Theology Annual vol.19 1998. p.97-122
* * * * * * * * * *
This article discusses the modern attitude of the Church towards inter-religious dialogue. Especially in the 1980s, the Church had a more open attitude, perceiving the advantages of inter-religious dialogue. Nowadays the attitude tends to be more conservative, stressing rather the dangers in inter-religious dialogue. For this reason, The author approaches a discussion of inter-religious dialogue from the perspectives of a theology of Trinitarian communion and a theology of the Cross of Christ. He hopes that this consideration will facilitate a more open attitude within inter-religious dialogue. He stresses that those engaged in inter-religious need to remember several things. Part of the meaning of the suffering encountered in inter-religious dialogue stems from the fact that, within the dialogue, Christians cannot forfeit their Christian identity. From the perspective of faith, the reason for religious suffering lies in the fact that Christ suffered for us. On a human level, human beings suffer, and therefore there is a need for a liberation of life, and a need to suffer on behalf of those who suffer and are oppressed.
本篇以天主教聖三論基督論觀點來討論宗教交談的論文，內容分析了現今教會對宗教交談的觀念，尤其在八十年代，教會的態度比較開放，注意到宗教交談的好處。現今的教會則比較保守，強調在宗教交談上的危險。 因此，作者從聖三共融神學和基督十字架神學與宗教交談上立論，希望為宗教交談打開一個解放性的態度，也強調在交談中使人了解到：宗教受苦的意義，故基督徒在宗教交談上不可失去自己的身份，在信仰上也要明白宗教受苦的原因，因為基督為人受苦，從人的現象上看，人也受苦，因此，需要有生命的解放，也具體地為窮苦者，受迫害者受苦......。
* * * * * * * * * *
Inter-religious dialogue arouses a certain amount of interest in the Church as a whole and in the missionary world in particular. At the same time, it sparks off widely diverse reactions, which can be loosely synthesized in two opposing views. The first sees in dialogue a royal road to relativism, with the risk of undermining not only the absolute value of Christianity but also the need for missionary work and conversion to Christ. A leading Protestant theologian of the present day, E. Jungel, states significantly with regard to dialogue: “I believe that there are many roads which lead to Rome, but few which lead to God. The New Testament tells us there is just one: ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”(2)
The second attitude grants to dialogue an enthusiastic reception, not only as a solution but also as a substitute for all missionary endeavors. Those who hold this view include Catholic and Protestant authors such as P. Knitter, R. Pannikar, J. Hick, D. Cupitt, W. C. Smith and others. These authors affirm, though in different ways, the urgency of replacing traditional Christ-centred theology with God-centred or Salvation-centred theology.
P. Knitter states in direct opposition to Jungel: “There are therefore, not just various paths leading to the summit of Mount Fuji, but these paths must criss-cross and learn from one another, if they want to continue on their journey.”(3)Other authors, while taking care not to distance themselves from New Testament Christological positions, propose a thorough revision of traditional Christology. These include among others, H. Kung, A. Pieris, T. Balasuriva, G. M. Soares Prabhu, I. Puthiadam. Catholic Theologians who are from the Asiatic region propose a clear-cut distinction between the Christ of History and the Cosmic Christ. The first is the founder of Christianity and, insofar as he was a historic personage, just one of the many religious prophets, while the second is the ultimate fulfillment of religions, of humanity and of the cosmos.
From what we have briefly mentioned above, it is evident that the Christological question is the central and determining one in this debate. Here it follows the two apparently opposite aspects of the Christological dilemma. On one hand we have the absolute value of the Paschal Kerygma, the impossibility of evincing the mystery of Christ from the collective hopes of humankind and the unique salvific mediation of Christ. On the other hand we have the great esteem and trust in the human religious experience that reveals and mediates the Absolute to human beings.
The Catholic Magisterium has issued several strong pronouncements in favor of dialogue, in particular two documents from the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. The first, issued in 1984, is entitled The attitude of the Church towards the followers of other religions. Reflections and guidelines on Dialogue and Mission. In this document, dialogue is seen, together with evangelization, as a constituent part of the mission of the Church.
The second document, published in 1991, Dialogue and proclamation, Reflections and Guidelines on inter-religious dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, offers mostly explanations of technical terminology. Mission and Evangelization are seen as synonyms embracing the whole ambit of the Church’s action in the world.
According to this second document the Church’s mission of evangelization comprises various activities, including dialogue and proclamation. These two activities are distinct, each possessing its own status and enjoying its own value. Proclamation naturally constitutes the foundation, the center and summit of evangelizing, since the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the aim at which the entire evangelizing mission of the Church is directed. Other religions are viewed in this document with great open-mindedness: their adherents are saved by Christ, not in spite of their religion but through the faithful practice of that religion, and in some wondrous manner, precisely by virtue of that religion (n. 29). According to J. Dupuis, this last affirmation is a theological novelty in the official teaching of the Church.(4)
There were also extraordinary events which one would have deemed impossible of realization until a few years ago, events which marked memorable moments in the field of official dialogue. Let us mention here only some of the most important. The Prayer Meeting at Assisi in 1986; the meeting at Trastevere in October 1996 marking the 10th anniversary of the Assisi meeting; the meeting “Buddhism and Christianity: Points of agreement and disagreement” held at the monastery of Fo Kuang Shan in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, in the summer of 1995, which was organized by Cardinal F. Arinze and the venerable Hsing Yun, the Abbot of the monastery.
