Asian Christian Theological Task In The Midst Of Other Religious Traditions

by S. Wesley Ariarajah
Sri Lanka

Doing Christian theology in the context of other religious traditions is not a new enterprise in Asia. As we meet here in the third Congress on Asian Theologians, we would be able to recall many of the pioneers of Asian theology, past and present, who opened for us new and challenging avenues to explore the meaning and practice of the Gospel in the Asian cultural, social and religious milieu. We have had movements of indigenization, inculturation and contexualization that sought to give greater rootedness to the Christian faith in the Asian soil. The Ashram movements within the Church have struggled to create communities that lived by the Gospel within the patterns of Asian monastic traditions.

There are also clearly defined theological streams within Asian theology. People's Theology, Minjung Theology, Dalit Theology, Asian Liberation Theology, Tribal Theology etc. are examples of theological streams that have arisen out of concrete engagement with Asian realities. The Asian women have been expounding an Asian Feminist interpretation of the Gospel. There are also searching theological articulations that address the abject poverty, deprivation, and oppression of the Asian masses, and movements like Urban and Rural Mission (URM), Christian Workers Fellowship and other grass roots People's Movements that translate the imperatives of the Gospel to concrete situations of life.

All these movements and theological efforts also employ a variety of biblical hermeneutics and theological methods in seeking to respond theologically to the Asian social, political, economic, cultural, and religious reality. As someone who teaches courses in Asian Theology, and therefore had to read and interpret the contributions of Asian theologians, past and present, I am both deeply impressed with, and simply overwhelmed by, the extent and wealth of Asian theology and the insights it brings to the Church universal.

The natural temptation in dealing with Asian Theology, therefore, is to summarize, analyze, and celebrate this heritage. I have resisted this temptation because most of us here are familiar with this history and many of you are contributors to its development in our day. I am also guided by the fact that this particular session of CATS is devoted not so much to the general issue of Christian theology in Asia but to the specific question of doing theology in the context of the plurality of religions.

Areas Of Concern

What I would like to do, therefore, is to place before ourselves three areas for further theological work that would, in my opinion, make a real difference to Christian theology in Asia in the context of other religious traditions. These neither are not new areas, nor are ones on which earlier work has not been done. But these three areas appear to me to challenge us to be much more adventurous and daring than usual. They are fields in which radical new thinking is called for. They are dimensions of Asian Christian theology that need new points of departures.

The three interrelated areas that we would consider are the followings:

1. An Asian Christian Theology of Religions.
2. An Asian Christian Theology of Mission.
3. An Asian Theology of Community.

But before beginning to open these areas for our discussion, I would like to make two preliminary remarks.

Asian Theology And The Theology Of The Pulpit And The Pew

One of the disturbing features of Asian theology until now has been that they have had little or no impact on the theology of the pulpit and the pew. Asian theology is often treated as "exotic" and "interesting" not only in the West but also in much of Asia. Many of our seminaries teach Asian theology in addition to the "main" theological courses that are predominantly Western and or Confessional. Many of the students in our seminaries, who take courses in Asian theology, and even write dissertations on them, conveniently set it aside when they mount the pulpit. They build their sermons on a theology that they have had before they got to the seminary. I think it is also safe to say that much of the theology of the pew has hardly moved from where it was during the missionary era.

It is of course inevitable that the theological enterprise, whenever it is taken as an intellectual activity, has to be undertaken by those who have access to the tools and methods of doing theology. But we should not forget the time-honoured dictum that the theologian is the servant of the church, and that theology is done for and on behalf of the church- by which I mean the people in our pews. There is perhaps a place to do theology for one's own theological excitement and for one's peers. But the only theology that would make any difference to the future of the churches in Asia is that which has the people in mind. And the only responsible theologian today in Asia is the one who is prepared also to interpret his or her thoughts to the people in a language and form that is accessible.

This reality struck me because a number of Korean students at Drew, where I teach at present, encounter the challenge of Minjung theology and understand the concept of han for the first time in one of our classes in Asian Theology. Similarly, some Sri Lankan students discover Aloysius Pieris for the first time in the West. An Indian student came to me at the end of a class and confessed that he had never heard of Dalit theology while he was in India.

This is not to cast doubts on the validity of these theological streams or to find fault with the proponents of these theologies. We are all aware that freedom and space to do courageous and creative theological thinking is often available only at the margins of the church. The ignorance on the part of the students may say more about the churches they come from than about the new theological explorations taking place in Asia. At the same time we should not place the blame on the church too quickly; for it appears that at present there are simply no mechanisms to integrate new thinking into its life and ministry. We need to find creative new ways to make the fruits of Asian theological thinking more real to the life of the churches in Asia.

Whom Do People Say That We Are?

