missionary Council ‘reiterated its conviction that the Christian attitude to
Hinduism, notwithstanding the elements which the Christian must reject, should
be one of understanding and sympathy’.[27]
The Second IMC at Jerusalem in 1928 paid major attention to secularism and the
relation between older and younger churches.
However, ‘in spite of these stated new priorities, when the preparatory
meeting listed the priority issues for commission work, Christian relationship
to other faith was at the top’.[28] There was also a demand ‘to respect the
religious sentiments of the people of other religions’.[29]
The next missionary conference at Tambaram in 1938 was dominated by Hendric
Kraemer’s The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World. His radically negative attitude towards other
religions was vehemently criticized by the Indian theologians. The subsequent IMCs followed a more positive
outlook about others. The World Council
of Churches adopted positive attitude towards others. It formed a subunit
called “Dialogue with people of living faiths and ideologies”, in 1977 and WCC
issued a set of guidelines for dialogue with the people of living faiths and
ideologies.
THEOLOGICAL
STANDPOINTS PRIOR TO DIALOGUE
Alan Race categorized
these theological developments as Exclusivism, inclusivism and relativism.
Exclusivists hold that, ‘only one’s own religion
is true and good; others are erroneous, false or evil’. For Karl Barth ‘Christianity was revelation
and all other religions are religions’.
He held that “religion is unbelief”[30]
and Church is the locus of true religion because it is founded on the basis of
revelation. Following Barth, Hendrik
Kraemer suggested “Biblical Realism” i.e.
Church is revealed in the Bible and is absolutely true. He claimed ‘as the Christian faith is the
crisis of all religions, so the Christian ethic is the crisis of all ethic and
ethics’.[31] In contrast to W.E. Hocking’s ‘reconception’
he held the ‘theory of discontinuity’[32]
in line with Karl Barth. David Lochhead held ‘God’s activity in Jesus Christ
cannot be equivalent to any other act’.[33] A.C. Bouquet maintained that Christianity ‘is
the true and best of all faith, rich in marvelous recuperative powers and in
the capacity for objective self-criticism’.[34]
Ajith Fernando viewed that ‘the Christian approaches the unbelievers with a
sense of authority wholly derived from God whose word he proclaims’.[35]
Inclusivist/fulfillment model considers that ‘all religions
are inspired and empowered by God but find their fulfillment only in one
religion or saviour’. T. Slater, who
laid the foundation for fulfillment theology, said ‘all those noble and true in
the non-Christian religions would be taken over into Christianity for their
complete fulfillment’. J. N. Farquhar (The
Crown of Hinduism), demanded ‘the death of Hinduism in order to give place
to Christianity’. William Miller, the principal of Madras Christian College
envisaged this fulfillment to take place, ‘not by replacement or extinction of
Hinduism but through the simultaneous development of all higher religions along
with Christianity into a world religion with Christ as the centre’.[36]
Karl Rahner said ‘the religious people who are outside the visible Christianity
are “anonymous Christians”.[37] Kenneth Cragg moved forward from ‘unknown
Christ’ or the ‘anonymous Christ’ of other faiths and said ‘they know him by
their own naming’.[38] Hans Kung argued ‘though the religions of the world are ways
of salvation for their followers, their salvation will have to be confirmed finally
by the saviour of the world, Jesus Christ through communion with him’. Paul Tillich ‘affirmed that the crucified
Jesus is the most valuable criterion for discerning God’s activity within the
non-Christian religions’.[39] Heinz Robert Schlette held “the ordinary ways
of salvation represented by the religions lead to the one living God, it is
true, but, relatively speaking they are paths through the darkness while the
extraordinary way of special sacred history, that is to say now, the Church, is
one which leads through clear light”.[40]
Jacques Dupuis was also of the opinion that “far from fostering exclusivism,
Christian Christocentrism is capable of integrating, in their difference, all
religious experiences into a truly Catholic – inclusive and universal
theology”.[41]
Most of the
inclusivists hold either uniqueness of Jesus Christ or Christocentrism. Some
argued for universality of Jesus while others ‘Christ is the answer to the
aspirations of the world. Hence, Eeuwout
Klootwijk asked, “When we start from inclusivist premises, can any dialogue
between people of different faiths be a real dialogue”.[42]
Relativist view holds that all religions are equal and
that lead to the same goal. Hence the
question of uniqueness does not arise here. Arnold Toynbee the famous historian
advocated relativist view. For him all religions come from God and they
represent some fact of God’s truth. He
wrote “I think that it is possible for us, while holding that our own
convictions are true and right, to recognize that, in some measure, all the
higher religions are also revelations of what is true and right”.[43] And “we should recognize that they too are
light radiating from the same source from which our own religion derives its
spiritual light”.[44] Ernst Troeltsch was another scholar who held
relativist perspective in his refined scholarly works.