The 1986 meeting in Assisi attracted world-wide attention because of its strong symbolic significance and evocative appeal. Through its emotional impact, John Paul II gave a powerful boost to inter-religious dialogue. On 22 December 1986, the Holy Father spoke to the Roman Curia about the Assisi meeting and its spirit, replying to criticisms and quandaries which had arisen within the Church. He expressed himself in words which, in my opinion, are amongst the most significant he has ever spoken on the subject of inter-religious dialogue: “The Church is called upon to work, to the limits of its strength, (including Evangelization, Prayer and Dialogue) to settle the divisions and partitions among men (¼ ). What took place at Assisi can be seen as a clear illustration, a factual lesson, a catechesis understood by all, of what the ecumenical concern and the concern for inter-religious dialogue, both recommended and championed by the Vatican Council, presuppose and signify. The very identity of the Catholic Church and the Church’s knowledge of herself were both strengthened at Assisi. Indeed, the Church, and all of us in the light of that happening, came to understand more clearly the real meaning of the mystery of unity and reconciliation that the Lord has entrusted to us, and which he himself was the first to practice when he offered his life ‘not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God’ (Jn 11:52).”(5)
In this statement of the Holy Father, in his symbolic gestures, and also in the documents of the Secretariat for Dialogue, we notice that an emphasis is now placed on the need for the dialogue, and that dialogue is also defended against criticism and proposed for general practice.
Recent expressions of theological opinion on dialogue seem to have slightly changed their tone, becoming more thoughtful and more subdued.(6) See the series of editorials in La Civilta Cattolica under the title “Christianity and other religions,”(7) an article of H. Waldenfels which also appeared in La Civilta Cattolica,(8) and an exacting article of Cardinal Ratzinger.(9) While affirming the good points of inter-religious dialogue, these articles mention also the risks, the difficulties, the dangers and the limits of dialogue, especially when it is motivated by theological suppositions which are a betrayal of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith.
In the worst of the scenarios described by critics, inter-religious dialogue is depicted as a constituent element of religious pluralism and modern syncretist tendencies, a form of modern relativism and the product of the failure of ideological certainties.
Is inter-religious dialogue indeed a species of relativism spawned by extreme forms of syncretism such as the New Age? To put this problem in its proper perspective it is necessary to make various distinctions. First of all, we must distinguish between inter-religious dialogue and the theology of religions. Though they are in a certain sense inter-related, they are two entirely different matters. The theology of religions consists in a theological interpretation of other religions; it explains the role they play in the Catholic outlook of the world and its salvation. It is also necessary to distinguish the theological question of the salvation of non-Christians from the theology of inter-religious dialogue.
The theology of inter-religious dialogue must in turn be carefully distinguished from the problems raised by liberation theology, even though some promoters of inter-religious dialogue (such as P. Knitter,(10) A. Pieris and T. Balasuriya) are also proponents of the Asian version of liberation theology. Moreover, the evolution of contemporary Church-consciousness towards inter-religious dialogue is totally unrelated to the collapse of formerly widely held ideologies and the consequent rise of modern day relativism. This evolution commenced, if we wish to fix a date, with the Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam of Paul VI (1964) - the encyclical of dialogue. Most certainly, it was not the aim of this encyclical to establish inter-religious dialogue. From that very moment, however, this new attitude towards other religions, which then developed and matured with the Council, “acquired the name of Dialogue, and from that moment this word, as a name and an ideal, began to be used frequently in the Council and in ecclesiastical speech.”(11)
In order to appreciate the value of inter-religious dialogue it is quite important keep in mind the Church’s first steps in this direction, such as the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam. It is also important to keep alive the memory of the pioneers of dialogue, such as Paul VI and other prominent figures of the Council Vatican II. One should also properly distinguish the specific problems of inter-religious dialogue from those of the theology of non-Christian religions, liberation theology, religious pluralism, and contemporary religious syncretism and relativism. Only after such clear distinctions will one avoid lumbering inter-religious dialogue with problems that are not its own, or accusing it of defects it does not have.
Inter-religious dialogue, I think, proceeds simultaneously in two directions, to which correspond two distinct yet complementary aims.
The first aim is fundamental: it takes faith as the starting point and reflects, according to theological principles, on the legitimacy or otherwise of dialogue. This method can be called deductive since it starts from the principles of Christian theology and must remain faithful to these principles. The second aim has to do with content, and has to do with the direct encounter of religions. The theology of dialogue is the arena where Christianity is directly confronted and compared with other religious traditions, and their correspondences, similarities, differences and contrasts are reflected upon. One can also choose one particular aspect of the doctrine of Christian life (such as the transcendence and the uniqueness of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Commandment of Love, morality, rites, monastic life etc.) and, in a comparative study, investigate its affinities with and diversities from other religions.
This second concern of the theology of dialogue evidently requires a certain competence in both areas of reference, Christianity and other religions. It also requires inter-disciplinary work. Hence, the contribution given by sciences such as phenomenology, the philosophy of religious, and cultural anthropology, can offer great help. This last mentioned theological procedure is quite stimulating since it calls for both team-work and field-work and a sharing of concrete experiences. It is a process that may be described as inductive, since it proceeds from the particular, arguing from the plurality of religious experiences.
Both of these procedures have their legitimacy and validity but, as is to be expected, their limits also. The first runs the risk of remaining no more than a premise failing to reach the concrete religions. The second faces the danger of becoming so disperse that it would be incapable of reaching a theological conclusion in accordance with Christian doctrine.
It is in this sphere, then, that missionaries can make a valid contribution, formulating from their experience a global theology, which would have as its method both the praxis of dialogue and reflection upon it.
Although there is much talk about dialogue, some of it alarmist and some favorable, it is my opinion that in reality dialogue is little practiced. My own limited experience in a Taiwan Buddhist monastery is, to the best of my knowledge, almost unique in that island.(12) Yet Taiwan is ideally suited as a place for dialogue, especially with Buddhists. Among the many missionaries with whom I am acquainted in Asia, in areas where almost the whole of the population belongs to other religions, the number of those who have undertaken any significant projects in dialogue is minimal.