Last year, during the United Nations Spiritual Summit of religious and spiritual leaders, I was involved with some others, including a Hindu leader from India, in a telecast panel that hooked a group of us in New York with a group in Chicago. The Hindu was vehemently critical of Christianity in India arguing that Christian presence in India is primarily focused on proselytizing the Hindus. When it was my turn to contribute, the more I spoke the more confused the Hindu became, because I did not fit the image of the Christian that she had come to "attack" in the UN Summit. There appears to be only a limited awareness among many Hindus of the existence of theological diversity within the church and of our many attempts to strip Indian Christianity of its Western and imperial trappings. In other words, we also need a public practice of Theology in Asia that more truly reflects the new thinking that has been going on in response to the Asian reality.

With these preliminary remarks let me turn to the three issues on which I wish to open a conversation among ourselves. I have taken these three issues as the foci of our discussion because, as I understand it, we are at this Congress concentrating our energies on exploring a relevant Asian theology in the context of other Asian religious traditions.

I. Towards Rethinking The Asian Christian Theology Of Religions

The Christian theologian in Asia must recognize, in the first place, that he or she is engaged in the theological task among a praying and believing people with a very long and rich spiritual history. Despite the ambiguities that beset all religious traditions those who have studied other religious traditions and have lived with persons of other faiths know that Asia has an outstanding and awe inspiring spiritual history. We are aware of its saints and sages; we know the profound wisdom, moving devotion, and self-less actions that punctuates that religious history. Some of the streams of Asian theology have rightly emphasized the need to tap this heritage in doing Asian theology so that Asian theology arises out of Asian culture and spirituality than those that are borrowed from the West.

And yet, I want to submit that Asian Christian theology, especially of the Protestant persuasion, has not been courageous enough in its Theology of Religions. It has had enormous difficulty in taking a theological stand on the reality of the religious life of our neighbours. While it has been willing to affirm the Asian spiritual heritage, it has been rather grudging in its assessment of God's presence in, and relationship to, the religious life of our neighbours.

In one of his early articles on this subject Aloysius Pieris maintains that each religious tradition is specific and that we need to respect this specificity in our relationship and dialogue. In his view, "each religious tradition is a singular phenomenon and is in a way a judgment passed on every other religion." He also maintains that religions are "so many alternative configurations of basic human values," and that "it is therefore in their nature to provoke comparison and mutual criticism, confrontation, and reciprocal correction." He sees these dimensions of relationship as intermediary stages between the mere tolerance with which dialogue begins and positive participation in which it should culminate.[1] What is important in this approach is that the differences among religious traditions are readily recognized and there is no easy romanticism about any of the religious traditions.

But Pieris is also quick to point out that this approach has not been the history of Christian relationship to other religious traditions. Instead, "Christianity, especially Western Christianity, has been passing Judgment on other religions, generously offering them criticisms and corrections and indulging in comparisons that were ultimately meant to articulate its own uniqueness. Much of what has in the past been called the 'Philosophy of Religion,' in Pieris' view, has also been affected by the apologetic interests of the Christian faith. "Even in their most objective and honest studies, Christian professors did not fully renounce their evangelizing role, which consisted not only in providing rationally the wholeness of Christianity but neutralizing, by means of subtle philosophical explanations, the challenges that other faiths threw at Christian belief."

This is because the major part of Western Christianity has not for centuries been confronted by the inner dynamism of other religions. Since the Christianization of Europe, the West had one sole paradigm at its disposal to understand the religious phenomenon: namely its own Christian experience. Thus "the philosophy of one religion became the 'Philosophy of Religion', as Panikkar has bitingly remarked.[2]

Kenneth Cracknell in his book Towards a New Relationship, says that this development within the Western Christian tradition along with "the legacies of earlier missionary theologies" and the "prejudices stemming from the assumption of cultural superiority by the colonizers" rolled into "one sad tangle" that "makes it difficult for Western Christians (and for us who have inherited this heritage) to think in new ways." We must, says Cracknell, "unravel some of these unblessed ties" that "bind us in knots."[3]

Undoing the knot that ties us into this 'sad tangle,' has not been easy despite all the attempts at inculturation of the Gospel. This is because the mainline Protestant theology of religions is based, to this day, on the foundation that Henrick Kraemer, following Karl Bath, had laid down at the World Mission Conference in Tambaram (1938). It is not my intention here to rehearse Kraemer's position in his Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, or the heated and divisive debate that it entailed. Tambaram, 1938, however, did lay down the theology of religions that is prevalent to this day both in the pulpit and the pew. Those of us in the Protestant tradition have not yet successfully 'unraveled' the unfortunate radical separation that Barth had made between the Gospel and religions, and the consequent theory of "discontinuity" between the Gospel and religions that Kraemer had so eloquently put forward, leaving us with little alternative in our relationship with people of other faith traditions than to evangelize them. The practical impact of Barth's theology of the confrontation between the 'Gospel' on the one hand, and 'religions,' which he saw as manifestations of human rebellion against God, on the other, was that we have come to see other religious traditions as rivals rather than as partners and fellow pilgrims.

Unfortunately Barth was ignorant of any other religious tradition and over generalized and universalized his specific historical experience of the religious situation in Europe. And Kraemer, who knew better, was used by the leadership of the International Missionary Council to confront another internal Western Christian problem, namely, the rise of Liberalism.[4] One would dismiss these as past events that has little relevance for our search for Asian Theology today but for the fact that the theology of religions that emerged from this meeting still shapes the Protestant tradition in Asia. It is this theology of religions that informs the Asian pulpit, the pew, and much of the missionary thinking.

