7. Towards a Theology of Dialogue

of scripture. This has always been the safeguard against individual interpretations that do violence to the central message of the scripture.

The Bible is no a static book of laws which gives specific guidance on every issue faced by the community. Itself an account of the struggle of a faith community, the Bible is a book with which we must struggle. It is this that makes the Bible a living word and not a dead letter.

Many Christians, however, commonly believe that the Bible has in it the unalterable "substance" of our faith, which we must accept without question. I have often heard people argue that our attitude to people of other faiths "should be based on the biblical teaching", or that "the biblical truths should be the standard by which we judge the validity or otherwise of other truth claims".

If one were to examine this and ask which biblical teaching or truth is being referred to here, one finds that the argument is based on a verse here or there, or on a statement Paul or Peter had made in a specific context. It is common experience that those who speak about the "biblical truth" or the "biblical message" are actually referring to a particular verse or verses which have become the basis of their own perception of an issue. If one were to quote another verse or other verses of the Bible to show another perspective, one immediately gets caught in the problem of selection, interpretation and emphasis.

The Bible, as we have seen, is a story of faith and faithfulness. Here we have a story of two communities, Israel and the church, struggling to understand and put into practice their commitment to God. We have the story of how these two communities also celebrate the faithfulness of God. It is a fascinating and spiritually enriching account of the pilgrimage of faith of those who have gone before us.

For Christians, it is also more than a spiritually enriching book, for here, we find the first and earliest records of the life and teachings of Jesus as selected, arranged and interpreted by his followers. Similarly here we also have an account of the birth and the growth of the Christian community, and some of the ways in which persons like John, Paul, Peter and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews struggled to interpret the significance of Jesus to the communities to which they related.

What is most important is to recognize this "struggle-to-understand", to which the Bible bears witness. Those who treat the Bible as having some kind of static authority do not respect this important witness of the scriptures. Let me illustrate.

The Council at Jerusalem

Jesus and most of his immediate followers were Jews and, as we have seen, even after the resurrection experience, the disciples continued to go to the temple, and saw themselves as part of the Jewish tradition.

But the expanding ministry, primarily of Paul and Barnabas, brought into this community those who were not part of the Jewish tradition - the "Gentiles". The church was faced with a new situation, for the Gentiles did not keep the Law, which was obligatory for the Jews, and were not circumcised, which was the mark of belonging to the covenant community.

Acts 15 is the story of how the church struggled with this new situation. The questions that came up had far-reaching implications. Was it important to preserve the Christian roots in Judaism and, if so, how much of Judaism was to be accepted in order to be faithful to the tradition out of which the church was growing? Could circumcision, the sign of belonging to the covenant community, be so easily given up? Was the Torah to become part of the Christian heritage?

These were very difficult questions, indeed, and of course, there was at that time no New Testament to provide its authority. Acts 15 does not give the details of what must have been a difficult, emotionally charged and divisive debate. There were no ready-made answers and there were strong reasons, with vocal advocates, to present both sides of the argument.

Finally, the community arrived at a decision. The "Gentile" Christians need not accept circumcision, and they need not be required to keep the Law. They should however abstain from food-habits and social behavior that will make it difficult for Christians of Jewish origin to have fellowship with them.

Here, in the Bible itself, we have the story of how the community of faith was prepared to reconsider and reformulate its stance when faced with a new situation. It was a difficult decision, but it had to be made.

This painful inner dialogue within the church opened it up to a whole new reality. It radically transformed both the nature and the life of the Christian community.

In many ways. Acts 15 prefigures what is likely to become an equally painful and divisive debate in the latter part of the twentieth century, namely, the Christian response to religious pluralism. Here again what the church will decide will have far-reaching consequences for its life and theology.

The challenge of religious pluralism

The church has from the very beginning lived in the context of other faiths. What was part of Judaism soon came into direct contact with the religion, culture and philosophy of the Graeco-Roman world. These contacts influenced the formulation and interpretation of the Christian faith. We see this already within the Bible. Paul uses many metaphors - redemption, salvation, reconciliation, atonement, re-creation, etc. - to understand the significance of the death of Christ. John, as we have already seen, turns to the Wisdom tradition of the logos to speak of Jesus as the pre-existent creative word of God, a concept that had strong parallels in Greek thought.

