Moving Beyond the Impasse: Reorienting Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations

By S. Wesley Ariarajah

Interfaith dialogue in a plural world.

This volume is based on the belief that both the ecumenical and interfaith movements are looking for new orientations for their future. The forces of globalization, communications revolution, and massive population movements challenge some of the theological assumptions and presuppositions on which they were built. The entry of deep and divisive religious sentiments into the public space and the rise of militant forms of religious expression call on the interfaith movement to move beyond traditional forms of dialogue; the challenge is to enter into a deeper engagement on the purpose and role of religious traditions in society. The impasse facing these movements can only be overcome by new orientations as they look to the future. This volume is not specifically on this problem. However, the collection of essays included in this volume, although first given as lectures or written as articles, traces past developments, identifies the challenges these movements face today, and suggests fresh theological moves to regain the initiatives to bring human communities closer together.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Release date: Oct 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9781506446332

Book preview

Subjects

Introduction

The ecumenical movement, which has pioneered most of the progressive movements in the past, is in a mood of stock-taking and looking for a new agenda for a world that has so radically changed and has become enormously complex. Similarly, the interfaith movement is faced with the need for new directions, especially in the context of religion entering the public space, and all the new issues it raises for interfaith relations and dialogue. The forces of globalization and the revolutions in communications technology are profoundly affecting our own lives, making us question some of our assumptions and commitments of the past. We too need to take stock of where we are, and in what directions we need to move.

Confronted with this reality some say that both the interfaith and ecumenical movements are at an impasse, and their future depends on their ability to move beyond it. It is a task yet to be undertaken with the vigor it deserves, and I hope to eventually add my voice to the many voices that are beginning to ask searching questions about the future of both these movements. This volume, in the meantime, seeks to point to some new orientations that would help this process.

I have had the privilege of being directly involved in ecumenism and interfaith relations for nearly four decades and have been richly blessed by what I have learned. This involvement has helped me build an enormous network of people both within the church and in the world of many faiths. I have also been invited to give many lectures and to write articles on a number of subjects related to interfaith and ecumenical issues.

I am grateful to some of my forward-looking friends who showed keen interest in making these lectures and articles more widely available as a basis and background for new orientations that would be needed to move beyond the impasse. In 2017 fifteen of these articles were brought out as a collection by Fortress Press. Another sixteen articles are included in this volume. These were given as lectures or written as articles on different occasions, but they hang together to give a reasonable impression of where we have been, where we are now, and where we might go forward as we look to the future.

The articles have been grouped into four sections. The first three sections deal with Issues in Interfaith Dialogue, Dialogue and Education, and Dialogue and Ecumenism. The fourth section gives a peek into the history of the emergence of dialogue in Asia and the contribution Asian theologians have been and are making to ecumenism and interfaith relations.

I am grateful to Mr. Marshal Fernando, director of the Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue in Colombo, Sri Lanka, who first made some of these articles available locally for Sri Lankan readers. Special thanks are due to Dr. Jesudas Athyal for the keen interest he has shown in making them available to a wider audience. I am also grateful to the editors and publishers of Fortress Press for supporting the project and the efforts they have put into bringing out this volume.

S. Wesley Ariarajah

July 2017

I

Issues in Interfaith Dialogue

1

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

In late 2003 President Bush said, in response to a reporter’s question, that he believed Muslims and Christians worship the same God. The remark sparked criticism from some Christians, who thought Bush was being politically correct but theologically inaccurate. For example, Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, said, The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. TheChristian Century requested several scholars to consider the question. My response appeared as the fourth of the series in The Christian Century, June 1, 2004 issue. I have placed this as the opening article of this volume because it sets the tone for the articles that follow on Interfaith Relations and Ecumenism.

---

In Asian traditions a question can be answered in four ways: yes; no; I don’t know; and silence. I don’t know (or maybe) means that the issue is complex and that one needs to nuance the answer from a variety of perspectives. It also indicates that one needs to explore the subject rather than be rushed into giving a yes or no answer—which unfortunately is becoming an obsession among some groups of Christians.

Even though some questions can and perhaps should be answered with a clear yes or no, in the field of ethics one comes across gray areas where clear-cut answers are less than helpful. What is right—pacifism or just war theory? Pro-life or pro-choice? We need to talk about such issues at some length. A simple yes or no answer does violence to the issue.

