Trends and Developments in Interreligious Dialogue

GEORG EVERS TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 50Years after Vatican II and Interreligious Dialogue The 50th anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II has been the occasion for many activities, conferences, and publications. The question “What has Vati- can II produced in the different fields of being church and in doing theology today?” has constantly arisen. Among the positive contributions that Vatican II introduced, the many activities in the field of interreligious dialogue and theology of religion rank high. There is no question that Vatican II meant the open- ing of the Catholic Church—and not only the Catholic Church but Christian churches in general—to the other religions, to their traditions, spirituality, and religious life. In the years immediately after the council we could observe an enthusiasm from the Christian side combined with high hopes of entering into dialogue with members of other religions. Given the experiences of sometimes aggressive missionary activities by Christian organisations, the potential par- ticipants in dialogue from other religions were somewhat sceptical regarding what this change on the part of Christians could imply. Even if they responded positively to the new openness and interest Christians showed for their respec- tive religious traditions, the suspicion remained that the new readiness to enter into dialogue was nothing but a cover for the unchanged agenda of missionary activity by Christian churches. After all, Christians had believed for centuries that Jesus Christ was “the only Saviour” and that “there was no salvation outside of the church.” Other religions were seen as obstacles to Christian mission, which was destined to convert the world to Jesus Christ, as the proud slogan of the Edinburgh Conference in 1910 proclaimed: “Christianization of the World in this Century.” Given this negative history, it is amazing that in the years following Vatican II, so many dialogue activities were started on different continents and with different members of other religions. In recent decades interreligious dialogue has made progress and much trust has been built up among members of different religions. In the early years, the enthusiasm for and expectations of interreligious dialogue were high, sometimes too high, and the obstacles and difficulties of finding a new “dialogical language” and forms of dealing with the “other” were ignored. Those who were actively engaged in dialogue often forgot to keep in touch with the members of their own community who experienced difficulties with the quick pace in which attitudes were changing and old tenets of faith were abandoned. 228 TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Other negative elements, which extinguished some of the fervour and enthusiasm for interreligious dialogue, were the emerging trends of fundamentalism in various religions, often resulting in the use of force in the name of religion. For some opposed to interreligious dialogue, these developments were seen as proof that interreligious dialogue was an exercise only for some idealists, who were blind to the harsh facts of real life while pursuing an unreal dream of peace and understanding among members of different religions. Despite these objections and negative developments, during the last 50 years we have seen much progress in the practice of interreligious dialogue, which has led to a host of activities by members of different religions meeting, sharing their religious traditions, and working together for peace and harmony in society. After all, they are convinced that the alternative to perseveration in the efforts of working for understanding among members of different religions can only mean continued violence and strife in the name of religion. Any validity in the trite saying “There is no alternative” can found in reference to interreligious dialogue. Actual interreligious dialogue can be fruitful and sustained only when it is based on mutual trust and respect for the principle of reciprocity. Distrust and direct confrontations, as well as discrimination against partners and many other negative factors can make dialogue de facto impossible. Look- ing at the situation of several countries today we have to admit that there are many trends that are counterproductive to harmony and good relations among the various religious groups. Fundamentalist and communalist forces are active in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, and India and engage in the persecution of religious minorities. Sometimes, these adverse tendencies are so strong that advocating the necessity of continuing the dialogue might look rather naïve, inappropriate, or even outright impossible. On the other hand, the theological insights gained in the field of theology of religions that God’s universal will of salvation is operative in all religions and that the Spirit is active beyond the boundaries of Christianity and Christian churches are not refuted when radical elements in certain religions start “Holy Wars” and other kinds of religiously motivated violence. The Contribution of Asian Theologians to Interreligious Dialogue and Theology of Religions In religiously pluralist Asia the problem of the relationships between the different religions has been one of the central theological questions for Asian theologians when they started doing theology on their own by making use of their religious and cultural heritage. In doing so, they had to respond to the theological work developed in Western theology. Before Vatican II, only few European theologians were interested in reflecting on the question of the salvific significance of other non-Christian religions. These European theologians became the authors of the first declaration ever issued by a council on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, i.e. the declaration Nostra Aetate, that was inspired or prepared by theologians like Jean Daniélou, Henri 229 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 22 (2012) 2 de Lubac, Yves Congar, Otto Karrer, Karl Rahner, Heinz-Robert Schlette, and Joseph Ratzinger. What all these theologians had in common was that they had never been exposed to the living reality of any non-Christian religion nor did they have any experience of actually having been engaged in dialogue with members of other religions. There were practically no Asian theologians involved in preparing the texts for the council on non-Christian religions. Only some expatriate missionaries working in Asian countries were invited to contribute as experts to some parts of the document. The declaration Nostra Aetate marked a new approach in the theological reflection of the Church regarding other religions. What today is called “theology of religions” begun as theological reflection on the salvific value of non-Christian religions within Western theology in the decades preceding Vatican II. When in the aftermath of Vatican II Asian theologians started to study the problems of interreligious dialogue and the theology of religions for them- selves, they soon realised that the whole approach to the questions involved, the method applied, and the results found by the Western theologians, were not really satisfying and did not answer most of their questions. The approach by European theologians was “from outside,” studying the problem of non-Chris- tian religions without having had any existential contact with them. This can be seen in an exemplary way in the case of Karl Rahner, who developed his much-discussed theory of “anonymous Christianity” and “anonymous Chris- tians” within the parameters of traditional theology. Rahner did contribute some new insights on the salvific significance of the other religions, but these new insights were not “new” as regards the theological method he employed. What was “new,” however, was his assertion that there was a possibility within the boundaries of traditional theology of finding theologically sound reasons to attribute salvific significance to non-Christian religions. Starting from the premise of God’s universal will for salvation (1 Timothy 2:4), the Holy Spirit can be seen as operative in other religions. These religions, therefore, have a salvific function for their members, at least temporarily, until the moment of an existential encounter with Jesus Christ and his message. Rahner’s contribution can be understood as the work of a theologian “within the system of traditional Western theology” who showed ad intra, that is for the Christian community, a new way of evaluating the role of other religions without deviating from the teachings of the past. In actual interreligious dialogue, however, Rahner’s the- sis of the “anonymous Christian” is more of an obstacle than a help because it denies the authenticity and difference of the other in dialogue. When Asian theologians approach the problem of the many religions and the theological problems that result, they refuse to stay within the parameters of traditional Western theology and claim to have the right to address the questions of a theology of religions anew. The fact that after so many centuries Christian mission in Asian countries has hardly made any impact on the great religious traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Shintoism, and 230 TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS other religious traditions in Asia is in their eyes not just a failure of the missionary method employed by Western missionaries. It also poses new theological questions not yet answered by the church fathers, Western theology orthe Roman Catholic Church’s Magisterium. Asian

Load more