(by Fr Antonio Bellagamba, imc)

Introductory Remarks.

Our last Chapter has developed two short, but very meaningful documents on this topic. The first one is found in the second section of the Acts (n. 28) as one of the new and major areas of our mission, and the second one is found among the orientations submitted by the members to the Chapter for its consideration. (n. 77-79). This shows clearly the importance of this topic for the Chapter and its efforts at offering a convincing reply to those confreres who had submitted this topic for the Chapter’s deliberation. Why all this importance? Because of historical, biblical and theological considerations developed by the Magisterium of the Church during and since Vatican II, and the realities which the missionaries are in contact with and push them for an equitable solution.

In the course of history, the believers involved in the Church’s mission have developed various faces, or models of mission: Mission as religious conversion, Mission as expansion of the Church, Mission as building God’s kingdom, Mission as justice and peace, Mission as announcement of Jesus Christ, Mission as radical discipleship, Mission to and from all Continents. Each face does not exclude the others, but it incorporates them and reshapes the understanding of their worth within its major thrust. In fact, mission is all the above elements, and probably even more; but the moment one takes an element and places the greatest emphasis on it, so as to make of it the perspective through which one looks at the others, their worth will shift and change.

If one emphasizes mission as conversion, then the expansion of the Church will be very relevant, but the works for peace and justice will be marginal, the interfaith dialogue even less important, the progress and development of peoples will be considered as a means for conversion, and their effectiveness will be judged in relationship to the number of conversions they elicit and facilitate, and not the qualities of life they promote. This process can be applied to all the other faces of mission, and one would see the difference in the understanding of the worth of the various elements within each face.

This pluralism of, and emphasis on modes of mission, are the results of two relatively new variables brought into their analysis: the pre-eminence given to the reflection of the Word of God, and the historical contexts in which mission is exercised.

Mission in Scripture is a pluriform concept and reality. If we take only the Great Commission of Jesus to the Apostles, we are struck by their pluriformity. Mark’s (16, 14-18), and Matthew’s (28, 16-20) insist on going, preaching, from which believing follows and salvation is obtained. Luke’s version (24, 44-49; Acts 1, 7-8), insists on witnessing in the power of the Spirit, announcing forgiveness of sins. John’s version (20, 22-23; 21, 15-17) proposes love as the foundation of mission and shepherding, serving, as its major activity, together with the forgiveness of sins. One would have thought that, since the Great Commission was such an important legacy of the Lord, it would be remembered fairly well by the apostles, and recorded fairly accurately. And yet, these differences exist in the biblical texts, and not because the Apostles forgot about what Jesus had said, but because of all the teaching on mission proposed by Jesus, they recollected what was more meaningful to their audiences, in the various contexts in which they were living, and in the needs they were experiencing. And this brings me to the second element, which inspires the various faces of mission: the serious considerations given to the historical context within which mission takes place. Christians who live in countries where the overwhelming majority of the population is baptized, tend to emphasize the going out, the preaching to others, the proselytizing, and the expansion of the Church. Those who live in situations where the majority of the people is baptized and churched, but their lives are oppressed, and have not yet experienced true liberation, tend to hear and treasure these words of Scripture: I have been sent to preach the good news to the poor, freedom to captives……Christians who are a tiny minority of the population, and are not allowed to preach, to proselytize, but just to “be” and to celebrate in their churches the mysteries of their faith side by side with millions of followers of other religions which are imbedded in their life, and have shaped them to the core, will gladly hear the words of Scripture: witness in the power of the Spirit (Acts 1,8)…. give testimony of the faith and hope you have received (1Peter, 3,15), …. I have come not to abolish, but to bring to perfection (Mt 5, 17), ….you are the salt ( Mt 5, 13), …. you are the light (Mt 5, 14), …..let your light shine (Mt 5, 16), …. you are the leaven (Lk 13, 21). To be light, to be salt, to be leaven is to be a tiny bur powerful minority in the power of the Spirit capable of witnessing, becoming an example: to give testimony is to enter into dialogue with others, so that one’s faith can be explained, and a similar explanation of the faith of others may be reciprocated.

