Moving Beyond the Impasse

Reorienting Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations

S. Wesley Ariarajah

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781506446325
• eBook ISBN:
  9781506446332
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religious Ecumenism & Interfaith

Interfaith dialogue in a plural world.

This volume is based on the belief that both the ecumenical and interfaith movements are looking for new orientations for their future. The forces of globalization, communications revolution, and massive population movements challenge some of the theological assumptions and presuppositions on which they were built. The entry of deep and divisive religious sentiments into the public space and the rise of militant forms of religious expression call on the interfaith movement to move beyond traditional forms of dialogue; the challenge is to enter into a deeper engagement on the purpose and role of religious traditions in society. The impasse facing these movements can only be overcome by new orientations as they look to the future. This volume is not specifically on this problem. However, the collection of essays included in this volume, although first given as lectures or written as articles, traces past developments, identifies the challenges these movements face today, and suggests fresh theological moves to regain the initiatives to bring human communities closer together.

I

Issues in Interfaith Dialogue

1

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

In late 2003 President Bush said, in response to a reporter’s question, that he believed Muslims and Christians “worship the same God.” The remark sparked criticism from some Christians, who thought Bush was being politically correct but theologically inaccurate. For example, Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, said, “The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite.” TheChristian Century requested several scholars to consider the question. My response appeared as the fourth of the series in The Christian Century, June 1, 2004 issue. I have placed this as the opening article of this volume because it sets the tone for the articles that follow on Interfaith Relations and Ecumenism.

---

In Asian traditions a question can be answered in four ways: “yes”; “no”; “I don’t know”; and silence. “I don’t know” (or “maybe”) means that the issue is complex and that one needs to nuance the answer from a variety of perspectives. It also indicates that one needs to explore the subject rather than be rushed into giving a yes or no answer—which unfortunately is becoming an obsession among some groups of Christians.

Even though some questions can and perhaps should be answered with a clear yes or no, in the field of ethics one comes across gray areas where clear-cut answers are less than helpful. What is right—pacifism or just war theory? Pro-life or pro-choice? We need to talk about such issues at some length. A simple yes or no answer does violence to the issue.

Then there is silence. Silence is used when the disciple needs to reflect further on the question itself. Not all questions are validly formulated; not all of them help deeper exploration of the issue; not all of them arise out of genuine concern to know. The guru’s silence sends the disciple back for further reflection. At other times the guru maintains silence because the question is on a matter beyond verbal response or intellectual exploration. The only assistance the teacher can give is to enable the disciple to have the experience necessary to know the answer for him or herself. The question “Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?” raises the possibility of a fifth kind of answer: Yes and No.

The Jewish writer Chaim Potok powerfully lifts up the issues involved here in a story about a young Jewish rabbi traveling in Japan. At a Buddhist shrine the rabbi saw an old Japanese man, prayer book in hand, slowly swaying back and forth as he stood in prayer. The young rabbi asked his Jewish companion, “Do you think our God is listening to him?”

“I don’t know, . . . I never thought about it.”

“Neither did I until now. If He’s [God] not listening, why not?”

“If he is listening, then—well, what are we all about?”^[1]

The question of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God is not only a question about Muslims but one about all people of whatever religious tradition who raise their hearts and hands in prayer to the Divine Other. Is God listening to their prayers? If not, why not?

This has little to do with Abraham or Abrahamic faiths (as George Bush’s theology of political necessity would have it) but with the deeper issues of what it means to affirm the oneness of God and what consequences we draw from it for our attitudes and actions.

The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions insist that there is one God and that God is the creator, provider, and protector of all. “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world and those who live in it,” says the psalmist (Ps 24:1). The inspiration for this belief comes from the creation narratives and the universal covenant God is said to have made with the whole of creation after the flood. Therefore the Jewish tradition, despite its strong sense of a covenant relationship with God, gradually began to insist that God is also, at the same time, the “God of the nations.”

The dilemma here is an obvious one. Members of the Jewish community either had to worship Yahweh as their tribal god, allowing for the possibility of other gods who listen to the prayers of other nations, or they, as strict monotheists, had to draw the logical conclusion that God, whom they worshiped as Yahweh, is also the God of all nations. The Hebrew Scripture do not draw out the full theological implications of this strict monotheism, but we get glimpses of it in several parts of Scripture: “‘Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel?’ says the Lord. ‘Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?’” (Amos 9:7).

The Book of Jonah is a protest against those who thought God listened only to the prayers of the people of Israel. Jonah felt completely betrayed and let down by God when God listened to the prayers of the gentiles of Nineveh. God could not do otherwise.

The problem is that most Christians, despite their lip service to monotheism, in fact are unconscious polytheists. They allow for other gods to listen to the prayers of their neighbors. They draw boundaries for “their” God and decide where and when their God is allowed to listen, act, and bring about wholeness.

If Christians are true believers in the oneness of God, the inevitable conclusion has to be that God, whom we have come to know in Jesus Christ, is the same One who listens to the prayers of all people, including Muslims.

It is in this sense that the answer to the question is an unqualified “yes.” We all worship the same God. Who else is there to listen to the prayer of a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Christian except the One in whom all live and move and have their being? For those who want to hang on to monotheism, there can be only one God and one human family.

But is this the whole story? If this is the only consideration, then all religions are the same, and there is no need for people to be Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians.

