Inter-religious
Dialogue
“I am an Indian by
nationality, Hindu by culture and a Christian by religion,” said S. Arulappa,
late Archbishop of Hyderabad. This statement holds true for every Christian in India and
shows the complex identity we Christians have in India. Hence, in a world
of multiplicity and plurality of religions, cultures, languages and ethnicity,
mission should be understood as and based on dialogue. Reality/Truth is One,
but it is manifested in multiple of ways. At the same time, no human person can
claim to have the complete knowledge of the Reality due to his/her own
incomprehensiveness (limitedness) in knowing the whole. In this situation, in
our quest towards the fullness of Truth, we need to enter into dialogue with
other religions to achieve various aspects of this Truth as they too reflect a
ray of that Truth which inspires all people.[1]
We cannot demonstrate the
complete meaning, relevance and importance of mission, proclamation and
dialogue unless we speak of them in a context. In this paper, I am basing the
reflections on dialogue from my deep felt experience of being a Jesuit Scholastic
in the context of the persecutions of Christians in Orissa. Here I limit my
theological reflections only from the perspective of dialogue in order to
understand mission from the point of view of dialogue.
2. Experience
From August 24th onwards,
attack on the Christians of Orissa resumed with more vigour and intensity as
the effect of the murder of the Swami Lakshmananada in Tumudibandha area.
Violence against Christians was rampant; houses burnt, Churches destroyed,
schools and hostels smashed and people killed or abused in a most inhuman
manner possible. Personally I was very much shattered by what happened in
Orissa as Orissa is my first mission area where I did my regency in the Human
Life Centre, Bhubaneswar for two years. I cherished the people and culture
of Orissa very much. I always dreamt of going back to Orissa as a missionary.
As somebody commented, the backbone of the Church in Orissa is broken. I
experience pain, a sense of loss, confusion and anxiety and uncertainty about
the future and wonder at “what has gone wrong?’
3. Analysis
Orissa is a highly Hindu
dominated state with the people having a very high regard for Lord Jaganath of
Puri (One of the Dhamas of India). They are so ardent in
their religious duties that fasting and penance mark their day-to-day life.
Also, Orissa has the Panos (SCs) and Konths (STs)
in the tribal areas of Kandhamal. Though they were oppressed communities,
antagonism grew among them and they fought against each other, something a
third party like the Hinduthva group took advantage of, i.e.
to spread the seeds of religious fundamentalism and communalism.
When we analyse the causes
of this antagonism, hatred and polarisation we see that various socio,
cultural, religious and political elements are present in the present violence
against the Christians in Orissa. However, after attending few ecumenical
meetings in the Delhi Cathedral and also after my analysis of the mission work
in Orissa, I strongly feel that there is an alarmingly urgent need for
dialogue; dialogue between religions and also ecumenical dialogue i.e. dialogue
among various denominations within the Church. So, in my analysis of the
situation, the dialogue aspect of mission has been a failure if not nil. The
mission in Orissa was within the borders of their churches and institutions,
though in rare cases they had very limited and functional relationships among
the Catholic groups and the groups of other denominations. Such borders seem to
perform three distinct functions: as markers for one’s individual and communal
identity, as barriers to fence out other people different from oneself and as
frontiers from which to venture out into new horizons to expand one’s knowledge
and one’s circle of relationships.[2] In this situation the type of mission,
proclamation and conversion methods adopted by one group may not be appreciated
and accepted by the other. Often it mattered little as long as their life
within their boundaries was pleasant and satisfying. With this analysis, I move
on to reflect on the dialogue aspect of mission.
4. Theological
Reflection
To theologically reflect on
my experience of the violence in Orissa from the perspective of dialogue
demands an in depth understanding of dialogue as mission. The analysis of the
experience gives evidence that if the mission and proclamation were
characterised by dialogue, all such untoward incidents could have been averted
and it also invites us to immerse ourselves into the life and culture of the
people with openness and trust, which is the spirit of dialogue.