While we do not lack good theological and missiological magisterial documents, still there are several open questions for the theology of dialogue. In the first place there is the problem of the relationship between dialogue and mission, and between dialogue and proclamation. In this regard, I believe that the most urgent problem is not that of finding theoretical solutions. Perhaps we shall never reach a solution that will convince all parties. There will always be those who stress the urgency and the originality of proclamation, and those who defend the dignity and the proper status of dialogue. Such being the case, what is needed is not so much theoretical solutions as multiple experiments. When the day comes that the praxis of mission and dialogue is widespread and effective there will be no lack of guidelines, originating from these experiences, to bring about a correct theological approach to the problems. Perhaps what is required is Christians who, in a prophetic manner, live out meaningful experiences of inter-religious dialogue, and are capable of reflecting on them. Dialogue ought to be lived in the Church as a charism, a gift from on high. The actual living out of the charism ought to become a shining lamp for the protagonists of dialogue themselves, for the Church and for the adherents of the religions. In the mission of the Church the charism and the ministry of dialogue must be ever more clearly delineated. There must be those who make dialogue the aim of their service to the Church and their fellows. If that does not come about, no matter how many publications are printed or demands are made, dialogue will always remain no more than an exercise in theological discussion.
With this I do not intend to make any unreasonable claim for the supremacy of praxis. There is still the problem of formulating a theology that will serve as a sure guide for dialogue so that it may be carried out as a charism and a ministry within the Church and thus be well founded in fidelity to the faith.
I mentioned earlier that the greatest stumbling block is the absoluteness of Christ, the Christian paradox: We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (¼ ). I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1Cor 1:23; 2:2). An investigation should be made into the link between Christology (and, in particular, of the most Christological and paradoxical of all theologies, the theology of the Cross) and the theology of inter-religious dialogue. It would seem that the theology of the Cross was for a long time either neglected by the theology of dialogue, or considered only in contrast with it. A link between the theology of the Cross (the bulwark of Christology) and the theology of dialogue is now needed. This would prevent the theology of dialogue from debarring Christology and so, in the long run, emptying the Christian faith of its fundamental mystery. On the other hand it would prevent the theology of the Cross from falling into the “Christological Straits”, an expression used by H. Von Balthasar in his critical synthesis of the thought of K. Barth.(13) In Barth’s interpretation, the catchword ‘solo Christo, sola scriptura, sola fide’ leads inevitably to the elimination of all other religious experiences.
But what kind of link can be forged between the theology of the Cross and the theology of dialogue? This question will be dealt with in part two of this paper.
The theology of the Cross can be understood in such a way as to present the Christian message in a one-sided or biased manner. The theology of the Cross, or of the Crucifix or of Christ Crucified and Forsaken,(14) to which I am referring cannot be understood except in conjunction with the resurrection. The centre-point of Christian faith is best expressed in the words of the kerygma of the New Testament: God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:36). The theology of the Cross, as I understand it, moves from the kerygma of the primitive Church. Moreover, the Cross makes known to us the depths of the love of the Trinity(15) so that the theology of the Cross is at the heart of Christian theology.
The Cross of Jesus makes it impossible to create an image of God that is simply in accordance with our own ideas: No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him (Jn 1: 18). The New Testament bears witness that the revelation of God as Father came about substantively on the Cross. In the Gospel of St. John, the Cross is seen as the glorification of the Father, ‘Abba’ (Jn 17:1-6) as he is called by Jesus. The Christological canticles of Paul (Col 1:15; Eph 1:3) explain further this profound relationship between the crucified Jesus and the Father. God the Father (1Tim 1:2) wishes that everyone be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim 2:4). Indeed the Epistle goes on to say that Jesus Christ gave himself as a ransom for all (1Tim 2:6). Now the universal salvific will of God cannot be considered theologically as anything but efficacious. How should this efficacy be judged? Y. Raguin states: “God in the person of Jesus appeared at a relatively late stage in the history of humankind, at least so it seems to our way of thinking. Every nation had its own patriarchs and prophets. When Christ came among us he did not rush headlong in all directions, as though there was no time to lose. In fact he had ample time, and never gave the impression that the salvation of the world depended on his frantic activity. Yet he was aware that he was bringing salvation.(16) His followers, too, are invited to live their lives and mission with the same sense of freedom and the same gratuitous service. Dialogue is an expression of that gratuitousness and freedom which Jesus first employed. Only God knows the times and the seasons. The document issued by the Secretariat for Non-Christians in 1984 defines the times in which salvation will be efficaciously brought about as “the times of the forbearance of God (... ), since no-one can oblige God to act more hurriedly than He chooses."(17)
The theme of God’s forbearance, which was already figured in the Old Testament, is developed in a special manner by the authors of the New Testament. They take up the theme of God's forbearance and expound it more deeply, in the light of the death and resurrection of Christ. These two events, insofar as they initiate the final stage of human history, are considered the objective towards which the forbearance of God was directed. At the same time, insofar as they mark the beginning of a new era of waiting, they are presented as the starting point of a new manifestation of God’s forbearance.(18)
There are two types New Testament passages which speak of God’s forbearance. Some refer to the period before Christ (Rom 2:3-5; 3:25-16; 9:22-24; 1Pet 3: 9-15). The second type tries to assign a theological value to the delaying of the Parousia. During this period of delay the Lord exercises forbearance, not wishing that any should perish (2Pet 3:9). Therefore, consider the patience of the Lord as salvation (2Pet 3:14). The time of this forbearance is the time of salvation (Cf. 2Pet 3:9-15). Now the fruit of God’s forbearance is that patience which the believer in turn exercises towards all (Cf. 1Thess 5:14). According to Hebrew (6:11-15) patience is the same as faith, the faith exercised during the time until the promise is fulfilled. In the letter of James (5:7-11) patience is depicted as a virtue at the core of Christian life: Be patient therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. You also be patient. (... ) Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered with patience. You have heard of the patience of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because the Lord is compassionate and merciful. In this weighty text of James the forbearance of God is shown as synonymous with mercy and compassion.