The result of the Tambaram position was that the only option that is open to Christians in relation to other religions was to (as respectfully and sensitively as possible) preach the Gospel and challenge them to discipleship. The other implication of the position was that all religious traditions in themselves are devoid of the knowledge of God and are in fact in rebellion against God. Their worship, prayer and spiritual life, profound as they may be, are all too human and devoid of any real meeting with the Ultimate.

What is interesting is that Kraemer, who has had a sustained relationship with Muslims, in both Egypt and Indonesia, knew better. Was he pushed by the Missionary leadership to over reach himself because of their anxiety about Liberalism in the West and the "fulfillment theories" coming out of Asia? My own conviction on this, by examining the original records, was reaffirmed by Wilfred Cantwell Smith in the 50th anniversary of the Tambaram meeting (1988), that I had helped to organize on behalf of the WCC, at the same location where the original meeting had taken place. Smith says that "Karl Barth was simply ignorant about the world's other religious traditions, just as the earlier Christian thinkers once thought, as did everyone else, that the earth was flat." Then he has this to say about Kraemer:

Barth's disciple Kraemer, on the other hand was not ignorant. An undiscerning reader might say that he was stubborn, clinging to inherited doctrines formulated in earlier, ignorant days.... Personally, I feel that Kraemer was not holding on so much as being held; he never succeeded in bringing together what his heart felt and half of his brilliant head knew with what the other half had been taught..… It was not only the majority of those attending the first Tambaram conference that Kraemer failed to convince of this stated thesis. He failed to convince himself. He spent the rest of his life writing further books, each of which in effect was an attempt to say that no, he had not quite meant what the last one seemed to be saying, for that was not quite right. He moved increasingly towards a more comprehensive vision. Yet he died, poor man, without ever managing to satisfy himself that he had formulated that vision adequately.[5]

I decided to go back into this history to note that Kraemer himself was uncomfortable with the Theology of Religions that he had enunciated at that meeting. Many of the Asian missionaries like A.G. Hogg, H.H. Farmer, K.L. Reichelt, and Asian theologians at the meeting like T.C. Chao, D.G. Moses and P. Chenchiah strongly resisted this understanding. Beyond the meetings the controversy continued in India under the leadership of P.D. Devanandan and others who challenged the way the reality of other religious traditions had been undervalued at Tambaram. And yet it is the Tambaram view that informs the theology of religions in our churches today.

Advances Within Roman Catholic Theology

What has been the development within the Roman Catholic Church? Here again I do not intend to go over the history of discussions that are familiar to us. Even since the Second Vatican Council there has been steady progress in the Roman Catholic theological approach to other religious traditions, thanks mainly to our Roman Catholic colleagues here in Asia. In the Council documents like Nostra Aetate we see the openings for a reassessment of the issue. It says that "The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions," and that "Those also can attain everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Jesus Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by his grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of their conscience." [6]

This recognition, however, was accorded to the people in other religions rather than to the religions themselves as paths that mediate salvation. In a background paper prepared for the Round Table Conference on Mission (Hong Kong, 1999) Felix Wilfred helpfully traces the advances that have been made since the Second Vatican Council in affording greater recognition to religions themselves as having a role in God's economy of salvation, and in looking upon the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit as affecting not only individuals "but also society, and history, peoples, cultures and religions." He also shows that there is also some recognitions of the mediating role other salvific figures in other religions play within the economy of salvation.[7]

Of course these statements are often counter balanced by more traditional positions that are included sometimes in other parts of the same document or in other official documents. But my Roman Catholic colleagues assure me that any opening for a more positive approach that appears in official statements help them to explore the issue more fully in their own theological work. We have experienced this in the way so many of the Asian Roman Catholic theologians have made use the windows that were opened for them in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Are We Waiting For Western Theology To Give Us The Lead?

I am, however, quite amazed at the speed with which theologians in the West, based on their rather limited experience of and engagement with peoples of other faiths, are willing to ask searching questions on the Theology of Religions and propose new ways of understanding God's relationship to the world of religions. We in Asia, with much longer, more authentic and immediate knowledge and experience of the religious life of our neighbours, are much more reluctant to draw theological conclusions about their religious life. Is it because we took the theological traditions handed down to us too seriously than we should have? Is it because we are too slow to admit that all theologies are culture-bound and have be re-thought in new situations? Is it because we fail to recognize that, unlike faith, all theology (as Wilfred Cantwell Smith puts it) is nothing but "human constructs"? Is it because the long and immediate relationships that we have had with neighbours of other traditions have helped us not to be overly romantic about other traditions? Or has our need to protect our identity as minority communities, in much of Asia, has made us more at ease with a majoritarian, power-ridden and self-serving theology of religions that discounts the reality, vitality and profundity of faith that we often find outsides the walls of our faith tradition?