Then there is silence. Silence is used when the disciple needs to reflect further on the question itself. Not all questions are validly formulated; not all of them help deeper exploration of the issue; not all of them arise out of genuine concern to know. The guru’s silence sends the disciple back for further reflection. At other times the guru maintains silence because the question is on a matter beyond verbal response or intellectual exploration. The only assistance the teacher can give is to enable the disciple to have the experience necessary to know the answer for him or herself. The question Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? raises the possibility of a fifth kind of answer: Yes and No.

The Jewish writer Chaim Potok powerfully lifts up the issues involved here in a story about a young Jewish rabbi traveling in Japan. At a Buddhist shrine the rabbi saw an old Japanese man, prayer book in hand, slowly swaying back and forth as he stood in prayer. The young rabbi asked his Jewish companion, Do you think our God is listening to him?

I don’t know, . . . I never thought about it.

Neither did I until now. If He’s [God] not listening, why not?

If he is listening, then—well, what are we all about?[1]

The question of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God is not only a question about Muslims but one about all people of whatever religious tradition who raise their hearts and hands in prayer to the Divine Other. Is God listening to their prayers? If not, why not?

This has little to do with Abraham or Abrahamic faiths (as George Bush’s theology of political necessity would have it) but with the deeper issues of what it means to affirm the oneness of God and what consequences we draw from it for our attitudes and actions.

The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions insist that there is one God and that God is the creator, provider, and protector of all. The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world and those who live in it, says the psalmist (Ps 24:1). The inspiration for this belief comes from the creation narratives and the universal covenant God is said to have made with the whole of creation after the flood. Therefore the Jewish tradition, despite its strong sense of a covenant relationship with God, gradually began to insist that God is also, at the same time, the God of the nations.

The dilemma here is an obvious one. Members of the Jewish community either had to worship Yahweh as their tribal god, allowing for the possibility of other gods who listen to the prayers of other nations, or they, as strict monotheists, had to draw the logical conclusion that God, whom they worshiped as Yahweh, is also the God of all nations. The Hebrew Scripture do not draw out the full theological implications of this strict monotheism, but we get glimpses of it in several parts of Scripture: ‘Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel?’ says the Lord. ‘Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?’ (Amos 9:7).

The Book of Jonah is a protest against those who thought God listened only to the prayers of the people of Israel. Jonah felt completely betrayed and let down by God when God listened to the prayers of the gentiles of Nineveh. God could not do otherwise.

The problem is that most Christians, despite their lip service to monotheism, in fact are unconscious polytheists. They allow for other gods to listen to the prayers of their neighbors. They draw boundaries for their God and decide where and when their God is allowed to listen, act, and bring about wholeness.

If Christians are true believers in the oneness of God, the inevitable conclusion has to be that God, whom we have come to know in Jesus Christ, is the same One who listens to the prayers of all people, including Muslims.

It is in this sense that the answer to the question is an unqualified yes. We all worship the same God. Who else is there to listen to the prayer of a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Christian except the One in whom all live and move and have their being? For those who want to hang on to monotheism, there can be only one God and one human family.

But is this the whole story? If this is the only consideration, then all religions are the same, and there is no need for people to be Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians.

In fact, we are different because even though we worship one God, different religious traditions have different visions of who this God is, how God relates to humankind, and what God requires of us. Here the diversity of perceptions about God makes us into different religious traditions.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam originated in the same geographical area and were in close relationship with each other. It is little wonder that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share some parts of their Scriptures, some common ancestors like Abraham, and some common beliefs about God. But a closer look would also show remarkable differences in their concepts of God and the consequences they draw from them. In fact, as one familiar with the many schools within Hinduism, I as a Christian find myself in closer affinity with some of the Hindu concepts of God than those of the Jewish and Islamic traditions. Happily no one has a monopoly on God.

It should come as no surprise that religions are different and that their concepts of God, despite many commonalities, are quite different from one another. It is in this sense that the answer to the question can also be a qualified no. No, we are not praying to the same God as far as our images of God are concerned. In fact, this is why we need interfaith dialogue. We have much to learn from one another about God and God’s ways with humankind.

The discussion does not end there. Does God listen to the prayers only of those who hold the right view of who God is, and what God requires of us? Would God say, No, I am not going to listen to the prayers of such and such a group, because they wiped out nations in my name, because they build unjust social structures in my name, because they have gone to war in my name, because they don’t call me by the ‘right’ name, or simply because their doctrines do not quite correspond to who I am?

If this, as some tend to think, is God’s attitude to prayer, which of us, Christian or Muslim, dare say that God is listening to our prayers! Which of us can claim to have a full knowledge of God? Jesus’s own vision of God is that God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous (Matt 5:45). For God, as a God of love, cannot do otherwise.