In this article, the latter situation will constitute our scenario. I will try to hear from these brothers and sisters of ours, how they have shaped dialogue into a new face of mission, or present dialogue was constitutive to mission, how to use it, what attitudes they bring and what outcome follows. In no way do these Christians exclude a priori all the other elements of mission. But, since some elements may be forbidden to them by the civil authority (preaching, baptizing, etc.), and others may not be obtainable at the moment (works of justice and peace), they had to shape their particular face of mission, which was possible to them, biblically acceptable and historically meaningful. And also I will try to show how the last Chapter has understood all this, and has offered ID as integral to mission itself not only to those missionaries who live in the situations which originated it, but also to all missionaries, though in various degrees of practice..

The Concept of Interfaith Dialogue

Interfaith dialogue is any activity performed by the followers of religions with the intent of sharing their respective beliefs in the Absolute as manifested to each, with the intent of enriching each other, to grow in their respective beliefs, while respecting those of the others, and to cooperate to a better life for all. With and through dialogue, the Christians know that they are performing their own mission on earth to the extent made possible to them by the historical situations, and are contributing to the building of God’s Kingdom.

The Acts of the XIth Chapter (Section II, n.28) borrows definitions from the Church’s documents and the XGC. “ID is part of the evangelizing mission of the Church” (RM, 55), and presently it plays a unique role in the mission ad gentes by being a “new face, a new activity and a new method” (XGC, 79) of the same mission. The section of the Orientations for Mission gives its own definition: “ID is a fundamental attitude of the missionary who wishes to enter into relationship with the peoples, the great religions, the traditional ones and those which are the religious expressions of the modern world, without ever giving up the explicit announcement of the Gospel. ID also allows the missionary to deepen with all the peoples the meaning of life and of the transcendent, within the theology of religions” (n.77).

Card. F. Arinze, former President of the Pontifical Council for Interfaith Dialogue, offers a richer and more developed definition: “ID is a meeting of heart and mind between two believers at the religious level. It is walking together toward towards truth and a working together in projects of common concern. It is a religious partnership without complexes and without hidden agendas or motives. The Christian who meets the followers of other religions in dialogue, does so as a Christian. He lives himself at the service of God who directs the history of salvation….. The Christian as a member of the religious community which is the Church, listens to other believers and is willing to learn from them. It is hoped that they will reciprocate, that they will also listen to the witness of his own faith, and be willing to learn from him”. (1)

It is understood that there is a stricter definition of dialogue, and a wider one. The former considers ID only when there is an exchange of faith through words, writings, conferences, etc. The latter one considers dialogue any activity which helps people of various faiths know each other better, live together harmoniously, work together to improve life on earth. Both are important; nevertheless I will privilege the wider definition which is more accessible to missionaries and believers in general, and which, in the long run, may break down barriers faster than words or writings can do.

Reasons for ID

They are not determined by tactics, by external forces, by making and using ID as a means to another end. They are intrinsic to the dialogue itself, and to the contexts in which Christians operate in our world (RM, n.56).

Pope John Paul II on April 27, 1987, made a statement to the Plenary Assembly of the Secretariat for non-Christians, which highlights the importance: “The commitment of the Catholic Church to dialogue with the followers of other religions, remains firm and unchanged” (2). Why this firm and undaunted commitment to dialogue? Fr. O Degryse, who has followed as an active member all the process of developing ID as the normal way of mission in Asia, states: “It is remarkable that since its very beginning, since the first assembly of the Federation of Asian Bishops Conference (FABC), ID has been considered as the Federation’s proper and most important objective” (3). Fr. J. Kroeger, another expert in Asian Christianity, summarizes the mission of the believers in this sentence: ”The FABC has said unequivocally that the basic mode of mission in Asia is dialogue, and that dialogue in Asia needs to be directed particularly towards cultures, religious traditions, and the poor. It recognizes that the lack of dialogue until now has resulted in a ghetto Church throughout most of Asia” (4). If John Paul II affirms the whole Church’s commitment to ID is firm and unshakable, if the FABC considers dialogue as the most natural and normal mode of mission, there must be serious reasons behind. I will enumerate and briefly describe the ones which seem most relevant and significant.