Ambiguity Of Religions And Religious Life

The first thing anyone who begins to reflect on the theological significance of the religious life of humankind needs to have is a good dose of realism. This means we should begin with the affirmation of the ambiguity that besets all religions. Religions can be superstitious; they have been oppressive, and continue to have oppressive structures that marginalize and subjugate sections of the community; they have the tendency to take sides with the powerful; they have been patriarchal in character and have denied meaningful role for women in their structures. These dimensions of religion need no elaboration. We experience them daily; and many of us are still the victims of these negative dimensions of religious manifestation. However, we can also witness to the positive dimensions of religious life: The wholeness it has brought into people's life; the sense of purpose for life that many find within its walls; the self-less service that it has inspired; the way it has drawn peoples close to the Ultimate, and the saints and sages that have emerged from its womb.

Thus, there are two sides to religions, and its ambiguities should not blind us to its creative dimensions. To be human is to participate in ambiguity, and all human institutions embody this ambiguity. What is most important to affirm, in this context, is that no one religion is free of this ambiguity, namely, of having the power to elevate the human spirit to its highest potential, or to drag it down into the squalor of indignity.

Karl Barth, faced with this ambiguity, ran away from religions, and created the false and damaging dichotomy between the Gospel and religions, as if the Gospel message were not about incarnation, of bodying-forth, in the midst of ambiguity. Despite his fundamental thesis about the ambiguity of religions Barth, by implication, had to still give some superior position to the church as a community that had said "yes" to the challenge of the Gospel. We are, however, only too aware how ambiguous the church as an institution has been throughout history.

In fact, we need God precisely because of the ambiguities that beset our lives; otherwise we can very well do without one. Therefore we need to discern, affirm, celebrate and proclaim the reality of God, God's grace, and God's presence in all of human life, as also in all religious life. I believe that a theology that does anything less does violence to God. Smith claims that to say that God is not present in the religious life of our neighbours would amount to blasphemy. It is false witness against the Creator. It is an attempt by us humans to put limits on God and to dictate to God where God might and might not be active.

Seven Affirmations

Building on this discussion I would like to place before us seven affirmations that are, in my thinking, the parameters for doing Christian theology in the context of other faith traditions:

1. God is the creator and sustainer of all life. Therefore God is concerned with the whole human family. While God may call any one person or community into service to further God's purposes in the world, no community is closer or more important to God than another. We affirm the biblical vision of a God who is in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed. Yet, we need to also affirm that all persons, both as human and religious beings, are equally the children of God. God does not show partiality.

2. Throughout human history individuals and communities have attempted to understand, to draw near to, and to speak about the mystery of God. Here too, no one experience and explication of the mystery of God is more important than another. They are often different from one another. Such differences are to be expected because religious traditions have emerged in different contexts, cultures, and from different experiences, and are trying to deal with a Mystery that is beyond all grasps. It is, therefore, only natural that not all persons are attracted to any one way of approaching the Ultimate Reality. And a person or community may see their own approach to Reality as the most challengingly relevant one to them, and possibly to all others as well.

3. All human attempts to understand and response to God are ambiguous. Such ambiguity in seeking and responding to God is part of our human predicament. Therefore, there is much in all religious traditions that is claimed to be from God, or is claimed to have been revealed by God, that are part of human pride, sin, and foolishness. And yet, religious traditions also witness to specific events and specific salvific figures that are, in the experience of the community, cumulative revelatory moments and become constitutive of the communities faith. These constitutive events or salvific figures or revelations are special to the respective communities. It is difficult for others, who do not share the 'story', to judge the truth or otherwise of these experiences and affirmations.

4. The constitutive revelation, insight, or salvific event becomes so profound to the communities that they claim universality to their experience and may want to commend it to others. Therefore there is an 'exclusive' and 'missionary' dimension to all religions which is expressed in a variety of ways.

5. Christianity arose when those who encountered Jesus- his life, death and resurrection- were convinced that the event had a salvific significance for them and to the world. The 'Christ Event' thus is the constitutive event for those who find, in this event, their specific window into who God is, how God deals with us, and what God requires of us. Like many other religions, Christianity may also see its constitutive event to be decisive and universal in its relevance. Yet, Christians are only one among many witnesses to God, and one people among many others who witness to a life in relationship to God. While Christianity is distinct and different from others, there is no reason to believe that it is in anyway superior to others or that it has been the culmination or end of other revelatory experiences.

6. This means that anyone who wants to talk about God (do theology) need to, as Kenneth Cragg has said, be "attentive" to what other experiences of God has been among other human beings. They are part of the data of theology. Therefore peoples of other faith traditions are our fellow pilgrims. They have a life with God, and God has a life with them. We have stories to share.

7. From the Theology of Religions perspective, therefore, Christianity is only one of the stands of the religious history of humankind. The truth of what it says about God, and how God relates to humankind, should stand or fall on its own merit. The claims to "one", "only", "unique", "decisive", "final" etc. are human constructs that arose in the context of Jewish-Christian polemical relationship and later re-enforced when Christianity became the religion of the empire, and still later of the colonizers. What Christians know about God in Christ may be to genuinely believe to be "unique" and "decisive." Yet, it remains a part of Christian faith and proclamation.