A. Pushparajan is of
the view that ‘Christianity should accept equality of all religions’.[45] Arvind Nirmal criticized relativist approach
as “any talk of a radical relativization of all religions’ tends to undermine
religions”.[46] According to Panikkar relativism ‘overlooks
the concrete and historical religious situation of real people’.[47] P.D. Devanandan, (Preparation for Dialogue) was also critical of it. S.J.
Samartha, says, “the affirmation that all religions are the same makes little
room for critical interaction between them”.[48]
THEOLOGIES
THAT LED TO DIALOGUE
It was pluralist theology that
culminated in interreligious dialogue. It holds that ‘the different religions
are unique, thereby necessitating mutually critical and enriching
dialogue’. Pluralism seeks ‘mutual
recognition of one another’s truths and values, in order for truth itself to
come into proper focus’.[49]
Pluralism ‘rejects the claims of any particular responses to be absolute’[50] and “pluralism is not synonymous with
tolerance toward a multitude of opinions.
Pluralism climaxes in acknowledging the unimaginable, that which is
absurd for me and, to a certain degree, unbearable to me”.[51] John Hick says Pluralism includes the process
of ‘transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to
reality-centeredness’[52]
that is manifestly taking place among religions. In Paul F. Knitter’s “unitive
pluralism”, “each religion will retain
its own uniqueness, but this uniqueness will develop and take on new depths by
relating to other religions in mutual dependence.”[53] K.P. Aleaz’s ‘pluralistic inclusivism’
envisages that ‘richness of religious experience grows by mutual giving and
receiving’.[54] My humble appeal is for a ‘life sustaining
pluralistic’[55]
paradigm.
In general
‘pluralists call for mutual enrichment; cooperation; and the sharing of
religious resources’.[56] Samartha went to the extent of saying that
“the rejection of religious pluralism is a more serious form of injustice than
the merely economic”.[57] Critics say ‘pluralism as a category simply
does not exist, only another form of exclusivism’.[58]
However, the pluralists have underlined the necessity for religions to
cooperate and work together for common good which calls for interreligious
dialogue.
INTER-RELIGIOUS
DIALOGUE A CHRISTIAN INITIATIVE
Although, pluralists
paved the way for dialogue, “It was Pope Paul VI who in his encyclical
Ecclesiam Suam, employed for the first time the term ‘dialogue’ to designate
the “new attitude” which the Second Vatican council had adopted”.[59] P. D. Devanandan, initiated dialogue in India
in its narrow sense. For Samartha “Dialogue is an attempt to understand and
express our particularity not just in terms of our own heritage but also in
relation to the spiritual heritage or our neighbours of other faiths”.[60] .More vividly, “Dialogue is part of the
living relationship between people of different faiths and ideologies as they
share in the life of community”.[61]
Further “The dialogue which is called for is a face to face existence of living
together and struggling together as we seek community”.[62] He warned “It will be unwise to form ‘a
religious alliance’ against ideologies in order to save and to perpetuate
traditional religious institution”.[63]
Dialogue requires openness that
‘others have something to say to us – that we need to listen as well as speak’.[64] Harold G. Coward writes, ‘it is the way of
dialogue, and not theological bulldozing’, that is required of Christian in
today’s pluralistic world.[65] Samartha writes “Inter-religious dialogue,
carefully prepared and practiced can help people to respond to the dangers of
religious fundamentalism not just on the political but on the religious level
as well.”[66]
In the words of Raimundo Panikkar “the way to peace is neither isolation nor
competition, but through dialogues.”[67]
For Panikkar ‘the
context of dialogue, is not the narrowly specific “religious” field but the
arena of life, the daily struggle for justice, peace, happiness’.[68] J. Rusell Chandran, says ‘one of the
important objectives of dialogue will be our common quest for a just society
free from all forms of oppression and marginalization’.[69]
Dialogue cannot be pursued unless considered from a ‘life sustaining
perspective’[70]
which Jesus practiced.