1. Historical reasons

a) In the past, followers of religions have related with each other out of ignorance or, even worse, out of prejudice and biases. All sorts of prejudice, false interpretations of past event, misleading statements of their religious writers as well as of their religious leaders, distorted the little knowledge they had of each other’s faith. The need to know the true self of each religion, of the fundamental principles on which they are based, is enormous. In a pluralistic society, in a global way of life which is being developed, and, of false understanding, members of different religions can no longer afford the lack of mutual understanding, and, worse yet, of a false understanding of each other. That would spell disaster for the future of religions in the world, and be an impediment to a harmonious existence and a constructive work together..

b) In the past, followers of different religions have committed hideous crimes to each other. History is plagued with religious wars, religious cleansing, and religious persecutions. All crimes committed are forbidden by the religious books of the perpetrators who, nevertheless, use their interpretation of these books to support and to justify them. The spectrum of future religious conflicts in the world looms big, and hangs dark on humanity. Nothing can be more destructive to humanity and less honorific to God than the continuation of divisions, the resumption of enmity, and the killing in the name of the God of peace and love. The most powerful deterrent to this scenario is mutual knowledge, through all forms of dialogue and at all levels of life.

The XIth General Chapter proposes some means to overcome the past mistakes and blunders. “ID contributes to overcoming attitudes of war and fundamentalism” (n.77) and “peace in the world depends on respect and mutual understanding among religions” (n.78.4). “ID allows us to live in solidarity with humanity in the search of the truth and the qualities of life, and invites us to overcome exclusivist attitudes in the concept of salvation” (n.77).

c) In the past, the division of religions and the religious wars have slowed down considerably the building of God’s Kingdom on our planet, to the point that religions did become meaningless to many people, cursed by others and relics to be guarded in the archives, more than forces of the kingdom to reckon with. The history of mission is punctuated by the missing opportunities in the progress of God’s kingdom, due to ignorance, fear, and prejudice of the believers. To continue to go one way, to go alone, had become the pattern, thus wasting time, money, reputation, duplicating unnecessary projects, accepting poor and ineffective solutions, just to be able to name them after one religion or another. As God’s kingdom opens a new millennium, and the prospect of a global existence become more and more the challenge of the millennium, will religions engage in a dialogue for a better knowledge of each other, in a stewardship for service, and in becoming the most powerful forces for change in the world?

2. Theological Reasons

“ID is based theologically either on the common origin of all human beings created in God’s image, or on the common destiny which is the fullness of life in God, or on a single divine plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, or on the active presence of the Spirit among the followers of other religious traditions” (5). This short statement expresses in the most concise and yet powerful way the major theological reasons for ID. It may pay to spend a few words of explanation, always borrowing from the writers involved in this process of dialogue as the major mode of mission for the Asian Church. A mode that, historically has developed in Asia, and it mirrors in its external manifestations those cultures, and yet it has been recognized by the Church in its essence as integral to mission itself, wherever it is exercised.

a) Common Origin

All human beings are created in God’s image. God is universally present and active in each person. God, who has imprinted in each one his own image, is present so that each may become more and more like Him. “Since there is only one God and one plan of Salvation which is the same for the whole of humanity, the expressions of religion are interconnected and mutually active and present. As the Mystery as universally active and present, none of its manifestations can claim to be ultimate and definitive” (6). The ongoing discovery of the Mystery present in us from birth, and yet always transcending us, calls for all religions to dialogue, to share, and to complement each other in order to reach that Pleroma of which Scriptures talk about. Our last Chapter mentions this reason: “Our missionary communities and missionaries ….help all to recognize the new nuances of the Gospel which we share, while we also learn from the people among whom we are sojourning” (n.28.3).

b) Common Destiny

Not only are we all created in God’s image, but we all are loved, cared for by God who wishes to share all His Riches with us and bring all to the fullness of life. The origin and the common destiny are one, though the journeys to reach the destination may be many. To put together the experiences of the diverse journeys through dialogue, will help the process of reaching the common destiny faster, surer and safer. This theological reason is also mentioned in the Acts of the Chapter. “There is a growing awareness among the missionaries that through ID it is possible to develop a closer collaboration among religions, which leads to a common strategy to face the problems which afflict humanity and to a search for a world ethics” (n.78.2).