4.1 What is
Dialogue? In the context of religious plurality as in
the case of Orissa, dialogue means all positive and constructive interreligious
relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed
at mutual understanding and enrichment, in obedience to truth and respect for
freedom.[3] Dialogue acknowledges preserves and
promotes the spiritual and moral goods found in other religions, and the values
in their society and culture in order to join hands with them to work towards a
world of peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.[4] Thus, broadly speaking the purpose of
dialogue is the deeper conversion of all towards God based on universal
salvific will of God who wishes everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge
of the truth in and through Jesus. (I Tim 2:4-6)
The Church has promulgated
the four-fold forms of dialogue which should be fostered by all of us. They are
the dialogue of life, dialogue of action, dialogue of theological exchange and
dialogue of religious experience. These forms are not isolated ones but
interconnected. Contacts in daily life and common commitment to action will
normally open the door for cooperation in promoting human and spiritual values;
they may also eventually lead to the dialogue of religious experience in response
to the great questions which the circumstances of life do not fail to arouse in
the minds of people. Exchange at the level of religious experience can give
more life to theological discussions. These in turn can enlighten experiences
and encourage closer contacts.[5]
4.1.1 Dialogue
in the Scripture: The First
Testament testifies that from the beginning of creation God made a Covenant
with all peoples (Gen 1-11). Later, the religious consciousness of Israel is
characterised by a deep awareness of its unique status as God’s Chosen People.
As the Scripture unfolds the action of God goes beyond the boundaries of the
Chosen People to touch the history of all nations and the lives of individuals.
It sees its final fulfilment in Jesus Christ in whom is established the new and
definitive Covenant for all peoples.
4.1.2 Jesus in
Dialogue: In the context of Orissa, Jesus can be
understood as a ‘border crosser.’ The mystery of Incarnation is an act of
border crossing and human-divine dialogue which later earned him a name ‘the
marginal Jew.’[6] Though Jesus professes to have come to
gather the lost sheep of Israel (Mt 15:24) and forbids his disciples
for the moment to turn to the Gentiles (Mt 10.5), he nevertheless displays an
open attitude towards men and women who do not belong to the chosen people of Israel.
He enters into dialogue with them and recognises the good that is in them. He
marvels at the belief of the centurion (Mt 8: 5-13), performs miracles of
healing for ‘foreigners’ (Mk 7:24-30, Mt 15: 21-28) and converses with the
Samaritan woman leading her to the mystery of Truth i.e. worship the Father in
spirit and truth. (Jn 4:23). Further we see that his violent death on the cross
was a direct result of his border crossing and ministry at the margins.
4.1.3 Paul and
Dialogue: St Paul is known as the apostle to the
gentiles who crossed the borders of the Jewish world to the gentiles, abolished
circumcision under the condition that the gentiles (and all) are justified by
faith. Paul’s idea of dialogue can be best inferred from the following verse,
“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the Lord is Lord of all and
is generous to all who call on him. For, everyone who calls in the name of the
Lord shall be saved.” (Rom 10:12-13)
4.1.4 Dialogue
in the Church Documents: Nostra
aetate, Ad Gentes, Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican stressed the
importance of interreligious dialogue. It gave a new understanding of mission
and a new realization of the place of other religions in the plan of God for
the world. This two-fold movement leads to a new vision of mission as dialogue.
The Church always believed
and promulgated that dialogue was a call to build the Kingdom of God together. John
Paul II summarises the essential stand of the Church regarding dialogue in this
way, “By dialogue we let God be present in our midst; for as we open ourselves
in dialogue to one another, we also open ourselves to God… As followers of
different religions we should join together in promoting and defending common
ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education,
culture, social welfare and civic order.”[7] The situation in Orissa today calls for
a joining of hands of all religions to work towards this goal.
4.2 Dialogue
and Inculturation: Dialogue
affirms and celebrates plurality of cultures and religions bringing harmony
among them. The focus for authentic dialogue will be the common building up of
a new human community. This involves necessarily the process of inculturation
in which religions become incarnate in a culture and transform if from within
by challenging it with a new value system. In a situation of dialogue, the
religions should be able to do this jointly with reference to the culture of a
people.[8] Dialogue and
inculturation are two sides of the same coin. They complement each other. Our
faith should touch the realities of our day-to-day life. Religion is the
transcendental aspect of the culture of the people. So we cannot separate our
culture and the religion we profess. Inculturation calls for this incarnation
of religion in a culture. It demands that the Church in Orissa should be
properly inculturated so that dialogue becomes easy and meaningful by religion
complementing culture than alien to it.
4.3 Dialogue
and Mission: The
Church in Orissa has been, at it seems to me too much based on the great
commandment of Jesus in Mathew 28:16-19. The stress always remained with
baptism when the stress should have been a collective effort towards integral
liberation based on the beatitudes. (Mt 5) Thus, the goal of mission is the Kingdom of God and
not the Church.