A New Basis To Live With Others

These seven affirmations attempt is to make Christianity a religious tradition like any other religious tradition in Asia, for that is exactly what it is. Secondly, these affirmations seek to give theological reality and significance to other religious traditions that have generally been considered by Christians to be in "error", or in some sense "preparatory" to the Christian message. I am convinced that unless we get rid of the assumed superiority that came with colonialism, and begin to recognize God's presence and activity among the peoples of Asia we would never be able to engage ourselves in genuine Asian theological task.

This also means that the raw material and the experience of God for the Asian theological task need not be imported into Asia. It is already here. And God and God's saving ways need not be brought into Asia, for God has always been savingly present in this continent. God is not only the same yesterday, today and forever; God is also the same in Western Europe, Africa, Asia and everywhere else. Religious traditions of Asia, while sharing the ambiguity of all religions, are places where God's love, grace and self-giving has been experienced and recognized. Sometimes the attempt to fathom the mystery of life has, as in the case of Buddhism, called for by passing of the concept of God itself, while in others, like Hinduism, it has led to calling on God by a million names. But all of it is God talk, and are material that we need to take account of in doing Asian theology.

Such an approach to Asian religious traditions has many ramifications to Christian theology as it had been handed down. I would, however, like to first open up the other two issues for our discussion, namely, the issues of 'mission' and 'community', for these are all interrelated to one another.

II.     An Asian Christian Theology Of Mission

It is no secret that when compared with the aims set for itself to achieve, Christian mission in Asia has been a dismal failure. When the first World Mission Conference met in 1910 in Edinburgh, Scotland, the hope held out by John R. Mott, who headed the movement, was the "Evangelization of the world in this generation". Generations have passed, but Christian missions, despite the massive impact they have had on the life of the continent, has made very insignificant advances in terms of Christianizing the continent. The image that the missionary movement had for Asia was that of Western Europe which had been, in one way or another, made into a "Christian" continent. Despite the enormous resources poured into the missions in China and India, considered pivotal to the Christianization of Asia, success has been very limited.

Why did the missions fail? Were the Asian peoples closed to the possibility of testing and taking on other ways of believing and being? This is certainly not the case, for as we are aware, Buddhism, which began as protest movement in Northern India, was able to spread and strike deep roots in almost all Asian countries that had very different cultures, languages and customs. Why then did Christianity, unlike Buddhism, fail to gain grounds in Asia?

This is a complex subject, and I am sure many reasons would be given by those who are experts in missiology and in the history of the continent.

I would, however, venture to suggest that the primary reason why the missionary movement failed in the Asian continent was the theology of religions and the missiology that went with it. Nothing could have been more further from the spirit, ethos, thinking and practice of Asian religious milieu than the missiology that gave the rationale for the practice of mission. Let me explain.

A Hindu Insight On Christian Missions

Recently my Hindu friend and dialogue partner, Anantanand Rambachan, was asked to speak about the current crisis in Hindu-Christian relations in India, especially over the issue of Conversions. Rambachan has a sympathetic understanding of the Christian faith. He is also well aware of the political dimensions of the issue. He has expressed public dismay about the excesses by sections of the Hindu nationalists, and has roundly condemns any and all types of violence against Christians. He also hails the social dimension of what Christians have done, especially in the upliftment of the dalit, the poor and the oppressed, as something that Hinduism has to learn from and emulate. But the occasion to speak on this issue also afforded him the opportunity to speak more generally about the problem that Hindus have with Christian missions in India.

Rambachan says that religious plurality in Hinduism is based on the Hindu recognition of human diversity. Therefore, in Hinduism, there is the freedom to choose one's religious path (gnana, bhakti and karma margas) and also to worship God in any of the several ways in which God is depicted (ishtadeva, the chosen God). He also acknowledges that there had been religious debates and disputes within the Hindu tradition that has led persons to move from one persuasion to another. The Bhagavadgita, he points out, commends the person who shares its teaching with interested listeners.

"In the light of its historical pluralism and its philosophical insights for accommodating and explaining pluralism," asks Rambachan, "What are the specific problems of Hinduism with Christianity and, more specifically, with Christian evangelization and conversion?"

I would like to quote three brief paragraphs from his speech so that we listen to the Hindu voice:

While the Hindu traditions honoured the freedom of the individuals to select and commit themselves to different spiritual ways, these choices were exercised among the religious alternatives which were evolved in India and which, in spite of their differences, affirmed significant elements of a common world view. Discussions among traditions were dialogical in nature and there was no organized agenda to completely supplant the other viewpoints. Relationships were not aggressive and metaphors not militaristic and triumphant. Traditions were viewed as members of a single family tree.

Christianity arrived in India, in a significant way, as a carriage in the train of Western colonialism. It was associated, in reality and in the mind of Hindus, with imperialism and with the arrogance and disdain of the colonizer towards India and especially towards India's cultural and religious forms and expressions. This association lingers and continues to inform and influence Hindu attitudes to Christianity in India. The Christian attitudes towards Hinduism were seen as echoing Western claims to political and cultural supremacy. These were reflected in its exclusive theological claims to revelation, salvation and truth and its denunciation of Hinduism.... Christianity's explicit wish was to become the religious tradition of India and not to exist humbly alongside other traditions. ....