What then can we say? Does God, whom we celebrate in Jesus Christ, listen to the prayers of a Muslim? If not, why not? Do we, as Christians and Muslims, despite the different ways we think about God, pray to the same God? How many Gods do we allow for in the universe?

We have seen that there are now five possible ways of answering the basic question. They are not right or wrong answers. But the answer we give says something about who we are, and who our God is.

---

Chaim Potok, The Book of Lights (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1981), 261–62. ↵

2

Interreligious and Pluralistic Dimensions of Circles

Is there a geometrical model to explore the meaning and practice of interfaith relations? The International Gandhian Institute for Nonviolence and Peace, based in Madurai, India, called a conference in Chennai to explore the circle as a possible model. This is the presentation I made at that conference.

---

The concept of the circle plays an important role today in behavioral sciences, especially in explorations in interpersonal psychology. It is being used to build models of relationships that would help the self in its own self-understanding and its relationship to other selves. It also provides a holistic, comprehensive, and participatory pedagogical method in the field of education and an effective tool in the search of reconciliation and peace in postconflict contexts. What I hope to do is to highlight a few dimensions of the circle that have immediate relevance to plurality and to the dynamics of interreligious relationships.

Power Dynamics

Power is an inalienable dimension of all human relationships—whether between individuals, groups, or nations. The presence of power imbalance is a given in all pluralistic situations because power accrues through one’s status in life, wealth, race, caste, gender, social and political affiliation, and so on. In theory, power is neutral; it is simply the capacity to make things happen. It can be harnessed, directed, and used for good. But it can also be abused to control, dominate, and overwhelm others. Some persons are aware of the power they have, or have had given to them, and exercise it judiciously; others exploit it. Many exercise it without being conscious of it, and are unaware of the way it is perceived and experienced by those to whom they relate.

Power is exercised not only by individuals but more importantly by social, religious, economic, and political institutions. We allow some institutions, such as the state, to accrue and exercise much power so that they can have the ability to organize the life of a nation for the common good of the people. Some institutions work toward becoming powerful, or even grab power, so that they can exercise it for their own benefit. There is also the latent power of the masses of poor and oppressed people that can be mobilized and organized for their well-being. Unless they are thus empowered they are unconscious of the power they can exercise to change their situation. Thus, power relations and imbalances are built into our relationships and into our social and cultural fabric. We do ourselves and our causes a disservice by not recognizing, acknowledging, and dealing with it creatively. Although the question of power relates to all dimensions of life, I would here lift up the way it plays out in the context of plurality and especially in interreligious relationships.

Religious communities and institutions exercise power. By virtue of their vocation to enable, direct, and enhance the spiritual life of their adherents, all religious institutions have what one might call spiritual power. Religious communities, however, are also social institutions and are perceived by others to be powerful because of their association with colonial powers, their wealth, the influence they have in society, the institutions they direct, the political allegiances they have, or simply because they constitute the majority in the community. Whatever the reason, the in-built power realities have to be dealt with in pluralistic and interfaith contexts by devising ways that undermine the corrosive and divisive influence of power. And the only way to deal with the reality of power is to ensure its judicious use and its distribution so that it has the function of enabling rather than controlling.

The intention to diffuse power can be expressed in geometrical terms. It is here that we are helped by thinking of relationships within pluralistic and interfaith contexts in terms of the circle. The circle represents a nonhierarchical model of reality; everything that constitutes the circle stands side by side, equidistant to a common center. Within the political realm, for instance, the desire to diffuse power and give some measure of equal status to the attending parties has been adopted in the concept of the roundtable. The intention of a roundtable conference is that all parties to the issue are seated and participate, at least in theory, with equal authority and dignity.

The most important dimension of interfaith relations is mutual trust and acceptance of each other. In the circle we gather as brothers and sisters, we stand alongside each other as equal partners, we face each other, and all of us see each other. All of us get the opportunity to speak and to listen, and all of us learn to be in the presence of the other in their otherness. It is a recognition that we not only need to know the other, but also need the other to know ourselves. Gathering in a circle also implies that we do not see plurality as a threat but as a reality; we recognize that different does not mean wrong but different, and that differences can be mutually enriching and correcting. In other words, the concept of the circle represents an approach and attitude we bring to plurality of religions and cultures. It is an acknowledgment that all of us need to be at the table to deal with the problems we face as a human community and that each of us, in our own way, has a contribution to bring to the whole community. Most importantly, the circle implies that we speak about others not in their absence, but in their presence. The circle introduces sensitivity, awareness, moderation, and responsibility in the way we deal with and relate to each other. These are basic principles of intercultural and interfaith relations.

