Outcome of Dialogue

The outcomes of ID has many components: some relate to the psychological outcome, others to the theological outcome and the two which, in my mind, are the most essential and most fundamental ones. I will describe briefly the latter ones, and then mention those which are concomitant with them, and/or complementary to them.

1. Better and deeper awareness

Any type of dialogue must lead to the growth of mutual knowledge. Through dialogue the followers of world religions must come to a greater awareness of the other’s beliefs, religious principles, religious practices and religious attitudes towards life and all its manifestations. This is the centerpiece of dialogue. Followers of religions have taken each other for granted, have assumed too often that the knowledge they have of the others is correct, not filtered through prejudices, enmity, historical factors and the like. But in fact one of the greatest areas of ignorance of the world, is that of religions. And because of the lack of awareness, wrong judgements have been formed, incorrect assumptions have been developed, and condemnations have been declared which have hurt people who felt misunderstood, misjudged, and totally misinterpreted.
I am talking here of awareness, not necessarily of speculative knowledge. Awareness comes from any interaction, or form of dialogue, among people. It comes primarily from the lived experience, as Fr. Degryse suggests: “Experience must be the foundation of reflection and spontaneity”.1 If the participants in dialogue look at one another as people, perceive each other as individuals, see each other endowed with gifts, qualities, attitudes which make the person whole and holy and, at the same time, they also come to know the religious background , motivation, principles and practices of religiosity, then what they acquire is not speculative knowledge, but awareness of the others. What they come to know is in and through the persons with whom they already are acquainted, whom they come to treasure and love. The perspective is completely different, and the outcome is much richer and complete. The attitudes brought into the dialogue are not the fruit of intellectual speculation, but the fruit of trust, of friendship, living side by side as good neighbours, , or as co-co-workers in the work of the kingdom, as sharers of religious beliefs and as companions in the same journey. This fuller outcome of dialogue is best visible in Asia where “down the centuries and the millennia, this continent has been characterized by the quest for the divine, and for lofty ethical ideals. All the world’s major religions were born and nurtured in Asia. The world-view, the life and the institutions of Asian peoples are permeated by a remarkable religious and spiritual sensitivity. Well aware of this, the FABC wishes the Church to reach out to the soul of the people by entering into dialogue with the various religions, and thereby to become rooted in its soil. The bishops not only acknowledged the place of religions hold in the lives of the people, they also view their role from a positive theological perspective”.2

2. Sense of a Fulfilled Mission

Mission is constitutive to any baptized person and to every community of believers, from the family unit, to the small faith community, to the parish, diocesan and Church community. Without mission, a disciple is not faithful to his/her baptism, and a community is unfulfilled and sterile.
As mentioned in the preface of this article, mission encompasses many elements. All are important, but not all can always be fulfilled, because of historical situations, often determined by socio-political requirements, or, at times, by special vocations to which the disciples and the Church may be called. The Little Brothers and Sisters of De Foucold have been called to exercise their mission through presence, witness and journeying together with other people in their own lived situations. The cloistered religious practice their mission through prayers and penance. Communities like St. Egidio prefer to accomplish their mission through dialogue, persuasion in resolving conflicts and differences at national and international levels, to bringing together believers of all faiths to pray, share and act. Similar choices are made by local churches in a country, or by all the churches of a continent. The clear choice of mission made by the Churches of Asia is Mission as Dialogue. “The missionaries in Asia declare: ‘Our mission is Interreligious Dialogue’”,3 And Pope John Paul II states in Redemptoris Missio: “Dialogue is one of the church’s fundamental activities: it is essential and never ending”(RM, n. 31).
Once the choice is made, its biblical basis established, its strategies put in place, then these churches feel that they are performing a mission to which they are called by the Spirit of the Lord, and which is meaningful, given the whole environment which surrounds them. It is a feeling of fulfilment , which elates them and assures them that they are faithful to their baptismal call and their specific vocation. In the past, these churches have been apologetic to the rest of the Catholic Communities of the world and also to the Vatican, for their poor showing of converts, for their small congregations, for their seeming inability to make inroads into the life and structures of their societies. Those who judged them and, to a certain extent condemned them, did so out of a model of mission based on expansion, on numbers of converts, on elaborate structures to keep up the expansion and the development of people. And these Asian Churches felt humiliated for their inability to do in their continent what other Christians had done in other continents. NO LONGER!.
The Asian Churches, after years of struggle, of debate, of humiliations, of self-chastisement, have discovered the precise nature of their mission, have embraced it and are carrying it out with vigour, courage, prophetic energy, and they have become a beacon of light for all those who may wish to exercise mission in the same way, and are of great assistance to all involved in mission who wish to incorporate this aspect as intrinsic to it. And yet, they themselves need to constantly keep balancing dialogue with other elements of mission in whatever ways are possible and allowed to them. Fr. Degryse states that “thanks to their theology of dialogue, the Asian Churches ought to become a beacon for the Churches that are facing religious pluralism. This requires that the Asian Churches themselves succeed in their search for a balanced and harmonious theology of dialogue”.4.
It has never been an easy road for these churches to arrive at discovering, defining and practicing their specific mission. Actually it has very often been a bumpy road. Obstacles have come from all corners, at all levels. Accusations of betrayal of mission, of reductionism of its essence, of taking the easy road, have been levelled at them, thus adding more anguish to an already painful situation. But the Spirit has guided them, supported them, and through patient, tactful, unthreatening and faith-filled dialogue with all believers, theologians, Church leaders, they have been able to overcome most difficulties, and have dialogue as their preferred mode of mission accepted and respected in the academic world, among the hierarchy and especially the missionaries who work side by side with them.