The subsequent history of theology is the story of how the various philosophical and cultural contacts of the church enriched and expanded the theological traditions already present in the Bible. In all these developments the church's contact with other religions and cultures has played an important role.

Today the church is faced with a situation, which is essentially new. For in the past the contact with other faiths had primarily the effect of enriching and expanding the Christian faith, but always the church had a self-understanding because of which it refused to take the other faiths with the seriousness they deserved. The church's theology was at the service of its missiology. The theology and philosophy of religion that came out of the church's tradition were always apologetic in the final analysis; they always showed why the Christian faith was superior to the other faiths. Much of this was also aided by the power relationship between people professing the Christian faith and those of other faiths. Both under Constantine and more recently under colonial rule - the two periods when the church took roots in different cultures in a big way - the other faiths had

no opportunity to challenge the Christian faith forcefully and radically.

Today we have indeed a new situation, and it is important to note some of the characteristics of this new stage in human history.

First, the other religious traditions have recovered from their colonial subjugation, and present themselves as universal alternatives to the Christian faith. There has been a resurgence of religions during the last few decades. There is a new vitality about them, and a new missionary zeal. The confidence that some day the Christian faith would replace all other religions, as a historical reality and not only as an eschatological consummation, has been waning. The empires have fallen; so have the ambitions of the religious traditions that went with them.

Second, these religious traditions have made so many inroads into even the "Christian" West that religious pluralism has become a reality in almost every society. Today there are more Muslims in France than there are Reformed Christians, and more Muslims in Britain than Methodists. Religions are no longer in far-off lands. Further, the minority churches that live in the midst of other faith communities are under much pressure to rethink their own attitudes to and relationships with their neighbors. They are becoming more and more convinced that they must seek and build truly human communities with them. They are convinced that they can no longer find answers to the problems of life all by themselves. For good or for ill, a large number of communities will need to come together in order to work for common goals and achieve tangible results.

Third, and perhaps most important, there is a developing discovery of the riches of other faiths. At one time. Buddhism was considered to be "pagan" because it did not pay attention to a doctrine of God. Hinduism was often dismissed as idol worship and superstition. Today Christians show much interest in Buddhist meditation and Hindu Yoga. At one time the Muslims were looked upon as rivals; today there is growing interest in the Islamic understanding of community and prayer. One can go on adding to this list.

There are some who frown upon the current Christian interest in Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. My purpose is neither to go into the reasons for this new interest nor to evaluate it. All I want to

emphasize is that there is a new awareness of religious pluralism, not as a threatening reality to be rejected, but as a reality to come to terms with.

That is to say, the theological hostility or neutrality towards other faiths is no longer tenable. The past models within which Christians sought to accommodate the other faiths can no longer suffice. There is new wine, and we need new wine-skins.

There are those who claim that all this arises from the "loss of nerve" that the churches experience in the present post-colonial period. They would say that what we need is a "new confidence" and that we should "rally our forces" and engage in an "intensive mission in the six continents".

But can we not see this as a new historical moment in the life of the church, which could give it a new impetus and mark a new beginning? Can we not say that the church is being called to deal theologically with religious pluralism and to come to a new understanding of the way to relate to, live and work with people of other faiths?

The Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15, could have taken a much more cautious stand. They could have rejected outright the need to deal with pluralism within the church. It could certainly have decided to preserve its Jewishness. It could have decided that, for good or ill, all those who wished to be part of the Christian community had to undergo circumcision and keep the Law of Moses. In many ways such a decision would have left the church with a manageable and more uniform community and theology. But the open-ended inner dialogue within the church resulted in a decision that totally changed the character of the church. Are we not, as churches, in a similar situation today with regard to religious pluralism?