The Biblical theme of God’s forbearance sheds special light on theological reflection on inter-religious dialogue. The patience, mercy and compassion shown by God when passing judgment on history and on human affairs, become the patience, mercy and compassion exercised by the believer. Forbearance, therefore, is not a lightweight virtue. On the contrary, it is a virtue which calls for a deep spiritual maturity which enable one to penetrate, so to speak, into God’s own way of thinking. Dialogue, first of all, requires forbearance to enable us to approach the spiritual identity of those with whom we dialogue. Dialogue, to use a powerful and suffered expression coined by P. Monchanin, calls for a geological patience.(19) Patience requires that we die to ourselves, and be detached from our own timetables, deadlines and programs, while awaiting the early and the late rains. Patience means surrounding oneself completely to the Father, the only Lord of history, and the only one who knows the ways of salvation. Indeed, the crucified Christ gives us the most sublime and exemplary manifestation of patience. On the Cross, he renounced his desire to comprehend the mystery, abandoning himself instead to the times and ways decreed by the Father. In a word, the theological value of the patience of God and of the believer is revealed to us in all its fullness by Jesus on the Cross, our supreme model of patience.
The ‘messianic secret’ deeply marks the Gospel of Mark. The true identity of Jesus, the meaning of his mission, the value of his words and miracles will be revealed only on the Cross. The signs and words of Jesus are not self revelatory but are only revealed in their time and profound significance at the supreme moment of the crucifixion. Only at that moment is the ‘messianic secret’ made known. It was not made known, however, to the priests and to the scribes (religious officials), to the passers-by (devoted believers on their way to the Holy City for the Passover) nor to the two criminals condemned with him. All these people challenged Jesus to come down from the Cross. A spectacular gesture which would have provided sensational evidence for them to see and believe. They were prisoners of a religious sense based on outward show, on the spectacular, on force, on victory over others. Jesus had rejected that kind of religiosity. The secret was revealed instead to one who officially was not a religious person, to a Roman centurion, a member of a pagan nation. He had witnessed the darkness which descended on Jesus and on the world which had condemned him as a criminal is condemned. This man, a pagan, heard the cry of Jesus forsaken and dying. Then and then only, in the darkness, a prey to helplessness and in the presence of a man who had died alone and forsaken, this unknown soldier from a far distant, pagan and enemy land, proclaimed the wondrous identity of Jesus: Truly this man was the Son of God (Mk 15:39). This is the crowning point of Mark, the first Gospel.
The Messianic secret is revealed sub contraria specie, in a manner precisely contrary to the religious and human expectations of the priests and scribes, the passers-by and the malefactors condemned with Jesus. It was revealed instead to a man who had no part in established religion. Only the Cross, the scandal of the Cross reveals in unexpected ways and to unexpected persons the messianic secret, the true identity of Jesus. Yet Jesus had, over a long period and with meticulous care, prepared his disciples to come to the knowledge of his mystery. In the second part of Mark’s Gospel (and also in Luke) Jesus no longer works miracles. Instead, he concentrates his attention on teaching his little band of disciples in unequivocal tough language. Yet not even they understood the mystery of the Cross. It was not they who revealed the messianic secret.
Reflection on the messianic secret and on the Cross of Jesus seems particularly fitting when interpreting the figure of Jesus in the context of the theology of inter-religious dialogue. It is only through the Cross that Jesus reveals his identity. It is not possible to reduce Jesus to a religious concept, to any abstract interpretative category. Within the scope of the theology of religions and theology of dialogue, it is not only possible and legitimate but also necessary to speak of Christ the Liberator (preacher of the Kingdom, not of himself) with P. Knitter; of the cosmic Christ with R. Pannikar and T. Balasuriya; of Christ the prolepsis of history with W. Pannenberg; of Christ the critical catalyst with H. Kung; and of Christ the Eternal Word (as distinct from Jesus of Nazareth) with C. Molari.(20) Be that as it may, however, we must never distance ourselves from the Cross as the theological center which reveals to us the identity of Jesus. No manner of theological interpretation of Jesus’ identity can ascribe to him any aspect or function which did not have its origin in the scandal of the Cross. This holds good also for a truly Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue. So let it never happen that, while we are pondering wise solutions, the Cross of Christ be emptied of its meaning (1Cor 1:17).
The theological value of the messianic secret revealed in the Cross stands out in clearer relief when considered in conjunction with the patristic concept of seeds of the word. The word seed has a deep biblical significance. In the synoptic gospels, in various parables, the seed is presented as a synonym of the Word (Lk 8:9), and of the kingdom (Mk 4:31). In John (12:20-24), Jesus describes his destiny, using the figure of the grain of wheat or seed, which can only bear fruit if it dies. In the first epistle of Peter (1:25) the immortal seed which regenerates and remains for ever, is nothing other than the word that has been proclaimed to you. In short, the seed of the New Testament signifies, at various times, the Word of God, the Gospel proclaimed, the kingdom of God or Jesus who dies. In all of these examples the seed is considered as potent and active. The smallest of all seeds is destined to become the largest of all plants. The seed (i.e. the Word, the Gospel, the Kingdom, Jesus himself) though small in its origins, is destined to increase to a great size. The inference here is not merely that of a fragment compared with the whole, of a percentage compared with the totality, the particular compared with the total, of one minute coloured plug conferred with the completed mosaic. No! The seed has the intrinsic dynamic force to devolope, to be reborn, to be transformed and to grow into a plant. The generative force of the seed lies in its dying in order to produce fruit, a reproduction which occurs in spite of, or perhaps precisely because of, the gap between life and death. For this reason Jesus foretells the meaning of his forthcoming death and resurrection using the forceful expression of the “fruit-bearing seed.”
