Christian triumphalism has no place in interreligious dialogue. The view that other religions lack complete salvific truths and that the elements of truth that they have derived their validity from the merits of Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church does not reflect the attitude of Christ himself. During his earthly ministry, Christ did not advocate for the eradication of Judaism, rather he preached a message that had liberating consequences for all persons (Von Balthasar 1982, 245). The centrality of love of neighbor in the mission of Christ means not only to love the stranger but to go further and demonstrate authentic hospitality as well as develop bonds of friendship with one’s neighbor.
In this work, I explore hospitality philosophically, theologically, and culturally as a human condition that makes friendship possible. Here, the works of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas are central for understanding how hospitality fosters interreligious encounters; yet, the contributions of other philosophers like René Descartes, Edmund Husserl, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-Luc Marion are examined. The aim for this theological appropriation of hospitality is to show that humans, as religious beings, are called by God to be hospitable toward each other and to create bonds of friendship. Friendship, as a tool for constructing a dialogical model among religions, should be grounded in a specific meaning of the word. To this end, the definition of friendship by Jürgen Moltmann is used and supported by the philosophical contributions of Aristotle, Cicero, Derrida, Plato, and Buber.
In short, this work makes two claims: that hospitality and friendship are innately part of the human condition and that both constitute a relevant part of every religious tradition. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Marion, Buber, and Levinas argue for relationality as part of the constitutive make-up of collective humanity (see Plato 1991, 12, 16, 17; Aristotle 1953, 205–206; Cicero 1991, 90; Aquinas 2.1.109.2; Marion 2002, 9; Buber 1958, 6; Levinas 1999, 101). This does not mean that every human being lives authentically in the graced process of relationality. These authors argue, to live truly, humans must relate to one another with openness, trust, and a willingness to be vulnerable.
To successfully encounter a religion so that our impressions correspond to the lived experiences of its adherents, I dialogue with the Catholic community in Ihievbe in Midwestern Nigeria and explore the elements that both hold it together and define its identity in a religiously pluralistic context. I analyze the cultural heritage of the people and underscore the community’s emphasis on social harmony. Among the Ihievbe people, the role of their ancestors is closely linked to the preservation of social harmony and brings the significance of hospitality and friendship into their consciousness.
Christianity, like other religions, has a rich heritage on concrete practices of hospitality by its founder, Jesus Christ. The relational qualities of the hypostatic union in Jesus Christ can be understood within the broader framework of hospitality because hospitality affirms a sense of innate generosity of encounter with another. Through hospitality, the host and the guest express a sense of generosity. A gift proceeds from the generosity of the heart of the giver and is received because of a generous willingness on the part of the guest. Through the incarnate Christ, generosity of God and humanity are both affirmed and preserved as God encounters humanity with a pure desire to share God’s divinity with humanity. The hypostatic union serves as a witness to this divine gesture. Humanity also demonstrates generosity by receiving this gesture of love from God in and through Jesus Christ. Humanity’s generosity is sustained by God’s grace and humanity’s free agreement to this divine invitation. To deny human generosity is to deny human free will. Christian theology maintains a balance between the salvific actions of God and the free response of humanity, while affirming that the ability to make choices is itself a gift from God, a gift that may be refused nonetheless.
Islam and Ihievbe Traditional Religion have rich heritages that encourage the practice of hospitality and friendship. I will explore these traditions to show how hospitality and friendship help construct a dialogical model for religions in a pluralistic setting. From Islam, I appropriate texts that reveal the role of relationality and survey the life of the Prophet Mohammed to discover how hospitality and friendship promote interreligious encounters. To substantiate the argument that religions provide openings for relations between different faith traditions, I will recover the foundation of ancestral relationality found in Ihievbe Traditional Religion.
Though hospitality is necessary for a religious dialogical model, friendship solidifies what hospitality initiates. It involves opening the heart to another, be he a stranger or acquaintance, out of care for the good of the other, and friendship signifies a deliberate desire to encounter each other in unexplored depths. Friendship with a stranger shatters concepts of him/her as less human or possessing partial salvific truths. I argue that friendship among members of different religions brings about fruitful dialogue, even in matters that appear irreconcilable. In his writings on interreligious relations among people, Amos Yong recognizes how friendship revives hope during times of religious violence (Yong 2008, 19).
For Aristotle, friendship is reciprocal by its nature and mutuality is fundamental for perfect friendship (Aristotle 205). Within interreligious dialogue, desire for the good of the other is not proselytizing; rather, dialogical encounter is the common project, and the desire to know one another is rooted in mutual respect. The kind of friendship for which I advocate in this work transcends Aristotle’s claim that perfect friendship exists only between two persons (210). Borrowing from Buber, if the human condition is grounded in the desire to encounter the other, perfect friendship is not a closed project restricted to two persons, rather it is the authentic way of relational encounters. In other words, relationality is the human condition (Buber 6).
Friendship as a theological model for interreligious dialogue requires openness to the other and letting the other define herself/himself in the context of the friendship. This model is different from the colonial missionary model as pointed out by Vítor Westhelle, which creates the conditions that allow the colonial agent to be in control of the outcome (see Westhelle 2010, 15–32), and categorizes the other either as an outsider in need of redemption or as a heretical insider in need of rehabilitation. For example, in Africa, the colonial and missionary agents viewed the indigenous people as inferior, which legitimizes a systematic eradication of the cultures and religious fervor of the people. A counter-approach to the evangelical and colonial ideology, this model of true friendship is open to surprises, to joys, sorrows, expectations, always with a willingness to engage.
Culturally, Ihievbe people hold that the ancestral link with the community serves as the constant guide for them to relate through hospitality and friendship. In other words, the human person has a graced link that serves both as a guide for living the ethical life of relational encounters and as constitutive of the human identity. Ancestors live, not in a different world, but through the members of the community, which disposes the members to the conditions for relationality. People are expected to live their lives guided by the examples of the ancestors by showing hospitality as well as forming bonds of friendship.
Another common characteristic shared by Christianity, Islam, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion is that relationality is a gift from the other. In the Christian tradition, God is the ultimate other who invites humans to encounter God (Rolnick 2007, 7). For humans to attain the fullness of their humanity, they agree to this divine invitation. In the philosophical tradition, Buber argues that the fullness of relationality is conditioned by the presence of the other. The other’s presence is an invitation to engage and be relational. In the Ihievbe worldview, true relational existence is conditioned by the ancestors who invite the community to be faithful to their roots.
Among the Ihievbe people, hospitality and friendship touch every aspect of human interaction and extend to contacts with non-humans. The ground for existential harmony is right relationship with the other, and people believe in the collective and individual responsibility to live harmoniously. Thus, differences in religious beliefs are dealt with amicably to preserve the peace. The people adopt a pragmatic approach, one that views the primary purpose of religion as bringing about the flourishing of life in all its expressions. It becomes a serious source of contradiction to find religious views encouraging violence and the destruction of life. Even when religion advocates an eschatological promise of eternal life,...