3. Other Outcomes of Dialogue

In the course of this article, several times I have mentioned the purpose of dialogue, which is directly linked with its outcome. And so suffices here from Pope John Paul’s II speech to the leaders of non-Christian religions, a quote which spells out succinctly but thoroughly the other effects of dialogue. “Dialogue between members of different religions increases and deepens mutual respect, and paves the way for relationships that are crucial in solving the problems of human suffering. Dialogue that is respectful and open to the opinions of others, can promote union and a commitment to this noble cause. Besides, the experience of dialogue gives a sense of solidarity and courage for overcoming barriers and difficulties in the task of nation building. For without dialogue, the barriers of prejudice, suspicion and misunderstanding cannot be effectively removed. With dialogue, each partner makes an honest attempt to deal with the common problems of life, and receives courage to accept the challenge of pursuing truth and achieving good. ..The first fruit of dialogue is union among people and union of people with God, who is the source and revealer of all truth, and whose Spirit guides men in freedom only when they meet one another in all honesty and love. By dialoguing we let God be present in our midst; for as we open ourselves to one another, we also open ourselves to God. We should use the legitimate means of human friendliness, mutual understanding and interior persuasion. We should respect the personal and civic rights of the individual. As followers of different religions, we should join together in promoting and defending common ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education, culture, social welfare and civic order. Dialogue and collaboration are possible in all these great projects”.5

Dialogue and the IMC Tradition

In the last two Chapters, statements have been written with the intent of portraying how the members of our Institute have achieved and are achieving in the field of ID, and what prospects exists for the future. They seem a little contradictory, or, at least, in need of some explanation to resolve the apparent contradiction.