The seeds of the Word scattered throughout the world among peoples and religions should be viewed against this New Testament background. They are not scattered fragments to which it would be difficult to assign any theological significance. They are, rather, an entity which has an inner strength of growth and possesses within itself the power of signifying the logic of the Cross, the Word, the Gospel and even Jesus Christ himself. As seeds of the Word, they are seeds of Christ.
The seeds of the Word are not related merely to human religious research. They rather express an authentic Christology in the religions and, in a certain sense, they denote the presence of the mystery of the Cross in all human affairs and in the various religious experiences and traditions. As Jesus imposes the messianic secret in the Gospel, so the seeds of the Word scattered in the non-Christian world take on the characteristics of concealment and secrecy. The seeds of the Word reveal their secret as signs of Christ’s presence only in the light of the Cross and according to the logic of sub contraria specie. Through the Cross, Jesus experienced, in his own person, the scandal of evil: the betrayal of his friends, the perjury of false witnesses, the hypocrisy of his judges, the torture of the soldiery, the injustice of his condemnation, the mockery of the crowds, the pain of crucifixion, the abandonment not only of his followers but even of God, and also loneliness, helplessness, humiliation. There are no human sufferings that cannot be united to the sufferings of Jesus. Through them Jesus revealed, to the utmost degree, the mutual love of the Blessed Trinity when, from the depths of his abandonment, he offered himself to the Father in full and trusting obedience. Giving his life on the Cross to give life to the world just like the Good Shepherd, Jesus manifested in his total self-giving the greatest love that one could possibly conceive. The seeds of the Word are scattered precisely where individual or communities suffer torment yet place complete trust in God, and are capable of making the ultimate gift of themselves. In the light of the above reflections, we find revealed in the last discourse of Jesus before his passion (a discourse on the final judgment, Mt 25:31-46) a wealth of theological and salvific doctrine of which we would otherwise be unaware. Any exegesis of this discourse based merely on natural ethics would not do justice to its dramatic context, nor adequately explain the reasons for the radical conclusions it draws.
At the foot of the Cross the messianic secret is made known by the Roman centurion, a national enemy, an alien to the official religion. According to the Synoptics, at the very moment of Jesus’ death, the veil of the temple was rent in two (Mk 15:38 and parallel verses). Jesus entered into the place reserved to the high priest and opened up the way into the new sanctuary (Heb 9:8), being the first so to enter in (Heb. 10:19-20). The theologians J. Moltmann and P. Coda have conducted more investigation than others into the theme of the Crucified Jesus ‘cast out’ of the Jewish religion. They show how Jesus, overcoming all religious exclusiveness, embraces everyone. He dies as one cursed by God, made to be sin (2Cor 5:21), outside the gate (Heb 13:12), outside the community of God, outside the Holy City, outside the vineyard which is Israel, outside the encampment consecrated by God. In this way, the crucified Jesus concentrates in himself the divine presence freed from the constricting limits of the Jewish religion. It is thanks to him that the dividing wall of enmity (Eph 2:14) between Jews and Greeks was broken down. Thanks also to him, God’s blessing to Abraham was extended to the whole of humankind (Gal 3:14). Thus Jesus succeeds in reaching from the inside all those outside of Israel and outside the visible structure of the Church. Therefore the starting point of the Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue will be that to which the Epistle to the Hebrews invites us: Let us then go to him outside the camp (Heb 13:13). “Let us go towards the Crucified and forsaken Christ who, far from denying and condemning the religions without any right of appeal, makes of these, instead, so many grounds for theological reflection (loci theologici).”(21)
However, we must bear in mind that in the thinking of the authors of the New Testament for the Cross of Christ to be “outside” signifies “outside” of the Jewish religion. It is only in a subsequent manner that the relationship between the Cross and Judaism can be identified with the relationship between the Cross and religions in general. In my opinion there are two reasons why it is legitimate to apply the essential form of the Cross-Judaism relationship to the Cross-religions relationship.
The first reason is based on the New Testament’s unanimous affirmation that the Cross of Jesus reaches out to all people. The many mentioned in the Synoptics (Mt 26:28 and parallel verses) for whom Jesus gives his life are the multitudes, i.e. all peoples.(22) He has tasted death for everyone (Heb 2:9). God handed his son over for us all (Rm 8:32). He gave himself as ransom for all (1Tim 2:5-6). Lifted up on the Cross, Jesus will draw all people to himself (Jn 12:32). This reaching out and drawing all by means of the Cross is certainly not just a manner of speaking. It must rather be seen as something real, actual and effective. This is what a well known deliberation of the Vatican Council affirms: “We must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS n. 22). It would seem to me that the reflection I propose above does not allow a loose interpretation of the Council’s deliberation, one lacking in practical efficacy. Instead it offers an interpretation which reflects the importance and incisiveness of that deliberation.
The second reason I suggest for extending the form of the Cross-Judaism relationship to the Cross-religions relationship is based on my opinion that the theology of the Cross which is presently developing as a product of this reflection calls religion ‘into scrutiny’. The theology of the Cross makes us rethink the faith-religion relationship in a new and dialectical manner. The crucifixion of Christ, who died outside of the established religion, is a dramatic epilogue of Jesus’ long drawn out and persistent critique of religiosity, and of his mortal conflict with the religious (allied with political) authorities. Jesus resists and unmasks that religious piety which too easily degenerates into unwarranted presumption, such as can be seen, for example, in the episode of the woman who was a sinner in Simon’s house (Lk 7:36-50), or in the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector (Lk 18,:9-14). Jesus sternly criticizes religion when it is reduced to hypocrisy and exhibitionism (Mt 6:1-17), into a credulous search for sensationalism prompted by lack of true faith, into the enslavement to personal or social conventions, into a smug legalistic observance which is an end in itself or which, even worse, harms humanity (Mk 7:1-13 and parallel passages), or into a quest for dominance (Cf. Lk 11:46). Jesus goes on to unmask a religiosity which has become an ideology and which, in the name of God and Law, seeks to justify itself, adhering to the letter of the law rather than to its spirit and seeking to wield power over others, while legitimate religious expectations become bigoted and incapable of adapting to new ideas. In a word, Jesus denounces that excessive religiosity which leads to hardening of the heart (Mk 3:5, 12:13; Lk 6:10). In the Gospels Jesus is consistently seen to be on the side of the victims of religion: sinners, publicans, lepers, prostitutes, the sick, the handicapped, the possessed and children. Hardness of heart brings about the rejection and blacklisting of these who should be made welcome, forgiven and loved. The pervading religious outlook and religious structures played a decisive role in this turmoil in which man loses what he holds most dear: love. Jesus did not meet the messianic expectations of his contemporaries. He was different. Passages of the Gospel which describe episodes of criticism, invective and argument between Jesus and religious groups are neither few nor far between. There were painful rifts that, in the space of a few short months, brought about violent attacks on Jesus and led to his execution.
