A widely discussed theological issue in many parts of Asia today is the role of inter-religious dialogue in Christian witness to people of other faiths. Christians in Asia live amid an overwhelming majority of members of other religions. In India, for example, a Christian is surrounded by forty-nine non-Christians, including forty-one Hindus and six Muslims. The question of his attitude toward other faiths is not just an academic one.
The two extremes among traditional attitudes toward dialogue are the syncretistic and the polemical. The syncretistic approach holds that Truth is manifold and inexhaustible, and that the various religions explore different dimensions of it. Dialogue is a common exploration of Truth in its manifold expressions by people of different faiths. The view of the syncretists is basically the same as that of Mahatma Gandhi, who said, “The soul of religion is one, but it is encased in a multitude of forms.… Truth is the exclusive property of no single scripture.” In this approach, no revelation of God is normative, and there never can be any certainty about our knowledge of God.
In the polemical approach to dialogue, the goal of the Christian is to defend Christianity as the one true religion. Dialogue takes place at the conceptual and intellectual level. Those who approach it with this attitude often fail to acknowledge that Christianity, as a religion, reflects certain shortcomings and failures just as any human system does, and should come under the judgment of God to the extent that it is not a faithful custodian of the Gospel of Christ. In polemics, one may win the argument but still lose the partner in the dialogue to whom one is attemping to witness for Christ.
Other views of dialogue in Asia, and particularly in India, include the following:
First, dialogue based on the view that the Christian faith fulfills the basic aspirations and longings for God expressed in other religions. This is what we might call Farquhar’s “Crown of Hinduism” approach. The scriptures of other religions are often equated with the Old Testament as representing unfulfilled hopes of man or “the promise,” to all of which the New Testament becomes the “fulfillment.” Therefore, in the Holy Communion service portions from non-Christian scriptures are occasionally read along with the Old Testament lesson before the New Testament reading.
Second, dialogue that seeks to help participants understand the values in other religions and to bring these values to fruition in contemporary life. Influential exponents of dialogue such as P. D. Devanandan and K. M. Panikkar emphasize the importance of viewing other living faiths from the standpoint of the people belonging to them, and of helping people see their faiths in the context of modern secularism. A Hindu must be helped to have an adequate world view and the right concepts of history and society. Dialogue should help him see the inner working of Hinduism in the light of the Christian concept of history and the world, and thereby realize the need and relevance of the incarnation of Christ. Dialogue should see all people as belonging to one new “community” in Christ. It should provide a common religious and theological basis for this “newness,” which is seen only in Christ’s incarnation.
Third, dialogue that finds the concerns of modern secularism and the process of humanization intimately related to what should be the central concern of all religions. The importance of this was developed by M. M. Thomas, one of the most influential theologians of Asia today. Christ alone provides the ultimate meaning and destiny of man and society. The process of humanization is central to the Gospel of salvation in Christ, and he is already at work in the forces that change traditional religious concepts and world views. In a dialogue, the contributions of each religion to the concept of man and society must be studied, in the attempt to gain a deeper understanding of our common humanity.
Fourth, dialogue at the intimately personal and spiritual level, instead of the traditional level of doctrines. This approach is represented particularly in works such as that of Swami Abhishiktananda, who spoke of the Hindu-Christian meeting point as being primarily in “the cave of the heart,” that is, in the interior spiritual experiences of man. Dialogue should be the meeting not of two religious systems but rather of two individuals who yearn for God as he deals with them and makes himself known in different ways.
Fifth, dialogue at the level of the common search of people of all faiths for a human community in a pluralistic society. Renewed importance has been given in recent dialogue to the corporate life of people of different faiths and their social relationships. This is evidenced, for example, in the high priority the World Council of Churches has given, in its debate on “Seeking Community,” to the study of the nature of the community Christians are to seek as they live among their neighbors of other faiths. An international consultation on “Dialogue in Community” was planned this past April in Thailand to clarify some of the issues involved.
For a Christian, dialogue is not enough. Partners of a dialogue come together as two human beings who share in the fall of man and the need for God’s grace. The revelation of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ belong to both; they are not the exclusive property of either. But if one of them has not heard the Gospel directly and personally, he needs to hear it proclaimed in no uncertain terms.
The Gospel is not man-made. It cannot be accommodated to any system, nor can it be modified, nor is it to be debated. It demands a response with commitment. Every person has a right to hear it, and true dialogue should lead to one’s confrontation of its claims.
The All India Congress on Mission and Evangelization, held last January, repudiated an approach to dialogue as a common search for Truth or as a reciprocity of witness based on the idea that God’s revelations in all religions are complementary to one another. The congress statement, “The Devlali Letter,” asserted, “Inter-religious dialogue based on genuine respect for each other can remove misunderstandings, underline common values and concerns, and serve as a preparation of evangelism. Dialogue cannot be an end in itself as the Gospel is not a negotiable theory of salvation, but rather a message to be proclaimed with certainty and authority.”
