Hermen Shastri, Professor of Theology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

One of the challenges which goes to the centre of our ecumenical commitment is that of dialogue with peoples of other faiths. This commitment has taken on a spirit of urgency as we witness a world increasingly being torn apart by religious polarisation and intolerance.

Tensions in Dialogue

The context of dialogue for many today is not neutral ground but a context of suspicion and resistence. There are many unholy alliances between religion and politics where dominant religions have threatened the rights of minorities. Religious fundamentalism, having taking radical forms, expresses its political aspirations in violent ways. Fears and anxieties abound as religious communities contend with the encroachment into their socities of western influences through globalization, threatening the traditional hold such communities have exercised over their people.

At the same time, it is to be observed that there is a world-wide reawakening of religion to an historical vocation that is calling their adherents to a renewed commitment to the missionary expansion of their faith. In a world that has grown pluralistic, such competition for new converts by various religions has caused mistrust to grow in many places. For instance in Malaysia, in the last five years, there has been a stepping up of proselytising efforts by various Islamic bodies both nationally and internationally. Christian communities are quite vocal in making public their displeasure, yet there seems to be no letting up of such efforts. As a Muslim friend of mine once jokingly commented to me, “Many of the modern methods we use in Islamic missions we learnt from the history of Christian missions. So why are the Christians complaining when they are missionising everybody in the world all the time!”.

Tensions also arise when so-called “Christian Nations” of the West are perceived to be promoters of a global culture that gives more significance to Western (thus Christian!) values than values emanating from the rich civilizations of Asia. In dialogue one often hears of the double standards practised by so-called Christian nations who belittle if not misrepresent other religions in their societies. In fact, non-Christian religions maintain that the whole thrust towards global peace and harmony for the sake of the survival of all humanity is a concern that has grown out of the East rather than the West.

Ecumenical experiments in interfaith dialogues, amidst these tensions, have provided us with countless volumes of documentation as to the channels open to us to move forward and seek a more contextually relevant dialogue with our partners of other faiths. I shall not attempt to deal with all the approaches of effective dialogue in my presentation. It would require more time than what has been allocated to me. Rather I shall deal directly
with what I perceive to be two new developments which, if sustained, hold great promise for the future.

But first a working definition of dialogue so that we can appreciate what we are aspiring for together ecumenically.

Definition of Dialogue

Ever since the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches unanimously adopted a set of “Guidelines on Dialogue” (1979), the task of dialogue became an attempt to understand and express Christianity not just in terms of our own spiritual heritage but also in relation to the spiritual heritage of our neighbours of other faiths.

In that document, dialogue is defined as an encounter between people emanating out of common life experiences. It takes place between individuals and communities as they live out their faith and convictions, bound together by common loyalties and traditions. It is not a dialogue of religious dogmas as much as it is also a dialogue of life. True dialogue, according to that document, happens when the partners involved are willing to listen and learn and to question their own self-understanding as well as their understanding of the other.

The goal is to pave the way for peace, but a peace that is rooted in the just and moral teachings of each religion. Partnership and cooperation in dealing with common issues must inspire the dialogue partners. Lastly, a retheologizing of one’s inherited religious dogmas and traditions must take place as the understanding of GOd and “orthopraxis” are brought into a dialectical relationship.

The Asian Path of Dialogue

Experiences of dialogue in the Asian context have quickly established the superficiality of dialogue based on the comparative study of religions as ‘systems of creed, cult and polity’. Religious communities in Asia revealed differences in emphasis and faith expressions, which to a large extent, have been conditioned by the socio-political environment. Hence, the focus has shifted to viewing religious communities as ‘believing communities’ sharing a common life with others as a community among other communities.

Believing communities living together engage in collectively shaping their society governed by a common political order. Each religion, exisiting as a community of communities, contributes to, participates in and lives by a common national ethos partly determined by their religion. A point in case is reflected in the Malaysian situation, where the various religious believing communities are committed to a multireligious society and therefore are prepared to make adjustments, socially or religiously, so long as they do not touch on the core concerns of their faith.

Such collaboration is possible only when each community of faith is aware that their religion does not exist for itself but in relation to their neighbours, and that the integrity of their religious beliefs must be tested by the practice of their faith in terms of upholding justice and peace.

The CCA Experiment

In 1996, the International Affairs desk of the CCA took a decisive step when it planned a Muslim-Christian dialogue which sought to go beyond interreligious dialogue for mutual understanding to dialogue for exploring areas of cooperation in responding creatively to the common challenges of all peoples of emerging Asian societies.

Inviting joint preparation and planning with Muslim leaders, the programme of the consultation was owned jointly by the Muslim and Christian partners.

The introductory questions that addressed the tensions between faith and community in the letter of invitation set the tone of the dialogue:

What transpired was not, in the first place, dialogue about themselves but about arriving at a common understanding of the Asian situation and a common interpretation of the historical responsibility each religion has for social transformation.

The final document that came out of that dialogue, held in Manila on 24-29 March 1996, admitted that the consultation provided a rare occasion for being “mutually enriched in our understanding of the...dynamics between religion, politics and the state, the issues of religion and culture, including ethnicity, gender and relations between minority and majority communities”.

This case of joint cooperation and joint ownership of the outcome serves as an exciting step forward that allows dialogue to take place on three levels.

l am of the opinion that greater attention must be paid to such forms of dialogue in the Asian scene in the coming years.

Civilizational Dialogue

Another interesting experiment which is taking dialogue into a new mode of discourse is one that is being initiated by Islamic institutions in Malaysia. They are calling it civilizational dialogue.

The basis of dialogue here is to look at religions as among the principal bearers of peoples’ languages, traditions, cultural identity and social cohesion through the ages. Religions have also served as the conscience of society. Yet history shows that religion has always been used to legitimize power and control over society. In many instances, those who exercise political power and those who shape public opinion often have used religious sentiments to undergird narrow, natiomial, political and imperialistic interests.

Samuel Huntington in his proposition of the “Clash of Civilizations” maintains that since religions and cultures have shaped and given identity to peoples belonging to one civilization, history shows us, on the other hand, the interplay of conflict between one civilization and another. In a review of history in the post Cold War era, he maintains that the religious fault lines of today in the world are the potential areas of the clash and conflict of civilizations in the near future.

In civilizational dialogue, the question is asked whether civilizations will necessarily clash or ought to clash. If world religions are rooted in a commitment to universality and tolerance, then there is hope that through sincere and committed dialogue, people of peace and goodwill can be mobilised to resort to the higher ideals of their religions and offer a common front against forces in the world that lead humankind to violence and enviromental destruction.

In civilizational dialogue, the ideals and excesses of religion are examined in its socioeconomic, political and cultural totality. At the same time, common ground is sought where each religious dialogue partner, reinforced with his/her own religious concept of ultimate human destiny, seeks cooperation of others in building together a common body of social ethics that can pave the way to mutual commitment.

The proposal of the World Parliament of Religions of a ‘global ethic’ features prominently in the discourse of civilizational dialogues. In fact, a clash of civilizations can be averted if religions of the world seek an ethical base of universal significance and in line with the noble religious aspirations of people of faith. The proposal is for the acceptance of the ‘Golden Rule’ which all religions teach: “Do not do to others what you do not wish to be done to you”.

It is interesting to note that based on the ‘global ethic’, a “Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities” has been formulated. It would be worthy to note these as a basis for our efforts of dialogue in t he future:

A rich diversity of religious experiences and forms seems to be God’s greatest gifts to the world, but it requires from us the virtues of humility, understanding, sympathy and a readiness to listen and learn. Real peace, global unity can only come about through dialogue in the spirit of faith, hope and love.