At the present time, too, all religions, whether Christian or not, run the same risk of becoming ideologies which are opposed to the true welfare of the person. How many examples can be found of this in both Christianity and other religions. Even in the 90s religions have too often become vehicles of suffering and death instead of salvation and life. Today in many parts of the world, the groans of those undergoing hardships caused by religion are rising up before the throne of God, as Nicholas of Cusa stated as far back as 400 years ago.(23) However, I am certainly not unaware that religion also has many positive aspects and qualities. But religiousness, since it is a human phenomenon, is ambiguous and may posses negative qualities. The effects of religious ideology may even be aberrant: The time will come when anyone who kills you will think he is doing a holy duty to God (Jn 16:2).
Violence in and of religion is a topic which neither a Christian theology of inter-religious dialogue nor inter-religious dialogue itself can, with any semblance of decency, avoid. In my estimation, it is precisely the theology of the Cross which can offer a contribution which, though uncomfortable at time, goes to the heart of the matter and is indispensable for dialogue between followers of difference religious. The Cross, on which Jesus was hung as an enemy of religion, transcends any religious particularity. At the same time, it reaches out for and attracts to itself all varieties of religion, to judge them and cleanse them. The Cross has the power to distinguish true faith from religious ambiguity.
The theology of the Cross extends an open invitation to those who engage in inter-religious dialogue, to overcome their reticence and to abandon their self-assuredness. We cannot hide ourselves behind our religion, while at the same time standing at the foot of the Cross. We are called upon to leave our encampment and to go out to meet Christ (Heb 13:13), and thus avoid seeking the comfort of a religion that tends to become an ideology. Those who engage in dialogue are invited to look on the one whom they have pierced (Jn 19:39). This requires a continual conversion, a courageous change and a humble openness to criticism.
At the foot of the Cross, dialogue becomes a reciprocal evangelization on account of the cleansing of one’s faith and the increase in the sincerity of one’s actions which it promotes. We do not clearly know what will be ultimately achieved by the dialogue between people of different religions which Jesus arouses by drawing everyone to himself. John Paul II suggests the possibility that “the firm belief of the followers of non-Christian religions (... ) might, somehow, put Christians to shame.”(24) At the foot of the Cross no one is a master, but rather all are disciples, whatever religion they may profess, disciples primarily of Christ, but also of one another.
On the Cross, God revealed in the Crucified Jesus his weak aspect, his vulnerability, his decision to show himself sub contraria specie. At the foot of the Cross dialogue too reveals its limits and weaknesses. Inter-religious dialogue often appears to rest on shaky ground, with motivations which are sometimes ambivalent, mutual acquaintance which is scant or even biased, and aims which are not always clearly defined. Dialogue is often dogged by suspicion and fear, both among these inside and those outside the Church. Inside the Church there is a fear of compromising the truth or of starting a gradual descent into syncretism or indifferentism. Adherents of other religions are sometimes unenthusiastic or fail to take part, or have reservations because of the fear that dialogue may be just a method of proselytism updated to suit the times. Significant and successful attempts at dialogue are indeed rare. For the most part, the attempts are timid and the results fitful, not to say, delusory.
Objectively speaking, dialogue encounters dilemmas which seem to have no solution. The chief of these, in my opinion, is the relationship between the necessity of proclaiming Jesus Christ and the very nature of dialogue. Now I am of the belief that in a very important sense there is an irreconcilable divergence between dialogue and proclamation. Inter-religious dialogue cannot shrink from the judgments put forward by the Cross of Christ nor from the judgment which the Cross of Christ lays down. There is a demarcation line beyond which the Crucified Christ can no longer be engaged in dialogue. The scandal and the foolishness of the Cross take precedence over the claims of dialogue. But this does not denote that the dialogue has terminated or that it is an impossible and useless undertaking. It has merely shown its limits, just as all religious activities and theological discussions have their limits. Dialogue is both possible and necessary, because it is not held between abstract systems and religious theories but among flesh and blood believers. These believers, touched and attracted, more or less consciously, by the Cross of Christ, plunge themselves in the daily round of those who share, as Jesus did, the crucified reality of the people.
In Jesus Christ, God did not merely become man, he became an infant, the son of simple folk. He knew poverty and made common cause with the poor and oppressed. He was humbled and suffered the shame of the Cross. Jesus is indeed the man of sorrows and his Gospel is the Gospel of the suffering.(25) The scourged Jesus, with his face disfigured by blows and by the crown of thorns, is brought out before his tormentors: Behold the man, says Pilate (Jn 19:5). Indeed, in that unsightly face which they behold, and from which men hide their faces (Is 53:3), there is the face of suffering people, of all those on earth who have been crucified. In that face can be seen the sufferings of the whole of humanity. There is no human suffering which has not been united with Christ crucified, nor is there any human suffering which has not been borne by him. Jesus makes common cause also with those who throughout the course of history have been, so to speak, nailed to the Cross. On that Cross, all disparities between human beings vanish. On the Cross, Christ achieved to the full what he had chosen as his aim in life: to announce the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind and to let the oppressed go free (Lk 4:18-19).