Christians fear that “in the case of
dialogue with believers in other traditions there is danger that sympathetic
appreciation of their concerns may lead to compromise of faith itself”.[71] Another fear is ‘dialogue with men of other
faith is a betrayal of mission and disobedience to the command to proclaim the
Gospel”.[72]
Another perception is that ‘dialogue has so far tended to favour the dominant
class and not the poor’.[73]
INTER-RELIGIOUS
DIALOGUE PERCEIVED BY OTHERS
There is a perception
among people of other faiths and ideologies that ‘dialogue is simply a new and
subtle Christian tool for mission that is being forged in the post-colonial
era’[74] and “there is always the fear of hidden
agendas”.[75] Sita Ram Goel said “‘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” and he appealed that “It is
high time for the Christians theologies to come down to earth and recognize
every person’s right to seek truth and salvation in his or her own way”.[76]
It is endorsed by S. J. Samartha as “Neighbours of other faiths also ask humbly
and sometimes not so humbly: what about our centers and our names?”[77]
Paul J. Griffiths says Christians have ‘not learned to listen very carefully to
what members of’ other communities say.[78]
The
Buddhist response to Christian initiated dialogue is a ‘responsible
participation in the
conviction that the message of the Buddha has a distinctive contribution to
make to the world today’.[79]
Now Muslims have a seemingly positive attitude towards dialogue that they
‘attempt to work out a theology of dialogue based on Islam even as Christians
are seeking to develop a Christian theology of dialogue’.[80]
These developments
strengthen the commitment for real dialogue pursued and inspired by religions
and ideologies while persuading openness to go beyond the narrow constrains of
religions and ideologies without dishonoring
their commonalities and
differences for a ‘life sustaining’ dialogue.
LIFE
SUSTAINING DIALOGUE
It is obvious that
there is overwhelming commitment for interreligious dialogue if initiated for
the sake of addressing common concerns that affect the earth. Wilfred Cantwell
Smith writes that “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”.[81] S. J. Samartha asserts “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”.[82]
Paul F. Knitter says people and events in my life have led me, sometimes lured
me, to what has become for me the moral obligation to join ‘dialogue and global
responsibility’. [83]
Religions must speak and act together in
dialogue ‘to removing the oppression that contaminates our globe’[84],
to discuss the ‘world of suffering’[85],
to establish ‘peace’[86],
to work for ‘eco-human justice’[87],
‘to learn from and help each other’[88]
and to help the ‘poor’.[89]
Dialogue can help correct the perceptions that ‘religions continue to be more
effective at motivating wars than peace’[90],
it is ‘used as handmaidens to political interests’[91]
and it is used as a tool for communal riots motivated by nonreligious
considerations.
LIFE
SUSTAINING VISION
The ‘life sustaining
dialogue’ demands that every individual
or community must be rooted and filled with the Sakti or spirit of their
particular religion or ideology while being open to learning from each other
and working with each other even with differences. It is a long, laborious and
sacrificial process comparable to the notion of “Jivan Mukta” in the Indian
setting that considers the world as one i.e. Vasudevakudumbam where concern for
the lives of others is the sign of spiritual maturity attained in and through
interreligious and inter ideological dialogues. This process takes spiritual
inspiration for dialogue seriously because the person who has rooted in the
spiritual foundation can be the upholder of dharma towards people, creatures,
and the cosmos as a whole. This realization dawns to a Christian because of
his/her intensive commitment to the principles of Jesus.
A close observation
of life of the people of different traditions can teach us that every human
being is striving to live. A better life is what every one aspires for. No one
wants to enslave himself/herself to poverty or suffering of any kind. In this
stark necked struggle for life, rather better life, no individual is
comfortably placed because of his/her religious identify.