The Acts of the XGC state:
In the past: “In the history of our Institute there is no real tradition of inter-religious dialogue, not even with the traditional religions that we met in Africa or Latin America. In relation to the ‘others’, pessimistic and negative evaluations and opinions are most common. We often lived in conflict with other Christian Religions, and not all of us have developed an ecumenical sensitivity….Inter-religious dialogue presupposes also a new theology with which many of us are not familiar”(Acts, XGC, p. 80).
In the present: “But a certain sensitivity for the theme of interreligious dialogue is developing in our Institute. After several trials, our young delegation in Korea is setting itself on the way of dialogue with the great religions of Asia…. It was just recently that some Regions in Africa thought about specialising missionaries in the field of Islam. We feel today the need to deepen the theological and pastoral meaning of dialogue, not as an alternative or downgrading of the proclamation of the Gospel, but in order to see in it another face of ad gentes”(Ibid.).
In the future: “We consider it very urgent to engage in this activity, even if we are not sufficiently prepared (Ibid.).
It is clear that the statement refers to two past phases of our missionary activity. The pre-Korean phase during which, according to the Xth General Chapter, there is no real tradition of interreligious dialogue, and the post-Korean phase during which a group of our missionaries has chosen ID as the new face of mission in line with the Asian choice, and a certain sensitivity has been developed also in the rest of the Institute on the issue. As for the future, the Xth Chapter sees some seeds of possible growth of dialogue as in Africa, where we are in constant, distressing and difficult contact with Islam and the traditional religions; also in North America where the indigenous religions are still strong, and everywhere else where we meet with new religious movements.6
The XIth General Chapter has produced more brief statements, which, at times, seem contradictory. Let us look at them as they relate to the past and the present of the Institute, and projects its hopes in the future.
The past: “ID is a traditional part of our missionary methodology and, at the same time, is a confirmation of one of the priorities that we have chosen in our most recent mission openings” (n.77).
The present: “In the Institute we are discovering more and more the importance of ID as something that has to be deepened and developed in all the regions, not only in the new mission opening” (n. 78). “There is a growing awareness among the missionaries that through ID is possible to develop a closer collaboration among religions…” (n. 78.2).
The future: “In our assemblies for continental planning, a concrete plan of ID should be prepared that each region will put into effect” (n.79,1). “In our regions we are to begin to strengthen existing groups of ID in those places where there is a consistent phenomenon of migration” (n. 79.2). “In our basic and ongoing formation there should be the study and deepening of the phenomenology, theology and methodology of ID” (n. 79.3). “The Institute should make known through our publications …..the significant experiences of ID which are carried out in our regions, as well as the studies on ID that are produced by our centers” (n. 79,4). “Accompany and support our specific activities of ID, both the traditional ones, as well as the more recent ones” (n. 79.5).
Two considerations to clarify, if possible, the position of the two Chapters. It seems clear that the 1999 Chapter was less optimistic than the 2005 one, on the whole question of ID. For the former one there is no tradition of ID in the Institute, there have been no activities in the field of ID. The Korean experience is the real hope for the present and the future. Pessimism about the past, some hope for the future. For the 2005 Chapter, there is a tradition of ID in the Institute , some activities have been performed by the missionaries, both in the past and in the present. At present and for the future there is much hope due to the consolidation of the Korean experience, its abundant fruit in the field of ID, and the opening of two more mission communities in Mongolia and Djibouti . These three communities are in the position to develop meaningful activities of ID, produce materials to promote it, and help the other missionaries incorporate ID in their mission, etc. Optimistic about the past, very positive about the future.
Different Chapters can have different views on the same subject. But they cannot contradict facts, data, events. And yet the 1999 Chapter does not admit IMC awareness of ID or involvement in it, up to the opening of our mission in Korea: while the 2005 Chapter admits both of these, even before the opening of our mission in Korea. . Two possible interpretations could be submitted to explain the differences: one is that the 2005 Chapter at times speaks of ID not in its strict sense, but in its larger meaning: that ID means dialogue in general. And so it seems possible and true to say that the Consolata Missionaries were engaged in dialogue with, or, at least, had an interest in cultures and traditional religions. But it was more for the purpose of knowledge than of dialogue. . The other is that the affirmation of the 2005 Chapter contains a historical mistake. If ID is taken in its proper sense, then it seems possible to state that up to the mission opening in Korea, there was no dialogue with other religions, including the traditional ones, and there were no activities set up for this purpose.
There is no doubt that our community in Korea has made a difference in our Institute, and has changed from seeing ID as an outfield occasional interest, to a central one for the Korean members, and an ever growing concern for all the other members. The original decision of our missionaries to make for dialogue the center of their missionary presence and ministries in Korea, has set the pace of a brand new method of mission. The establishment of the Okgil-dong ID Center and the planning of its activities , has intensified that original trust of mission as ID, and offered a validation of their new method. The newness of this strong stance and approach of our missionaries, has taken by surprise most pioneer missionaries of Korea, who had never thought of going that way, and put our Institute in line with the preferred type of mission chosen by the AFCB. That the IMC, the latest comers to Korea and possibly the smallest group of missionaries in that country, has done this, is itself an extraordinary event, and it highlights once more that spirit of openness which characterized our first missionaries in Kenya, in Ethiopia, in Roraima, in Terabyo and elsewhere.

ID is the new face of mission for the Churches of Asia and elsewhere, with Christianity living side by side with other world and/or traditional religions. It has also become in its essential components and activities, an important part of mission the world over, with nuances which are proper to the different situations of other continents. Europe and North America may come to develop this dialogue between the followers of religions imported by the immigrants and sciences, as also with the masses of the post-Christian era, and even the mass media. In Africa believers and missionaries may wish to concentrate their dialogue on cultures and traditional religions. In Latin America they may direct it towards social classes, the rich and the poor, religion and politics.
ID will acquire various forms of expression and will be directed to many groups of people. But ID, based on religious values and principles, will remain a full form of mission in certain countries, and an essential component everywhere else. As Consolata Missionaries we better accept this challenge, make it part of, or the major part of our mission, be ready and willing to practice it more and more as we move into a new era of mission.