We cannot of course draw too many parallels between Acts 15 and today's situation. The details differ. But what is important is to note that the church was open to the "new" and the unknown future, and the churches today should be willing to be inspired by this attitude.

What we are saying is that the time has come for the churches to struggle to discover a new theological basis for its relationship with people of other faith convictions. It should be a theological basis that enables the Christian to be committed to Christ, and yet be open to the witness of others. It should enable

the Christian to joyfully witness to his or her convictions and yet feel free to discern God's kingdom at work in other lives. It has to be a theological basis that can create genuine caring communities across all barriers; communities that are able to work together for justice and peace for all.

Is there, in the Bible, a basis for such a theology? That is not an easy question to answer. For the Bible does not deal with questions for which the community of faith should find answers as it struggles with the meaning of its commitment to Jesus Christ in new situations. At the same time, the Christian community today stands in a relationship to the Bible and to the theological tradition that has been developed down the centuries - which give it its identity. Theology, therefore, is not the opinions of individual persons. The theologian reflects on behalf of the community of faith, and it is the community of faith that should recognize the validity and relevance of what is said - whether in fact it is in tune with the faith handed down the centuries. The task of the theologian is to point to those areas in which he or she sees the need for new obedience. Or it may be only a call to emphasize anew aspects of the faith that have always been there both in scripture and tradition but have not been isolated and held up because of specific historical situations.

What are some of the areas in which a theology that seeks to take religious pluralism and interfaith dialogue seriously will need to concentrate? During the last several years many theologians have been working in this area. Let me point to some of the aspects where attention will need to be given in the coming years.

Towards a theocentric approach to theology

There are many voices that criticize the virtual Christo-monism of Protestant theology. This is seen to be at the root of much of the Protestant inability to deal with religious pluralism. The apostles witnessed to their faith that God has revealed himself in a special way in Jesus Christ. Some branches of theology have taken this faith and, based on a selective treatment of the scriptures, developed it into the claim that Christ is the "full", "final", "ultimate", and "decisive" revelation of God.

In missionary situations, the claim is often made that there is no other “true” revelation of God and, even if there were, they are so partial that it is only through Christ that we can have any "real" knowledge of God.

To this is added the "exclusive verses" of the Bible as statements of truth: "No one comes to the Father, except through me", and "There is no other name in which salvation is given."

What emerges is a situation where God is completely pushed to the periphery, and Christianity, at least in its Protestant missionary activity, provides no basis to relate to people who live by other faiths. All that one can do within this understanding is to appeal to those of other faiths to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord. Missiology becomes the total context of relationships.

A little reflection will show that this attitude is in many ways inconsistent with the overall teaching of the Bible. It is God who is at the centre of the biblical message; yes, the God who is the creator of all and in whom all have their being. The story of Israel is the story of how this community constantly experienced God's presence with them in a loving and saving way.

When we turn to the story of Jesus, one is constantly amazed by the theocentric life that he lived. He did not claim to be the full, final and decisive revelation of God, and it is difficult to see how such an exclusive position can be taken even on the basis of the Johanine verse, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."

Jesus' life, let us recall, was lived in constant reference to God. At his death he committed his life to the Father; after the resurrection he claimed that he was going to the Father. The whole of his teaching is based on the kingdom of God.

Much of Protestant theology does only lip service even to the doctrine of Trinity. It is Jesus, fortunately, who taught us the "Our Father", which urges us to place our life in the hands of God.

The recovery of a theocentric theology will enable Christians, without denying their witness to Jesus Christ, to stand alongside people of other faiths as children of the one God.

Such a theocentric approach does not necessarily give the theological framework for dialogue with people who live by

other faith convictions. Buddhists, for example, have a conception of reality within which the Christian conception of God has little relevance. Theocentric understanding is, therefore, not a new framework we thrust on others. Rather it helps us as Christians to make theological sense of our life with others within our faith-commitment.

It is only from a theocentric view that one can respect the faith of Abraham and the obedience of Moses. At the same time it will help Christians to recognize that the biblical story is the story of one people among many, all of whom within God's providence. It will enable Christians to be ready to listen to others and to discern the ways in which God has blessed other lives and acted in other ways.