At the present time, to follow Jesus bearing our cross means to make the same choice that Jesus made, to throw in our lot with those who, like Jesus, are humbled, downtrodden and put to death. The face of the Crucified One is seen today in those who are nailed to the Cross with Christ, for in the sufferings of those lowly ones Christ is present. It is also certain that even those who have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of Christ (Lord, when did we see you hungry¼ cf. Mt 25:3-46) encounter Christ when they show love for the poor and solidarity with the needy, and are judged by Christ with encomium (Crux omnia probat). For it is the crucified Jesus who passes judgement on each one‘s responsibility in one’s dealings with the world, and in one‘s cooperation in evil and in the unspeakable sufferings of so many human beings. It is the Crucifix which brings us face to face with the fearful consequences of sin, of pride, of injustice and of power. The suffering now inflicted on a great part of humanity may, at times, be no less devastating than that borne by Christ himself.
While suffering, on the one hand, reveals the reality of the Cross of Christ and his continuing solidarity with the crucified ones, on the other hand it seems to constitute the overriding problem of humankind and religions alike. Inter-religious dialogue, which does not confront this challenge, and does not heed the cry of the crucified ones nor stand shoulder to shoulder with the poor and downtrodden, is a dialogue that is tragically flawed. It is not even theo-logical nor, for a Christian, is it authentic in its Christianity. The theology of the Cross prevents inter-religious dialogue from becoming merely academic, inconclusive and wrapped up in itself. Instead, the theology of the Cross points out the common ground of inter-religious dialogue in solidarity with the crucified, which will become the theological meeting point for common concerns. In the face of suffering, dialogue is no longer a mere discussion, nor even a summit meeting of religious authorities, but a practical commitment undertaken together as a sign of hope for the liberation of people.
Pope John Paul II himself has stated that “the human person is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission. We are not dealing with the human person in the abstract, but with the real, concrete, historical human person. We are dealing with each and every human person, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption.”(26) The inter-religious dialogue that the Holy Father calls for does not aim at doctrinal convergence nor at solutions based on religious syncretism or indifferentism, which he decisively rejects. It aims rather at mutual understanding, respect and esteem which will lead to combined efforts for justice and peace and worldwide reconciliation. The aim of the Assisi meeting - and of those which followed it - was peace, and, whenever he meets followers of other religions, the Holy Father promotes common efforts for the good of humankind.
In this respect liberation theology makes a valuable contribution. It shows that salvation history becomes a concrete reality in the liberation of the people. It expresses the concerns and the engagement of local churches as they come together with people who are struggling for deliverance. Liberation theology and the theology of dialogue make common cause insofar as they demonstrate different aspects of the evangelizing mission of the Church. They collaborate more closely in Asia where they address the fundamental challenges which confront the Asian peoples: poverty and religions.(27) It should be noted that nowadays less is being said about liberation theology, even though the Holy Father himself has stated that this theology is not only legitimate, but even necessary. Unfortunately, less is being said also of the poor and of the Church of the poor. Since communist ideology has ignominiously failed, and Marxist philosophy can no longer defile the minds of Christians who struggle for justice, it is to be hoped that liberation theology will reacquire its dignity and importance in the efforts of all believers to bring about justice and peace. This should be done in conjunction with the believers of all religions and all men and women of good will who have at heart the well-being of humankind.
At times, in the course of theological debate on inter-religious dialogue, we tend to assign to the Holy Spirit all-embracing attributes, with no barriers or restrictions. This raises the risk of losing theological understanding of the Holy Spirit, who then becomes so abstract and indeterminate that anything may be attributed to him. I shall now try to show the strong bonds which unite the Spirit with Christ: Pneumatology united with Christology and particularly with the theology of the Cross.
In the Gospel of John we read that Jesus on the Cross bowed his head and yielded up the spirit (Jn 19:30). The use of the Greek word paredoken is unusual. It is not used in any other Greek text to denote the idea of expiring. The Synoptics themselves use more common words. According to exegetes, “in using such an unfamiliar word to announce the death of Jesus, John intends to tell us that Jesus’ death had the effect of granting the Holy Spirit to the Community.”(28)
In St. John’s account of the death of Jesus (Jn 19:34), there is another allusion to the Holy Spirit: a soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. The water is a symbol of the Spirit and recalls the words of Jesus (Jn 7:38-39): Whoever believes in me, as scripture says, Rivers of living water will flow from within him! He said this in reference to the Spirit which those who came to believe in Him were to receive. There was of course, no spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. The moment of glory in John’s Gospel is the moment of the Cross and Resurrection. The true outpouring of the Spirit was the work of Jesus crucified and risen again. The Spirit comes with the breathing of the risen Christ, and our thoughts turn to the Cross from which flowed forth the water of the Spirit. If the outpouring of the Spirit began from the Cross, the Spirit is radically bound up with the death of Jesus, and bears the signs of the paschal mystery.
A further reflection leads us to the conclusion that the action of the Holy Spirit is the same as that of Jesus on the Cross. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit the Comforter was pre-announced by Jesus during the Last Supper on two occasions.
The first is Jn 15:26-27: When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. And you also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning. The Holy Spirit Paraclete, sent not to the world but to the disciples, is called upon to take part as a crucial witness in that great trial between Jesus and the world, which forms the background against which the whole life of Jesus is set. This trial leads to the condemnation of the world and to the exaltation of Jesus on the Cross. The Spirit’s role is to testify to the fickleness of the world and to help in safeguarding the faith of the disciples.