In fact, we are different because even though we worship one God, different religious traditions have different visions of who this God is, how God relates to humankind, and what God requires of us. Here the diversity of perceptions about God makes us into different religious traditions.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam originated in the same geographical area and were in close relationship with each other. It is little wonder that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share some parts of their Scriptures, some common ancestors like Abraham, and some common beliefs about God. But a closer look would also show remarkable differences in their concepts of God and the consequences they draw from them. In fact, as one familiar with the many schools within Hinduism, I as a Christian find myself in closer affinity with some of the Hindu concepts of God than those of the Jewish and Islamic traditions. Happily no one has a monopoly on God.

It should come as no surprise that religions are different and that their concepts of God, despite many commonalities, are quite different from one another. It is in this sense that the answer to the question can also be a qualified “no.” No, we are not praying to the “same” God as far as our images of God are concerned. In fact, this is why we need interfaith dialogue. We have much to learn from one another about God and God’s ways with humankind.

The discussion does not end there. Does God listen to the prayers only of those who hold the “right” view of who God is, and what God requires of us? Would God say, “No, I am not going to listen to the prayers of such and such a group, because they wiped out nations in my name, because they build unjust social structures in my name, because they have gone to war in my name, because they don’t call me by the ‘right’ name, or simply because their doctrines do not quite correspond to who I am”?

If this, as some tend to think, is God’s attitude to prayer, which of us, Christian or Muslim, dare say that God is listening to our prayers! Which of us can claim to have a full knowledge of God? Jesus’s own vision of God is that God causes “the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matt 5:45). For God, as a God of love, cannot do otherwise.

What then can we say? Does God, whom we celebrate in Jesus Christ, listen to the prayers of a Muslim? If not, why not? Do we, as Christians and Muslims, despite the different ways we think about God, pray to the “same” God? How many Gods do we allow for in the universe?

We have seen that there are now five possible ways of answering the basic question. They are not “right” or “wrong” answers. But the answer we give says something about who we are, and who our God is.

---

1. Chaim Potok, The Book of Lights (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1981), 261–62. ↵
   

2

Interreligious and Pluralistic Dimensions of Circles

Is there a geometrical model to explore the meaning and practice of interfaith relations? The International Gandhian Institute for Nonviolence and Peace, based in Madurai, India, called a conference in Chennai to explore the circle as a possible model. This is the presentation I made at that conference.

---

The concept of the circle plays an important role today in behavioral sciences, especially in explorations in interpersonal psychology. It is being used to build models of relationships that would help the self in its own self-understanding and its relationship to other selves. It also provides a holistic, comprehensive, and participatory pedagogical method in the field of education and an effective tool in the search of reconciliation and peace in postconflict contexts. What I hope to do is to highlight a few dimensions of the circle that have immediate relevance to plurality and to the dynamics of interreligious relationships.

Power Dynamics

Power is an inalienable dimension of all human relationships—whether between individuals, groups, or nations. The presence of power imbalance is a given in all pluralistic situations because power accrues through one’s status in life, wealth, race, caste, gender, social and political affiliation, and so on. In theory, power is neutral; it is simply the capacity to make things happen. It can be harnessed, directed, and used for good. But it can also be abused to control, dominate, and overwhelm others. Some persons are aware of the power they have, or have had given to them, and exercise it judiciously; others exploit it. Many exercise it without being conscious of it, and are unaware of the way it is perceived and experienced by those to whom they relate.

Power is exercised not only by individuals but more importantly by social, religious, economic, and political institutions. We allow some institutions, such as the state, to accrue and exercise much power so that they can have the ability to organize the life of a nation for the common good of the people. Some institutions work toward becoming powerful, or even grab power, so that they can exercise it for their own benefit. There is also the “latent power” of the masses of poor and oppressed people that can be mobilized and organized for their well-being. Unless they are thus “empowered” they are unconscious of the power they can exercise to change their situation. Thus, power relations and imbalances are built into our relationships and into our social and cultural fabric. We do ourselves and our causes a disservice by not recognizing, acknowledging, and dealing with it creatively. Although the question of power relates to all dimensions of life, I would here lift up the way it plays out in the context of plurality and especially in interreligious relationships.

Religious communities and institutions exercise power. By virtue of their vocation to enable, direct, and enhance the spiritual life of their adherents, all religious institutions have what one might call “spiritual” power. Religious communities, however, are also social institutions and are perceived by others to be powerful because of their association with colonial powers, their wealth, the influence they have in society, the institutions they direct, the political allegiances they have, or simply because they constitute the majority in the community. Whatever the reason, the in-built power realities have to be dealt with in pluralistic and interfaith contexts by devising ways that undermine the corrosive and divisive influence of power. And the only way to deal with the reality of power is to ensure its judicious use and its distribution so that it has the function of enabling rather than controlling.

The intention to diffuse power can be expressed in geometrical terms. It is here that we are helped by thinking of relationships within pluralistic and interfaith contexts in terms of the circle. The circle represents a nonhierarchical model of reality; everything that constitutes the circle stands side by side, equidistant to a common center. Within the political realm, for instance, the desire to diffuse power and give some measure of equal status to the attending parties has been adopted in the concept of th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Table Of Contents
• Introduction
• Issues in Interfaith Dialogue
• Education and Dialogue
• Ecumenism and Dialogue
• Dialogue and Ecumenism in Asia: A Peek into History
• Acknowledgments
• Index of Names and Subjects