This does not of course mean that now the Christian will accept everything as the activity of God or that he or she has no way, by which to discern what belongs to God's kingdom and what does not. To be a Christian is to show one's readiness to discern the world from the standpoint of faith in Jesus Christ. But this will be done in the perspective of a wider understanding of God's relationship with the world. It will certainly rule out at least the a priori assumption that what does not come as a result of faith in Jesus Christ cannot be of God!

We must recognize that such an emphasis does not in any way mark a departure from the central message of the Bible; rather, it is a corrective that will enable Christians to live in a religiously plural world, without denying their own specific calling and at the same time making theological sense of the life and experience of others who share their lives with them.

Rethinking Christology

But what of our witness to Christ? Is it not our belief about Christ that makes us Christians? Is not Christology the central issue of Christian relationship with other faiths?

It is indeed so. To be a Christian is to become a disciple of Christ, believing in the meaning and significance of his life for ours. Christian witness has to do with our witness to Christ and his message.

The question here, however, is about the nature of this belief and the kind of witness that arises from it. Much of what passes for biblical Christology is a result of the attempts of Paul to

understand the significance of Jesus and his resurrection in its relation to Jewish Law and other institutions. It is a struggle that be, as a Jew had to carry on in order making theological sense of his new commitment. As we have seen in the chapter dealing with the Acts of the Apostles, the initial attempt was to understand Jesus as the Messiah promised by the prophets.

When the church became predominantly Gentile, as we noted earlier, the emphasis on the Messiahship was gradually given up even though the title Christ was retained.

Jesus' divinity and sonship on the one hand, and ah understanding of him as the New Adam on the other became more appropriate in the gentile environment. We can see this development in the letters written by Paul to different congregations. In later history, Christology became preoccupied with the questions of the divinity and humanity of Jesus, a struggle that led to much controversy and division within the church.

We can no longer frame the Christological question in terms of the divine-human controversy or reduce our enquiry to an exploration of whether or how the Godhead was present in the person of Jesus.

The Bible itself does not have a definitive Christology. We have only an account of the growing awareness among the followers of Jesus that they were confronted here not simply with a historical person or a historical event but someone whose life, death and resurrection had a profound meaning for them. And the story of the New Testament letters is the struggle to expound this meaning in terms of their own faith and within the limits of the religion and culture of their time.

If Christians believe that Jesus became a "window into God", then the witness to Christ has to do with the nature of God that we see through his life. If Christians also believe that the Christ-event has a salvic significance for the whole of humanity, it has to be witnessed to as a claim of faith. We cannot use this faith-claim as a basis to deny other claims of faith. However true our own experience, however convinced we are about a faith-claim, it has to be given as a claim of faith and not as truth in the absolute sense.

There is indeed no reason why one should develop a Christology, which stands on the negative premise that there is "no other revelation", "no other way", "no other salvation", etc. One can

only witness to what one knows and not to what one does not know. Even the most convinced Christian can only witness in humility and in terms of his or her convictions, for truth is beyond the grasp of any human being.

Religious pluralism does not require that one cover up one's witness for the sake of mutual respect and understanding. Indeed, it is the one who has a witness to offer that will contribute to the richness of a pluralistic community. But such a witness should be given in the spirit of humility, and there should be the readiness to listen to and learn from the witness of others. And for this we need to develop a Christology which will place before people the demands of the kingdom.

Once, returning from Asia, I had a young person from Europe sitting next to me in the plane. From his appearance I could make out that he had been to India and, like so many young people in the West, on a religious quest. I decided to have a conversation with him and asked him what had taken him to India.

He was very open. "I was a Christian as you could have easily guessed", he said, "and my Christianity taught me that I had been saved and that I should help bring others to Christ. Somehow this did not appeal to me. I am much more challenged by the God-ward devotion of Hinduism and the teaching of self-denial in Buddhism."