Interreligious/ideological dialogue is an unavoidable tool to realize the
multifaceted potentials of humanity to establish ‘life sustaining vision’. Our endeavor in working for the friendliness
of religions is to strengthen life. Life sustaining vision of dialogue is the
tangible solution for religious harmony, peace and prosperity.
The church has the
responsible mission of facilitating cooperation between religions and
ideologies through a selfless dialogue which is symbolized in the death of
Jesus on the cross with the firm hope of glory.
One has to be strong in his/her faith and conviction for effective and
fruitful dialogue.
Jesus came to enrich
life, to obliterate all the religious systems and practices which worked
against ‘life’. To give life to the needy, Jesus broke away many traditional
laws. He was always of the view that religion is for life and life is not for
religion. Hence, ‘life sustaining vision of dialogue’ can help religions and
ideologies to explore their best for a sustainable life.
Religion and Dialogue
[1] J. Paul Rajashekar, ed., Religious Pluralism and Lutheran Theology
(LWF Report 23/24),Geneva, 1988,
11.
[2] V.F. Vineeth, “Inter-religious
dialogue: Past and present a critical appraisal”, Journal of Dharma,Vol. XIX, No.1
(January – March 1997), 42.
[3] S.J. Samartha, One Christ Many Religions: Towards a revised Christology (Bangalore:
SATHRI in association
with Ward makers, 1992), 3.
[4] J. Paul Rajashekar, ed., Religious Pluralism and Lutheran Theology,
9.
[5] Jose Kuttianimattathil, Practice and Theology of Interreligious
Dialogue (Bangalore: Kristu Jyoti Publications, 1998), 27.
[6] Harold G. Howard, Religious Pluralism and the World Religions
(Madras: University of Madras, 1983), 25.
[7] 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: ORBIS Books, 1987), p 17.
[8] Kuncheria Pathil, “Christian Approach
to other Faiths. A Historical Perspective”, N.C.C
Review, Vol. X, No.2
(February 1990), 66.
[9] Paul. F. Knitter, No other name?: A Critical Survey of
Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions,
(London: SCM Press Ltd, 1985), 3.
[10] Jacques Dupis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of
World Religions, Translated from the French by Robert R.
Barr, First Indian Edition, (New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 1996), 3.
[11] Owen C. Thomas ed., Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some
Christian Interpretation
(London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1969), 10.
[12] Jacques Dupis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of
World Religions, Translated from the French by Robert R.
Barr, First Indian Edition, (New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 1996), 4.
[13] CH. Sreenivasa Rao., ed., Inter-faith Dialogue and World Community (Madras:
CLS, 1991), 14.
[14] Owen C. Thomas ed., Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some
Christian Interpretation(London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1969), 11.
[15] Harold G. Coward, Religious Pluralism and the World Religion (Madras:
University of Madras, 1987), 15.
[16] S. J. Samartha, One Christ Many Religions: Toward A Revised Christology, 2.
[17] Owen C. Thomas ed., Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some
Christian Interpretation(London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1969), 4.
[18] Jose Kuttianimattathil, Practice and Theology of Interreligious
Dialogue), 29.
[19] Jose Kuttianimattathil, Practice and Theology of Interreligious
Dialogue, 32.
[20] Jose Kuttianimattathil, Practice and
Theology of Interreligious Dialogue , 23.
[21] A.C. Bouquet, The Christian Faith
and Non-Christian Religions (New York: Harper andBrothers, 1958),
335.
[22] E. C. Dewick, The Gospel and Other
Faiths (London: The Canterbury Press, 1948), 11.
[23] Marcus Braybrooke, The
Undiscovered Christ, A Review of Recent Developments in the
Christian
Approach to the Hindu (Madras:
CLS, 1973), 1.
[24] Valson Thampu, “Christian
Spirituality in a Religiously Plural Context”, NCC Review, Vol. CIX. No. 1 (January
1989), 4.
[25] John Hick and Brain Hebblethwaite,
ed., Christianity and Other Religions, Selected Readings (Great Britain: Fount Paperbacks, 1980), 82.
[27] Wesley Ariarajah, Hindus and
Christians: A Century of Protestant Ecumenical Thought(Michigan:
William B. Eerdmas Publishing Company, 1991), 27.