Rambachan is well aware of the rethinking that has been going on within Christianity and Christian initiatives in the ministry of dialogue in our day. But have they made an impact?

In spite of the fact that Christianity has made revisions in its theological response to Hinduism and continues to discuss and assess its relationship with other religions, such theological movements have had minimal impact on the way in which most Hindus think about or encounter Christianity. These have not transformed, I may also add, the thinking of most Christians about Hinduism.... If as Michael Amalados claims, "most Christian theologians in India agree that all religions facilitate salvific divine-human encounter," and if the Catholic Church affirms "the presence and activity of God in other cultures and religions," the implications of such a different theological stand towards Hinduism must be widely communicated to Hindus and Christians in order that relationships be transformed and Hindus encounter and experience Christianity as a religion which not only recognizes plurality but which is also able to positively affirm the value and significance of other traditions.

But why has this not been forthcoming from the Christians? Here, Rambachan agrees with my contention that traditionally Christian theology has been at the service of missiology, providing the rationale and justification for the missionary enterprise. One of the consequences of this says Rambachan is that "even when Christian thinking about other religions changes, this does not translate itself into review of the nature and meaning of mission".

Thus, while expressing serious reservations about some aspects of the concept of "Hindutva," Rambachan rightly points out that while Hindus would support any form of religious faith "when it is freely chosen in truth," the over all impression that the churches have left on the Hindus is that "Christianity is a tradition which is concerned with extending its power and influence by drawing large numbers of Hindus into its fold." He also points out that "in the eyes of the Hindus Christianity is able to accomplish this because of its better economic resources and its aggressive evangelization." Therefore, "Hindus respond to evangelization as a power struggle and seek, through various means, to limit it and to win back coverts to the Hindu fold".[8]

In the rest of his paper Rambachan goes on to examine the challenge, the presence and witness of Christianity brings to Hinduism itself and regrets that "what is painfully missing in the Hindu response to Christian evangelization and conversion is a spirit introspection and critical appraisal." He highlights all the good reasons why "the so-called untouchable castes" would want to become Christians to regain their human dignity, challenging Hinduism to wrestle with the issue.

I have quoted Rambachan rather extensively so that our discussion of the theology of mission in Asia is done in the context of a well-informed, sympathetic and self-critical Hindu voice on what mission has meant for those at the receiving end.

This subject has been discussed at length, also at the recent CCA-CWM conference on Mission, and we are aware of all the issues. I would, therefore, like to highlight only three main issues that arise from the discussion above that pertain to my own presentation here.

First, while almost all of us are deeply concerned about the colonial heritage of Christianity in India, and are against all forms of aggressive and unethical methods of evangelization, as Rambachan rightly points out, there is precious little or no awareness of any new thinking on this matter in our congregations. Further, Hindus, except a few like Rambachan who has had the opportunity to encounter the new discussions within Christianity, are totally unaware that there is a rethinking taking place within Christianity. This is why I began this presentation with the preliminary remarks on the "theology of the pulpit and the pew" and of the need for a "public practice of theology."

Second, our traditional theology, particularly Christology and the Theology of Religions, implies that the missionary approach is the only real way to be in relationship to others. Therefore, our mission thinking and practice cannot be changed without a new Theology of Religions that would require a revision of our Christology. This concern is at the heart of the earlier seven affirmations I have made on the Theology of Religions.

Third, it appears to me that there is no way in which the traditional understanding of mission can be adjusted, revised or adapted to represent what we would be like to see as Christian witness in Asia. It is not entirely true that the missionary practices are often insensitive, counter productive and aggressive because the missions came to Asia with the colonizing powers. This is of course true to a large extent, but the malaise of the Christian faith already began with the conversion of the Emperor Constantine. Even since, Christianity has been a colonial and aggressive religion. Its Theology, Christology and Missiology are power-ridden through and through. It appears that the only responsible thing that concerned Christians can do is to disown a good part of the mission as we have known it, call for a moratorium on missions in Asia, and work towards a new post-colonial understanding of what Christian witness might mean in Asia, that would be in conformity with the spirit of Christ, and would promote a genuine struggle, along side others, for the true liberation of the peoples of Asia. It is not only Hindus but we Christians also should resist, expose and challenge all forms of unacceptable mission that deny the truth of the Gospel and alienate us from our people and our spiritual heritage.

Five Affirmations On Mission

What then might be some of the dimensions of Christian witness in Asia, and what are some of its presuppositions? I would like to make five affirmations to open up our considerations:

1. We are witnesses to God, and to God's love in Christ, not because God is absent with peoples of other religious traditions but because God is already present with them. It is against the basic Christian affirmations about God to hold that God is not present and active in a saving way among all peoples. God's presence is with humankind is not dependant on our understandings and misunderstanding about God. It is never withdrawn even when we, and others, are disobedient and alienated from God. God intends to bring all of life to what God intends it to be. Our mission is to participate in this mission of God.