Inclusion and Exclusion

We have often come across the statement, I am not in their inner circle—a complaint that points to the reality that a circle has an inside and an outside. Inclusion and exclusion are serious issues in pluralistic situations. Most of the political upheavals and conflicts in the world can be traced to the problem of exclusion, where a majority community or a community that wields power seeks to conduct political life without including all the groups that constitute the nation. Most economic woes in the world can also be traced to economic life that is organized and exercised with little or no regard to masses of people and nations that do not have military or economic power. The rich nations form inner circles, like G-8, G-20, and so on, that consciously exclude from the circle nations that are economically powerless. At the social levels too there can be exclusive circles based on status, caste, race, and so on. This reality may lead to the question whether the circle is indeed a good model to depict interfaith relationships.

All models can be abused. The concept of the circle is normally used to indicate a gathering of people who hold a common interest, purpose, or a goal to achieve. Today we come across phrases like Religious friends circle, Friends of the earth circle, Circle for justice and peace, and so on. Here the intention is not to exclude but to include all those who have a common purpose. It is an attempt by those with common purpose to hold hands together, to share, to support one another, to strengthen the advocacy of their cause, and to link people across religious, cultural, national, and ethnic barriers around a common issue. Here the inside and outside of the circle becomes a nonissue, for all who subscribe to the concern and have a stake in the issue are invited to join the circle.

One of my favorite songs during chapel services at the Drew University School of Theology, where I used to teach, has the theme, Widen the circle. It is a song that says the more we come closer to God, the wider our circle should become. Therefore, joining the circle and widening the circle are the main foci, and these emphases undercut the apparent inclusive, exclusive dimensions of the circle. It is possible to make a circle wider and wider. The longer the radius of our spiritual awareness the wider and more inclusive the circle becomes, covering larger and larger segments of the human community. At the height of his spiritual awareness the Hindu mystic Tirumoolar proclaimed, "Yathum ure; yavarum kelir! meaning, All places are my dwelling place; all peoples are my kith and kin. It is indeed possible to draw the circle wider and wider to include all who must be in; there is no limit to the spiritual radius one can choose. In pluralistic and interfaith contexts the question is not simply, How big is the circle?, but Who are in it?" Further, in actual experience we realize that spirituality of inclusion works in both directions: the greater our spiritual growth, the wider the circle becomes; and the wider our circle, the greater our growth in spiritual maturity.

It is important to note, however, that it is not only spiritual sensitivities that help one to expand the circle. Today there are many secular circles comprised by those committed to justice, peace, human rights, the rights of women, and care of the earth, which cut across race, religion, caste, and so on. The success of the circle model depends on its inclusivity.

The Circle and the Circles

The consideration above does not mean that what is envisaged in pluralistic situations is the creation of a grand, big, all-embracing circle that includes all cultures and religious traditions in a comprehensive whole. This is neither possible nor desirable. Plurality and diversity are part of reality and essential to its richness. What is intended is the creation of circles of relationships that are inclusive of cultural, religious, and other forms of diversity in each and in all places, so that human life in all places is nourished by mutuality, the interpenetration of the gifts we bring to each other, and is built on just and harmonious relationships. And the success of building a just and peaceful society is dependent mostly on creating these circles at the local and grassroot levels.

When applied to the interfaith dimension, despite all the tensions and conflicts around the world, decades of promotion of interfaith dialogue and relationships have resulted in greater understanding between religious traditions. Today the need for dialogue is widely recognized at all levels of society, and its success is attested to by the numerous national and international interfaith organizations, programs, and events. However, the real success of meaningful relationships in pluralist and multireligious contexts can be assessed only by what happens at the local and grassroot levels. Creation of circles at this level is one of the predominant challenges to the religious communities of our day.

Many religious leaders who participate in international interfaith encounters are not always equally committed when it comes to the creation of interfaith circles at the grassroot levels. Meetings of religious leaders in large gatherings and consultations and conferences that highlight, promote, and witness to the importance of interfaith relations are important and have much value in themselves. They give important signals to those at the local levels; they are signposts of the changing religious consciousness of our time where religions are moving away from functioning as ideological alternatives and becoming spiritual streams that seek to nourish the human quest for a life-affirming spirituality.

Yet, it is the creation of circles of relationship at the local levels that can make the real difference in pluralistic situations. It is there that human dignity, justice, peace, and so forth, need to be established, fostered, and preserved. One of the challenges that await those in the interfaith and peace-building ministries is the task of animating the emergence of these circles and demonstrating the potential they have for peacemaking.

One way to think about plurality