A little later, John returns to the same theme: It is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Paraclete will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation (Jn 16:7-8). Here again we see that the role of the Spirit in this great trial, which is contested in the full light of human history, is to bear witness for Jesus against the world by revealing the world’s guilt, its empty pride and its inconsistency. Exegetes have difficulty in clearly defining the terms: sin, righteousness and condemnation. But it is clear that the presence of the Spirit in the process corroborates what was achieved on the Cross: the triumph of Jesus and the exposure of the falsity and injustice of the world which obstinately rejects him. The work of the Spirit is carried on in total continuity with the work of justice and judgement achieved on the Cross. Later statements in John’s Gospel do no more than confirm the perfect communion between Jesus and the Spirit. The teaching of the Spirit will be that of Jesus, who will not speak on his own, but will speak what he hears (16:13-15). Moreover the subject of the Spirit’s teaching will be Jesus: He will glorify me, because he will take from me what is mine and declare it to you (Jn 16:14). Finally, the Spirit will guide the disciples to and into the fullness of truth (Jn 16:13). This, according to B. Maggioni, is the exact meaning of the Greek expression hodogesei eis: towards and into the fullness of truth. According to exegetes, in this revelation of the Holy Spirit we do not look for new truths, but for a progressive deepening of our knowledge by working from the exterior towards the interior, into the centre which is Jesus.
This analysis of the role of the Holy Spirit does not intend to exhaust all the aspects that may be developed in Biblical or Johannine Pneumatology. What is intended here is to establish the point that the Holy Spirit’s role is never separated from that of the crucified and risen Christ. There can be no divergence or alternativity between Logos and Spirit, as some theologians of inter-religious dialogue would seem to suggest.(29) Opinions which consider the Holy Spirit as engaged in a role that either distances him from the role of Jesus, or is mutually exclusive of the role of Jesus crucified, or in which attempts are made gradually to abandon the concrete, historical fact of the Cross of Jesus in favour of a cosmic view of Christ, are all definitely groundless. On the contrary, it is precisely the Holy Spirit, who was gifted to us from Christ’s death on the Cross, who guarantees the identity between the crucified Jesus and the risen Jesus, between the crucified Jesus and Christ Pantocrator. “When the Holy Spirit leads us onwards it is always, in effect, a leading us back to Jesus.”(30)
We should always bear in mind the intimate link between Jesus and the Spirit when, in the light of the same Holy Spirit, we read of the signs which foreshadow the Gospel (preparatio evangelica). These signs may be the influence of the Spirit on the founders of religions, on the drawing up of the sacred texts of the various religious, and also on the prayer experiences and schools of prayer in the various religious traditions. The Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the non-Christian religious world, not in spite of Christ, but exactly starting from the crucified and risen Christ, and in sight of him.
The salvation which, even in the non- Christian world, comes as a gift through the mediation of Christ, finds “the transcendental-theological condition for its realization”(31) in a theology which conceives the Holy Spirit as a gift of Christ crucified and risen. The special bond between the Spirit and the crucified Jesus suggests that there is an additional route through which salvation can reach every single human being. “It is the history of suffering in the world. Ever since the Cross of Christ was first raised on earth there has been no human suffering which has not in some measure been touched by the Holy Spirit and united with Christ’s Cross.”(32)
Even prayer as part of inter-religious dialogue must be subjected to scrutiny. Is it right to pray together? How should we pray? When organizing the Assisi meeting - and other meetings which followed -, this problem was raised. The Spirit comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groaning. And the one who searches the heart knows the intentions of the Spirit for the Spirit intercedes for the holy ones according to God‘s will ” (Rom 8: 26-27). I am of the opinion that no other passage from Scripture sheds greater light than this on the question of prayer in inter-religious dialogue. The Holy Spirit himself urges us to adopt an attitude of trust. Notwithstanding our dullness of understanding and uncertainly, during our prayers the Holy Spirit may awaken certain words and desires that not even we ourselves can fully comprehend but that are nevertheless the work of the Holy Spirit. It is quite right, therefore, that prayer should be considered one of the foremost experiences of inter-religious dialogue. It may, moreover, be said that, so far, the principal experiences of inter-religious meetings have been prayers in common for peace.
We can, furthermore, without hesitation, pinpoint the moment of prayer in common as a goal in the meetings of the followers of the various religions. Their reciprocal dialogue is the fruit of that dialogue which together they establish with God under the assistant and unutterable action of the Spirit. Prayer guarantees that the nature of the dialogue is spiritual, and prevents it from becoming an instrument of power and predominance over others. And it is, in all probability, thanks to the unsuspected fruits of our weak and spasmodic prayer, bolstered by the Spirit who searches the heart, that God’s designs may, somehow, lighten the path of believers, since all things work together for the good for those who love God (Rom 8:28).
The reflections presented above lead to the consideration that, when participating in an inter-religious dialogue, there must be no relinquishing nor deflating of one’s personal identity. Such a manner of acting could give rise to a sense of personal insecurity and even of insecurity regarding what one has to offer. It could even result in an inability to receive fully what others offer. Dialogue presupposes humility and a deep awareness of one’s own faith.
Christ crucified is not an inconvenient and embarrassing obstacle to be overcome by ridding ourselves of Christ-centred theologies. On the contrary, while revealing to us the Triune face of God, the crucified Lord also reveals clearly the foundation, the terms of reference and the objectives of our dialogue with people of all religions. The theology of the Cross declares unequivocally that the doctrine of the Triune God cannot be pared down. God is God and the human is the human. This bears out the conviction that, for the purpose of engaging in dialogue, it is by no means necessary to betray one’s faith, nor to hold it in abeyance, nor to consider it as having merely a relative and not an absolute value. Instead, it is necessary to acknowledge humbly that the ways of God toward humankind are not always known and understood by humanity.
Concern for the afflicted, for the liberation of the poor and for reconciliation among people is the principal aim of inter-religious dialogue at the present time. The spiritual nature of dialogue is highlighted and safeguarded by prayer is common.