As a Christian minister myself, I was a little disturbed. It may be that this particular young man did not have a good grasp of the Christian faith. But for me, it was the teaching ministry of the church that seemed to stand under judgment. How was it that this young man never came to know that at the centre of the Christian faith are self-denial and a life fully turned towards God? Have our Christological doctrines obscured the Jesus of the Bible so much that this young man could not even recognize in him someone who challenged people to live a radically new life? I was not offended because he had been to India. I was wondering whether in God's providence this person was being led to some of the essentials of his own religious tradition through an encounter with other faiths.

The more I reflected on the event the more I was convinced that the Christologies we have in the Bible are signposts. They

show how the early disciples and apostles struggled to understand the significance of Jesus for their lives and times.

In the new context of religious pluralism, we cannot ignore our own responsibility to continue that struggle. The biblical witness beckons us to this task.

God's reign and God's mission

Much of our difficulty in relating to religious pluralism also has to do with an ecclesiocentric theology. We should not forget that at least in some stage in history "No salvation outside Christ" became "No salvation outside the church"! The Christian community is always under the temptation to look upon itself as the "saved community" as against the "unsaved world". Such an understanding, expressed or unexpressed, has distorted and vitiated the church's relationship with people of other faiths.

The new situation demands more sustained efforts to recover the kingdom or the reign of God as the focus of Christian theology. Many attempts in the past to bring the kingdom to the centre of theology were short-lived. The church-centered theology has always prevailed.

The concept of God's kingly rule opens up all kinds of new possibilities for relationships. For the kingdom knows no bounds, and it can only be known by its signs. No one knows the times and seasons God has set to bring the kingdom to its fulfillment and no one but God, who knows the secrets of human hearts, knows who belongs to the kingdom and who does not.

More importantly, the emphasis on the kingdom will also result in the emphasis on the Spirit, who moves where the Spirit wills. The Spirit touches the hearts of people and takes hold of situations in unknown ways, thus opening up the possibility to discern God's activity in all kinds of places and in all sorts of lives.

A re-emphasis on the Spirit of God as the One who moves, corrects and rules over all life will open up many possibilities for relationship with people of other faiths.

Perhaps the most important task is to re-conceive the biblical concept of the "Mission of God" as the basis of our relationship with others.

One often speaks about "Christian mission" or "church's mission". The whole of the Bible relates to only one missions — the mission of God. All other missions have to find their place within it. The Christian witness to Christ, the Christian service to humanity and Christian acts of worship are all only a part of- and participation in - the overall mission of God, which knows no boundaries. It is the conscious or unconscious equation of Christian mission with God's mission that makes it impossible for Christians to relate to the signs of the kingdom which they discern outside the Christian community. The conviction that we as Christians are only a part of a larger mission of God will enable us to join hands and work with people of other faiths in a more conscious way.

This will also help the church to rediscover its own role as the servant community, and not as one, whose presence threatens others.

I once participated in a German-Thai (Christian-Buddhist) dialogue meeting in Bad Boll. A Thai girl, who was a silent listener to the dialogue for three days, came up, on the last day, much to the surprise of many, to make some comments. "This meeting has taken me by surprise," she said, "and I am very pleased with it. For I always thought that the only reason that Christians showed any interest in Buddhists was to make them Christians."

It was a rewarding moment. For here was one person whose impression of the church as a threatening presence had been changed and she had come to experience the Christian community as a caring presence. But to the majority of people of other faiths, the church and its mission continue to be a threat, for however loving that mission is, it is seen to have the aim of overpowering and replacing the faiths of others. "Two thousand years of Christian love", said a person of another faith "is enough to make anybody nervous"!

It is almost impossible to speak about Christian mission in this way without being accused of denying the relevance of Christian witness. Religious pluralism let me repeat does not demand that people give up or hide the witness they have to offer. But it certainly demands that such witness is given in the spirit of one who has truly experienced the humility, the vulnerability and the self-giving that are at the centre of Christ's

own witness. Such a witness can only be given in the context of a larger vision of the mission of God in which we are partners and fellow-pilgrims with all others who also stand within the grace and love of God. Thus, even as we witness, we listen to the witness of others.