2. Not only does God have a life with all peoples, all peoples also have stories of their life with God. Other religions constitute the rich, varied, and often deeply moving stories of the human quest for God and for holy living. They also have stories of people who had found or experienced God, and had responded to God's call to serve humankind. These 'stories' are an essential part of our own spiritual heritage and should inform our theological task. Our witness to God as we have encountered in Jesus Christ has to be given in the context of this reality. The ambiguities that are part of all religious life should not blind us to the reality of God's presence among our neighbours. We do not witness against the religious experiences of others. In Christian witness we add to that experience by, as John Wesley would put it, "heaping grace upon grace."

3. Christian witness and mission are about bringing healing, wholeness, and new life into the lives of individuals, communities and nations, and not about increasing the number of Christians in the world at the expense of other communities. There may be occasions where a person of another religious community may freely want to name the name of Christ and become part of our community. We welcome them. But we are only witnesses to God's love shown for us in Christ. Responding to our witness is the burden of the hearers. In the Old Testament, despite of the belief that God had entered into a covenant relationship with them, the Jewish people did not set out to convert the whole world to Judaism. They considered themselves to be a people called out to live out God's righteousness among the nations. But God remained the God of the nations. Jesus, coming from this tradition, spoke of witness as light, salt and a city that is set upon the hill.

4. Our respect for other religions and engagement with them is not based on the belief that all religions are the same, they are all good, or that they all lead to the same goal. No, religions, despite their many similarities and some common teachings and goals, are not the same; they do not all inspire us to same kind of relationships; they do not share the same vision of society. They are all different, and there may be much in one religion that is different form and even contrary to what another religion teaches. We respect the differences, affirm what we are able to affirm together, and disagree with those aspects of religion that does not make sense to us, even as others do the same with ours. There is room for mutual witness, mutual enrichment and mutual criticism, because all religious life is tainted by human greed, self-centeredness and the sin of alienation from God and one's neighbour. The mutual enrichment and criticism is part of the "mission" that religions extend to one another in the spirit of dialogue.

5. Breaking down barriers, seeking justice and dignity for all, building community, enabling reconciliation and peace among all peoples are at the heart of mission. Any mission that builds barriers, divides the world into the 'saved' and 'unsaved', that makes people narrower, that alienates neighbours, that promotes enmity and rivalry, that is not built on self-giving is not mission. It is a counter witness to God. It betrays God, and in the Christian context, is alien to the spirit and message of Christ.

These affirmations raise some fundamental questions about some of the traditional teachings about the significance of the life and death of Christ, and what has been taught as the rationale, purpose and goals of mission. It is not difficult to find selected biblical passages that seem to challenge these perspectives. But the affirmations, both on the Theology of Religions and on Missiology, are based on the assumption that we need to rethink the "received" Theology of Religions and Missiology. They have not only hampered meaningful Christian witness in Asia, but have also created an atmosphere of alienation, enmity and even hostility between the church and the world of religions.

Two Levels Of Language About God

Is it then wrong for a Christian to believe that Jesus is the "Way the Truth and the Life?" That the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross brought about his or her salvation, and that of the world? That the Church has been called to be witnesses to God and what God has done in Christ? These beliefs and the theological explorations on them are part of what Anselm had called "Faith, seeking understanding." All faith communities develop theological systems to undergird and explicate the faith that brought about the community. They hold enormous significance and meaning to the faith community.

Christians must be free to interpret God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Church and the other dimensions of their faith exactly as they wish to, and in the great diversity of interpretations we find within the church. The Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists do not ask our permission to interpret, celebrate and explicate their belief systems. Christian theology also must maintain this freedom and defend it if necessary. Theology and liturgy are internal to the life of the faith community. They arise out of the specific experience that specific faith of community.

However, when we are dealing the whole human community, and about God's relationship to humankind, we are at a different plane. Here we are not the only actors, nor the only persons with something to say about God. The rules of theological engagement within the faith community do not apply when we begin to deal with the religious life of the wider community. Our own tools and experiences can never do justice to the experiences of the wider community. Here we are in a different ball game; the same rules don't apply.

Traditionally, we, as well as some of the other traditions, have insisted that the terms of our internal conversations of faith also have to be the terms of the wider conversation. This confuses matters for us and to others. The Hindu can never make out why Christians say that there is no other way to be saved when they have not walked the Hindu path, and know nothing about what it offers. It is unbelievable to them that anyone would make such a claim. They find it difficult to put it down to anything other than "ignorance" or "arrogance," the two most commonly used words among Hindus to describe the traditional Christian position on Hinduism.

We must learn the two levels of speaking about God, and to speak them without having to loose our integrity. I am sure this is possible if we are aware of the different levels in which language functions. In fact, we are under pressure to learn these two levels of functioning as we seek, as faithful members of our own community, to be in dialogue with neighbours of other traditions.