The Mission as
interreligious dialogue at its deepest level is always a dialogue of salvation,
because it seeks to discover, clarify and understand better the signs of the
age-long dialogue which God maintains with humanity. An open and sincere
interreligious dialogue is our cooperation with God’s ongoing dialogue with
humanity.[9] The common ground for mission and
dialogue in Orissa could be holistic liberation of its people from poverty,
hunger, illiteracy, health and internal conflicts, especially the triangular
districts of KBK (Kandhamal, Balangir and Koraput) notorious for being the
least developed and most poverty stricken districts in India.
When religious believers
are in conflict and indulge in violence as in the case of Orissa, dialogue will
have to start as conflict resolution: forgiveness as liberation of self and
healing of memories so as to free from revenge, re-establish truth and justice,
promote restorative, not retributive, justice community justice, not victor’s
justice recognition of guilt and asking pardon (cf. John Paul II pardoned the one
who shot him at), readiness to forgive the other and promote non-violence in
thought and action. In such a situation dialogue can be a celebration of
forgiving love of God. It also an affirmation of the prophetic role of the
Church i.e. solidarity with the poor and confrontation with the rich and the
powerful (often the oppressors).
5. Praxis
We should realise that
Christian spirituality is basically a spirituality of dialogue, in which the
whole of humanity is moving towards the ultimate, along with our sisters and
brothers of other faiths. The situation in Orissa makes us to think of people of
other faiths as strangers, which is a type of stereotyping.[10] It alienates us from people of other
faiths and generalises them as bad or as antisocial elements. Thus we need an
attitudinal change to accept them as our brothers and sisters.
Today education and
training in dialogue is extremely important. So we need to make dialogue as a
priority in our life. For religious, interest in dialogue should be inculcated
in their early stages of formation itself. Dialogue will be a motivating factor
in inculturating and contextualising our faith. Dr Vincent Sekhar in his book
Practice of Interreligious Dialogue gives a whole list of suggestions to make
dialogue a new way of life.
The situation in Orissa
today calls for a growing openness to the legitimacy of other religions and
also deepening and broadening of the understanding of mission that makes
dialogue an integral dimension of mission. Through dialogue we grow in openness
to the divine spirit to be able to walk with others on a ‘fraternal journey in
which we accompany one another towards the goal which God sets for us.’ (GC34
D137) It invites us to a new spirituality for mission as being a pilgrim, being
prophetic, being dialogical, being creative, being a symbol and being integral.
It is in a way an imitation of the kenotic life of Jesus Christ.
6. Conclusion
Today in places like
Orissa, Gujarat and Karnataka where attacks on minorities by the
Hindu outfits has done much damage and also in many other places, a new way of
evangelisation seems to be necessary. “We are forced now, more than ever,
to seriously reconsider our strategies, approaches, and the impact of our
pastoral, educational and social service institutions. Our educational
contribution to the intelligentsia of the country, our care of the sick and
dying, our developmental work to uplift the poor and the marginalised, though
lauded by the beneficiaries, are yet to make definite impact on the basic thought
pattern of those whom we serve and associate with.”[11] This would point to that proper
dialogue in our mission is the need of the hour. We do many educational, social
and charitable works but if that is not supported or complemented by dialogue
as we saw in the paper, they can go in vain without producing any fruit. So
dialogue comes as a standard to be more effective and meaningful in our mission
that is to say that mission is dialogue.
Bibliography
[1] Vat II, Nostra
aetate, 2.
[2] Phan Peter C, In
Our Own Tounges. (New York: Orbis Books. 2003) p.137
[3] Dialogue and
Proclamation, p. 5.
[4] As Quoted in the GC 34 of
Society of Jesus, D. 130.
[5] Dialogue and
Proclamation, pp. 18-19.
[6] Phan Peter C, In
Our Own Tounges. (New York: Orbis Books. 2003) p. 147-148
[7] Class Handouts, Integral Mission,
M Amaladoss S J
[8] Chia Edmund (Ed). Dialogue. (Delhi:
ISPCK. 2002) p. 171
[9] GC 34 of Society of
Jesus, D. 133.
[10] As quoted in Shekhar
Vincent S J. 2006. Practice of Interreligious Dialogue. Bangalore:
Claretian Publications.
p. 75.
[11] Message by Fr Mike T Raj
S J, Provincial of Jamshedpur Province on his observation of the Orissa
Situation.