c) Single Plan of salvation through Jesus Christ

Humanity has been touched by God at its origin because God created in God’s image, in its journey towards the common destiny in the fullness of life and, the Christians believe that it has been fully restored, reshaped by a unique event: the coming of God in Christ. That event may not be known explicitly, may even be rejected by people, and yet, for the Christians it has transformed and uplifted humanity to a higher plateau. All in Christ are a new creation! For the Christians, this constitute the deepest bond of unity, the most forceful reason for all beings to be connected in dialogue, and for all religions to explore deeper and deeper their common role of mediating that transformation provided for all and, for us Christians, is provided by God through Christ. This aspect is also the specific and unique element they bring to ID. To hide it, to dilute it, is to betray the process of dialogue and to loose the trust of the other partners of the dialogue. But in offering this element to the others, the Christians ought to keep in mind the caution issued by the Indian Bishops: “In affirming the uniqueness of Christ, we must also pay attention to the fact that this statement is primarily a profession of faith. Being a profession of mature faith, it comes not at the beginning of the faith-journey, but in the process of that pilgrimage, as the summit and conclusion towards which the one who has been evangelized is led by grace in the Spirit” (7).

The Chapter refers to this reason but more as a reminder of the necessity to give the proper place to Christ, than on the “how” to harmonize his role in the plan of salvation with the ID. “For us Christ remains the eminent and indispensable point of reference in this journey” (n.28). And so in any ID the Christian participants should “witness to their faith in interreligious meetings, by declaring explicitly their Christian identity” (28.2).

d) The Presence and Action of the Holy Spirit in and through Religions

The Asian vision of dialogue emphasizes strongly the presence of the Holy Spirit in the whole life and activities of religions. “That the Holy Spirit is God’s ‘point of entry’ wherever and whenever God reveals and communicates himself in history to people, it is certain. Indeed, it is so in virtue of the necessary correspondence which exists between the mystery of the Triune God, as He is in himself, and that of the manifestation in the world. Outside the Church as inside, the immanent presence of the Spirit is the reality of God’s saving grace” (8)

In Redemptoris Missio (n. 21-29), Pope John Paul II has developed this point to its deepest consequences, and has set up such a record in this subject that Fr. Depuis states in amazement: ”The presence and universal action of the Spirit of God among the ‘others’ and in their religious traditions constitutes the most definite contribution of John Paul II to the theological foundation of interreligious dialogue” (9). But what is even more remarkable for me, and constitutes the theological newness of RM, is the fact that the Pope sets up religions as the “main and essential expressions” (n.55) of all that God does to humanity, all that Christ brought to it and the Spirit vivifies with Her presence and action. If religions are the main expression of all that God does to humanity, then they cannot disregard each other, but enter into deeper communication with one another as to explore more thoroughly these amphethamoble riches available to all.

The Acts of our last Chapter are very strong on this reason for ID: “ID helps us to recognize, in the light of revelation, the universal and constant mission of the Holy Spirit, who stirs up in history, through religions and diverse experiences, the search for truth, for God and salvation” (n.28), and it chastizes those who still find “difficulty to believe that in other religions there are elements of truth and of goodness” (n.78.3).

(1) F. Arinze, BULLETIN, Secretariatus pro non Christianis, 1987, N. 3.

(2) Ibid.

(3) O Degryse, Interreligious Dialogue – The Asian Churches Set the Tone, Louvain, 1999, p.73.

(4) J. Kroeger, “Dialogue: Key to Mission” in Periodic Papers, Mission Update, March 1997, p.2

(5) “Some questions about God the Redeemer”, by the International Theological Commission (ITC), 1966, n.25

(6) ITC, n.16

(7) Asia Focus, October 10, 1997, n. 37.

(8) J. Depuis, “The Christological Debate in the Context of Religious Plurality”, in Catholic International, 14 June, 1991, p.544

(9) J. Depuis, “Le Dialogue Interreligieux a l’heur du Pluralism”, in Nouvelle Revue Theologique, October-December 1998, p. 552