III.     Towards A New Understanding Of Community

Finally, I would like to open up for our consideration our concept of "community" in the light of the two issues discussed above. The concept of community is a complex subject because community functions at different levels and all of us are simultaneously members and participants of different communities. We form communities based on nationality, culture, language, caste, ethnicity, race and so on. These identities make us members of multiple and overlapping communities. It is little wonder that religion is also one of the identities that help in the formation of separate communities. At one level it is legitimate that the church as a worshiping, witnessing, and serving community has its own identity; it is a "Eucharistic fellowship," built on the memory of what it believes God to have done in Jesus Christ.

It is interesting, however, that the word "parish" originally meant a district or a geographical entity, rather than a group of people who believed in a particular way. The parishioners were people who lived in a particular area irrespective of what they believed. Such demarcation of the country into parishes was of course done at a time when all the people in the nation were considered Christians, at least nominally. The concept of seeing peoples of a geographic area as a religious unit, however, offers some interesting possibilities.

In the Asian context of religious plurality, while there are specific religious communities like Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and so on, there is no concept of a "religious community" of a place that cuts across all religious traditions. However, the emergence of the interfaith movement in many parts of the world has given new meaning to the concept of a "religious community" in a given place, made up of different communities of faith. These communities have not only developed an internal dynamics of growing together but have also begun to address issues that are common to all peoples in the community. This is a welcome development and holds out a significant promise of the directions in which institutionalized religious life will shape itself in the new millennium.

What I am attempting to convey is that at the level religious life we need to learn to belong to community also at two different levels- first to our specific religious community and also to the wider religious community of a given geographical area. Some of you would remember that M.M. Thomas, in the context of the search for nation-building and humanization of life in the post-colonial India, called for the establishment of a "secular fellowship"- by which he meant that all who are interested in the humanization of life, whether Hindus, Muslims, Christians or Marxists, belong to a "fellowship" or a community of struggle.

One of the most urgent needs in Asia today is for us, along with others, to forge these communities that cut across religious barriers but are still motivated by religious beliefs. Without the emergence of such communities there is little or no hope for greater understanding and mutual respect among religious groups.

In the Western world the concept of a 'religious community' in a place is emerging as a response to religious plurality. Such a response, in one sense, may be easier because, at least nominally, Christians are still the majority in most Western countries. Christian minorities in Asia may have the fear of being absorbed, of losing their identity, or of simply being overwhelmed by numbers. But such fears and reservations are legitimate only in the context of a polemical and adversarial relationship to the majority community. In India, for example, minority religions like Sikhism and Jainism have been able not only to survive, but continue to be thriving communities, despite the overwhelming reality of Hinduism.

There is also a deeper theological reason for our need to be part of a wider fellowship. God's purpose, as we often claim, rightly, is not to save the church, but the world. The church is a participant in, and witness to the mission of God. The Church's mission is thus a part of God's mission in the world. But we would have no way to discern and participate in this wider mission of God without being part of the wider community. The "wider spiritual fellowship" that we develop with others may well be the way in which God would be able to use us in God's wider mission.

The Searching Question

A. P. Nirmal, the late Dalit theologian from India, says that the problem with Christian theology is that it always tends to put the cart before the horse. We come into the context with ready-made theological positions and find that the context has to be rejected or changed because it does not "fit" our theology. But if we put the context first, and take it seriously, then we would find that it is our theological concepts that are inadequate and needs to be re-thought in and for the context.

So it is with doing theology in the context of religious plurality. If we come with a ready-made theology to encounter plurality, we are sure to be stuck in the mud of confusion. But if we take the reality of religious plurality and ask what does it say to our theology, we may well be in for a theological adventure.

Notes:

1. Aloysius Pieris, "Western Christianity and Asian Buddhism: A Theological reading of Historical Encounters," Dialogue, New Series VII 2, 1980 (Pieris' emphases), p.49.

2. Ibid., p.50-51. Pieris here refers to the essay by Raimundo Panikkar, "Philosophy of Religion in the Contemporary Encounter of Cultures" in Contemporary Philosophy: A Survey, R. Klibansky, ed., (Florence, 1971), p.228f.

3. Kenneth Cracknell, Towards a New Relationship: Christians and People of Other Faith, (Epworth Press, 1986), p.9

4. This assertion is made on the basis of my reading the material of the preparatory process that led to the Tambaram meeting that are housed in the WCC Archives

5. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Mission, "Dialogue and God's Will for Us" in: International Review of Mission- Tambaram Revisited, Vol.LXXVIII No. 307, July 1998, p.372.

6. "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions" (Nostra Aetate), Walter M. Abbott, S.J., ed., and Joseph Gallagher, translations editor, The Documents of Vatican II, (New York: America Press, 1966), pp. 661-63.

7. Felix Wilfred, Drawing a Deep Breath- Development in the Understanding of Mission Since Vatican II. Paper presented at the Conference, pp.12-19 (now published).

8. All quotations and substance of what Anantanand Rabachan has said are from his unpublished paper, "Evangelization and Conversion Reconsidered in the Light of Contemporary Controversy in India- A Hindu Assessment." - Unpublished. Quoted with the permission of the author.