[28] Wesley Ariarajah, Hindus and
Christians: A Century of Protestant Ecumenical Thought(Michigan:
William B. Eerdmas Publishing Company, 1991), 32.
[29] CH. Sreenivasa Rao, ed., Inter-Faith
Dialogue and World Community (Madras: CLS, 1991), 21.
[30] Karl Barth, “The Revelation of God as
the Abolition of Religion”, Christianity and OtherReligions, ed., by John Hick and Brain
Hebblethwaite, 35.
[31] H. Kraemer, The Christian Message
in a Non-Christian World, (London: The Edinburgh House Press, 1938),
88.
[32] Marcus Braybrooke, The
Undiscovered Christ, 3.
[33] David Lochhead, The Dialogical
Imperative, A Christian Reflection on Inter-faith Encounter (New York:
ORBIS Books, 1988), 17.
[34] A.C. Bouquet, The Christian Faith
and Non-Christian Religions, 15.
[35] Ajith Fernando, The Christian’s Attitude Towards World Religions (Mumbai: Gospel
Literature Services,
1980), 158.
[36] CH. Sreenivasa Rao, ed., Inter-Faith
Dialogue and World Community (Madras: CLS, 1991), 19.
[37] Karl Rahner, “Christianity and the
Non-Christian Religions”, Christianity
and Other Religions, ed., by John Hick
& Paul F. Knitter, 75.
[38] Kenneth Cragg, The Christ of Other Faiths (Great Britain: ISPCK, 1986), 4.
[39] CH. Sreenivasa Rao, ed., Inter-Faith
Dialogue and World Community, , 30- 31.
[40] Heinz Robert Schlette, Towards a Theology of Religions (London:
Burns & Oates, 1966), 104.
[41] Jacques Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions, 247.
[42] Eeuwout Klootwijk, Commitment and
Openness: The Inter-Religious Dialogues and Theology of
Religions in the Work of Stanley J. Samartha, 10.
[44] Arnold Toynbee, Christianity Among the Religions of the World, 99-100.
[45] Pushparajan, “Prospects of Christian
Dialogue with other Religions”, Journal
of Dharma, Vol. VIII, No.3.
(July – September 1983), 330.
[46] Arvind P. Nirmal, Heuristic Explorations, (Madras: CLS,
1990), 75.
[47] Raimundo Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism, New edition, (Bangalore, Asian Trading Corporation,
1982), 75.
[48] S.J. Samartha, “Commitment and
Tolerance in a Pluralistic Society”, NCC
Review, Vol. CVI, No.2 (February
1986), 75.
[49] Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology
of Religions (London: SCM
Press Ltd, 1983), 148.
[50] S.J. Samartha, Between Two Cultures (India: Asian Trading Corporation, 1997), 190.
[51] Raimond Panikkar, A Dwelling Place for Wisdom, Trans. By
Annemarie S. Kidder (Louisville: Westminister
Press, 1993), 85.
[52] John Hick, Problem of Religious Pluralism (… : The Macmillan Press Ltd.,
1985), 91.
[53] Paul F. Knitter, No other Name?, 9.
[54] K.P. Aleaz, Theology of Religions (Calcutta: Moumita Publishers and
Distributors, 1998), 193.
[55]S. Robertson, Bhakti Tradition of Alvars and Theology of
Religions(Kolkata: Punthi Pustak, 2006), 281-286.;
S. Robertson, Approaching Religion in a
Pluralistic Context (Bangalore: BTESSC, 2011), 128-134.; S. Robertson, “Life-sustaining pluralistic perspective”, Asia
Journal of Theology, Volume 18, Number 2 (October 2004), 374-397.; S.
Robertson, “Religion as Life-sustaining- A Pluralistic Perspective”, Religion
and society, vol. 51, No. 1 (March 2006), 1-20.; S. Robertson, “Pluralism
Defended?”, Dharma Deepika, Issue 29,
Volume 13, No. 1 (January-June 2009), 35-48.
[56] Eeuwout Klootwijk, Commitment and
Openness: The Inter-Religious Dialogues and Theology of Religions in the Work of Stanley J. Samartha,12.
