It is my contention that what we have now is, paradoxically, a lot of theory with little relevance to practice on the one hand (dubbed arm-chair dialogue) and practice without an adequate theory on the other. The latter aspect will constitute my major focus of study. Dialogue represents a field-reality; it is not a theoretical construct. This is reason for pause but not concern. It is reason for pause because practice without underlying theory confuses the opportunistic with the providential. Practical action without theoretical context either contributes to alienation from both, or provides the scope for other ideologies, or methodologies or cults to provide the context. All action is predicated on an implicit theory and it has to be made explicit if the tail is not going to wag the dog. It is, however, not a cause for concern. In the history of Christianity, theory has often arisen out of reflection on what happened. It was after the Graeco-Roman world began to come under the influence of the Church that Patristic theology took off. It was after Aristotle had made his philosophical impact that Thomas Aquinas arose in consequence. Similarly, it I snow, after the dialogical situation has been a reality for well over half a century, that time may be ripe for an intellectual response from within the Church.
The very decision to engage in dialogue is a step fraught with philosophical meaning, if analyzed. In a missionary situation truth is indivisible - I have it, you don't. To have it you must come over to my side, because it cannot be divided between us, it can only be shared by us. In a dialogical situation too truth is indivisible - I have it, but you may have it too. In order for both of us to share it, if both of us have it in some sense, it must find a place in-between us. I do not have to go over to your side; you do not have to come over to my side; it is still indivisible and it can still be shared but by perambulation (from side to side) rather than transition (from one side to another). This philosophical significance of dialogue in relation to truth has not been fully explored. The exploration of this theme will constitute the first major item of the project; that the truth is not so much with me or with you but in-between us. This will constitute its philosophical dimension.
From truth to God. It was the missionary assumption that God is with us and the Devil with the others. As the standing of the other religions improved within Christianity, the others came to possess lesser gods, then they became anonymous Christians' (in a sense different from Rahner and more like Panikkar's) and finally, in dialogue, they become, in a sense, one with us though not one of us. The changing theistic pattern involved here has virtually gone unnoticed. First God is with us and Devil with the others; then God is with us (and Devil more peripatetic!) and you can become one of us and thus be with God; but in a dialogue situation God is not so much with us as amongst us, or with us with a very different sense than at the beginning - he is now with us all. The exploration of this theme will constitute the second major item of the project: that God is not so much with us as among us. This will constitute the theistic dimension of the study.
From truth to God to religion. Proselytization involved change from one religion to another. In that sense it worked with a somewhat unidemensional concept of religion. It involved a situation in which there were two parties, but only one (true) religion. Dialogue in a sense is predicated on, and rose, in a situation of religious pluralism. There are now many religions and although one may still insist that there is only one true religion, the rest are no longer to be dismissed as false, even though they may be considered inadequate in some way. Their ontological rejection is no longer possible; axiological rejection is possible but hardly desirable or even feasible, if genuine dialogue is to occur. Thus while in departments of religious studies the various religions are treated on par in an atmosphere of objective neutrality; in dialogue they are treated on par in a climate of engaged neutrality. It is here that the methods in the study of religion insinuate themselves into our study of dialogue, for the study of religion is characterized by two kinds of pluralism: (1) of religious traditions and (2) of methods of studying religion.
Methods of studying religion try to examine religion from various stances: from behind (e.g. sociology of religion; psychology of religion; structuralism; etc.); from above ("history of religions"; the philosophy of religion; "perennial philosophy"; etc.); from below (geography of religion; politics of religion; Darwinism; etc.); face to face (anthropology of religion; phenomenology of religion; etc.). However, to the metaphorical arsenal of "behind", or "above", "below", "face to face", (or up front); etc., we must now add "between". In other words, the study of interaction among religions, all the way from patterns of stonewall opposition to mutual fecundation, becomes the methodological implication of dialogue, as the work of Wilfred Cantwell Smith seems to imply. The exploration of this theme will constitute the third major item of the project: that the study of interaction among religions is the methodological corollary of dialogue. This will constitute the comparative methodological dimension of the study.
From truth, to God, to religion, to Christianity. The shift from proselytization to dialogue as the focus of the Church's mission has implications for its Christology, its pneumatology, and its ecclesiology, which have yet to be examined. It is pneumatology in which, so far, the implication of dialogue has received the most explicit attention but insufficient consideration; and to a lesser extent in Christology. In ecclesiology what we witness is the evasion of the encounter rather than the encounter. The existing response consists of stopping with the proclamation of the gospel rather than carrying it through to conversion; such retreat has often been balanced with active engagement in secular endeavours with others. What I am concerned with here is in the "paired" considerations of Christology and pneumatology and then Christology and ecclesiology and ecclesiology and pneumatology, leading ultimately to the hermeneutical triangulation of a coherent new worldview through which the Church may perceive the new world and its mission within it.
The difficulty I have with the present response is that although interesting in themselves they do not form a coherent pattern in terms of Christology, pneumatology and ecclesiology. The proselytizing mission of the Church displayed this consistency: the role of Jesus as the Saviour, combined with the Pentecostal experience and with the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church forms a consistent and coherent position, although the Church may have moved beyond it (or forms such a consistent body of interlocking doctrines that the Church has had trouble extricating itself from it). Let me offer, as a potential example, what might similarly constitute a consistent and coherent body of dialogue for dialogue. In terms of the Christian trinity, the doctrine of kenosis can be applied both to God and to Christ. By such self-emptying at each step, room is made for the other. By a similar kenotic exercise, could not the Church also make room for the partner in dialogue? The exploration of this theme will constitute the fourth item of the project: the examination of consistent and coherent bodies of doctrines about dialogue which will validate it in terms of the core concepts of Christian theology. This will constitute the theological dimension of the project.
The final step would consist of examining the possibility of aligning all the four dimensions of Truth, God, Religion and Christianity; or the philosophical, the theistic, the religious and the Christian along the same axis. To illustrate the point with the help of the examples offered earlier, the question will be asked: do the ideas of truth as in-between, God as among, religions as interactive and kenotic Christianity be so interpreted as to occupy the same conceptual space? This will constitute the valedictory dimension of the project.
Arvind Sharma is Professor of Comparative Religion in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Harvey G. Cox 1988. Many Mansions: A Christian's Encounter with Other Faiths. Boston: Beacon Press.S.Mark Heim 1990. "Mapping Globalization for Theological Education". Theological Education Vol.XXVI Supplement 1 (Spring 1990) pp. 7-34.
John Hick 1974. Truth and Dialogue in World Religions: Conflicting Truth Claims. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
David H. Kelsey 1975. The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Aloysius Pieris 1988. Asian Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Press.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith 1967. Questions of Religious Truth. New York: Scribner.
William M.Thompson 1987. "Jesus' Uniqueness: A Kenotic Approach". In M.J. Laddy and M.A. Hinsdale, eds., Faith That Transforms: Essays in Honour of Gregory Baum. New York: Paulist Press, pp.16-30. Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal, 1966. Notre Dame; University of Notre Dame Press.