[57] S. J. Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, 2.
[58] Gavin D’ Costa, “The Impossibility of
a Pluralist View of Religions”, Religious
Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2 (June
1996), 232.
[59] A. Pushparajan, From Conversion to Fellowship, 47.
[60] S.J. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue, 99.
[61] S.J. Samartha, Dialogue as a Continuing Christian Concern,11.
[62] S.J. Samartha, “Courage for Dialogue:
An Interpretation of the Nairobi Debate”, Religion
and Society
Vol. XXIII, No. 3. (September 1976), 35.
[63] S.J. Samartha, “Dialogue as a
Continuing Christian Concern” in Christianity
and otherReligions, 159.
[64] John B. Cobb, Jr., “Dialogue”, Death or Dialogue? Ed. By Leonard
Swidler, John B. Cobb Jr., et al., (London:
SCM Press, 1990), 2.
[65] Harold G. Coward, Religious Pluralism and the World Religions,
40.
[66] S.J. Samartha, “The Future of
Inter-religious Dialogue: Threats and Promises”, Journal of Dharma, Vol.
XIX, No. 1 (January-March 1997), 83.
[67] Raimundo Panikkar, “Forward” in Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and
Encounters (New York:
OBRIS Books, 1990), 9.
[68] Raimundo Panikkar, “Forward” in Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and
Encounters (New York:
OBRIS Books, 1990), 9.
[69] J. Russel Chandran, “Mission in
Today’s Pluralistic Context”, NCC Review,
Vol. CXIV, No. 5 (May-June,
1994), 360.
[70] S. Robertson, Bhakti Tradition of Alvars and Theology of
Religions, 281-286.;S. Robertson,Approaching Religion
in a Pluralistic Context, 128-134.; S. Robertson, “Life-sustaining pluralistic perspective”, Asia Journal of Theology, 374-397.;
S. Robertson, “Religion as Life-sustaining- A Pluralistic Perspective”, Religion
and society, 1-20.; S. Robertson, “Pluralism Defended?”, Dharma Deepika, 35-48.
[71] John B. Cobb Jr., “Dialogue”, in Death or Dialogue, 3.
[72] S.J. Samartha, “Dialogue as a
Continuing Christian Concern”, in Christianity
and other Religions,
62.
[73] Jose Kuttianimattathil, Practice
and Theology of Inter-religious Dialogue (Bangalore: Kristu Jyothi
Publications, 1995), 118.
[74] S.J. Samartha, “Dialogue as a
Continuing Christian Concern”, in Christianity
and other Religions,
3.
[75] S.J. Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, 16.
[76] Sita Ram Goel, Hindu of Hindu – Christian Encounters (New Delhi: Voice of India,
1989), 4-5.
[78] Paul J. Griffiths, Christianity Through Non-Christians Eyes (New
York: ORBIS Books, 1998), 3.
[79] S. J. Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, 31.
[80] S. J. Samartha, One Christ Many Religions, 24.
[81] Wilfred Cantwell Smith, “The
Christian in a Religiously Plural World”, Christianity
and other Religions,
95.
[82] S. J. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-religious
Relationships (Geneva: World
Council of Churches, 1981), 30.
[83] Paul F. Knitter, One Earth Many
Religions, 11.
[84] Paul F. Knitter, “Toward a Liberation
Theology of Religions”, The Myth of
Christian Uniqueness, 181.
[85] Paul F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions, Mutlifatith Dialogue and Global
Responsibility (New York: ORBIS,
1996), 58.
[86] Paul F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions, Mutlifatith Dialogue and Global
Responsibility (New York: ORBIS, 1996),
66.
[87] Paul F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions, 113.
[88] Paul F. Knitter, No other Name?, 6.
[89] Aloysius Pieris, Fire and Water, Basic Issues in Asian Buddhism and Christianity
(New York: ORBIS Books,
1996), 156.
[90] Paul F. Knitter, Inter-religious
Dialogue and the Unity of Humanity”, Journal
of Dharma Vol. XVI, No. 4
(October – December 1992), 284.
[91] S. J. Samartha, “Inter-religious
Relationships in the secular State”, 62.
Comments
Post a Comment