A Continuing Test for Interfaith Dialogue
It is my experience with Christian groups that after hearing a painstaking attempt to convince them about the significance of interfaith dialogue in today’s pluralist context, they ask, ‘after all, do you still believe that Jesus is the way, truth and life?’ My usual counter-question is: what do you mean by ‘way’? Is it easiest and shortest cut? What do you mean by ‘truth’? Is it like a capsule to swallow? What do you mean by ‘life’? Is it living with ever increasing material comfort and a spiritual promise of eternal life after death? Some eyebrows are normally raised, but many others go out confirmed in their opinion that the business of interfaith dialogue is ultimately compromising on the most fundamental claim of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which we are called to proclaim.

The experience with people of other faiths is different but equally intriguing. Let me share a recent story. On 6 November 2002, as part of a workshop on reading the Bible in a multi-faith context, we invited a group of three representatives from other faith communities – a Hindu who also felt comfortable identifying with Buddhists and Jains, an orthodox Jew and a Muslim, to share in a panel discussion their response to, or comments on John 14:6 (the full text had been given). As the co-ordinator of the workshop, I expected them to express some sympathy to those Christians who grapple with the text while being open to experiences and insights shared by people of other faiths. What happened, however, was astonishing not only for me and my colleagues at the United College of the Ascension, Selly Oak, Birmingham, but also for the participants and visitors from the neighbouring colleges who attended in an unprecedented manner which showed their interest in the topic and style of the programme.

The Hindu said, with a hesitant smile, that to utter such words Jesus must be narrow-minded and arrogant. For him an Indian religious teacher would never say such things. He quoted from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions to reinstate the typical Hindu position that different religions are different pathways to the same destination. The Muslim had been well exposed to Christian communities and well read in Christian theology, as was evident in his engaging and thought-provoking talk. After sharing some irritating stories of Christian groups approaching him with a hidden agenda to convert him, he pointed out that there are different opinions among Christian theologians about the authenticity of this saying which is recorded in John, one of the latest books of the New Testament. For him, seen from the Qur’anic point of view, Jesus cannot have said this. He went on to explain that Islam does not accept the divinity of any human being and underlined that God is All Compassionate and Most Merciful as it is repeated at the beginning of every chapter of the Qur’an and salvation comes through multiple ways, although Islam represents a perfected way. Finally, the Jew remarked that she was confused when confronted by such questions and stated passionately how frightened the Jewish community was when Christians approached them with such claims. She said quite categorically that Jesus’ words have no relevance for practising Jews because they in no way change the original call of the Jewish community to be a light to the nations and who live with an additional burden of having to obey a set of commandments. She wondered whether the early Christian community manipulated the image of a Jewish Jesus with spurious doctrines and experiences.

In the following discussion, it was clarified that respect for a person is not identical with respect for every religious belief and practice. To direct the discussion to an important concern, I shared the experience of my forebears choosing to become Christians in preference to following the many ‘religious ways’ they had inherited and living with. Even after knowing the positions of different religious traditions and in spite of passionate calls to go back to my mother religion, I have valid reasons to remain a Christian. I also mentioned how Jesus, his disciples and Paul, although they were Jews, have made great appeal to people like me, who have grown to understand Jesus’ claim to be the way, truth and life differently from popular Christian interpretations. Am I then confused or misguided? While this sharing raised the curiosity of the audience, the speakers were unanimously generous about the decision of such individuals as long as they do not make any moral judgements about the faith orientation of others. The meeting came to a close, but news about it spread very fast and some expressed their wish to have more such meetings with honest and frank sharing.

Following this, in the next week (15-16 November 2002) a conference on John 14:6 was held at Ranmoor Hall, Sheffield. It was organised by Inderjit Bhogal, a Methodist minister in Britain who was the President of the Conference in 2000-2201. During his presidency Bhogal initiated a dialogue on John 14:6 which involved a series writings in the Methodist Recorder and taking a group to Punjab, India, where lie his Sikh roots. Bhogal who is surrounded by Sikh families and relatives has been vociferous about his Sikh roots and claimed that it is possible to live as a true Sikh but following Jesus Christ. Many Christians in Britain continue to find this claim baffling and some have actively involved in dialogue with him. The above conference was organised with a view to consolidate the hitherto conversations and to give pointers to further reflection.

Of the twenty five participants, there were practitioners of interfaith dialogue such as Elizabeth Harris, systematic theologians such as Frances Young, New Testament scholars like Morna Hooker and persons with long experience in dialogue at ecumenical level such as Wesley Ariarajah. Several preparatory papers were produced, some by those who could not be present in the conference. They centred around different questions about John’s Gospel which would help understand more clearly the context and content of 14:6. For example, how do we understand the nature of the scripture with reference to the exclusive claims of Jesus most of which occur only in the Fourth Gospel? What is the context and what are the principles of interpretation? How do we understand the Johannine prologue on the eternal and cosmic Word today? In what way is Jesus distinctive and unique? How can the church be guided in its evangelistic task in a multi-faith milieu? At least a summary of the reflections will be soon available in print.

No doubt such meetings and reflections bring Christians close to great challenges for their faith and mission. At the same time, if commitment and openness characterise a dialogical life, we have some pastoral and didactic responsibilities for our own community. Without isolating ourselves from our faith-communities, it is important to promote better self-understanding and to equip the churches to engage in fruitful dialogue with people of other faiths. One way could be engaging in corporate bible studies with openness and with an acute awareness of challenges coming from people of other faiths today. This bible study has been written with this concern.

Commentaries on John’s Gospel abound. All of them emphasise the veracity of Jesus’ claim as the only embodiment of the ultimate truth and its uncompromising missionary appeal. As far as I am aware, there is hardly any study of the Gospel, particularly of 14:6 done with an awareness of difficulties in understanding the text in a multi-faith context. Mine here is a modest attempt to point out a few contours which will stimulate further discussion in greater detail.

A Significant Context
Normally John. 14:6 is taken out of context and proclaimed as a fixed doctrine which is non-negotiable. But an honest exploration and genuine openness with an acute awareness of other claims is indispensable for a matured understanding and behaviour in today’s world. If we are not careful about the particular context of Jesus’ claim, we cannot say anything about the similar claim by people of other faiths. For example, Hindus are not tired of quoting the Vedic verse, ‘Truth is one and the wise call it differently’, the Upanishadic prayer, ‘Lead me from untruth to truth, from darkness to life, and from death to eternal life’. A simple exegesis of these texts will reveal that the context is ritual sacrifice which is the central truth of Vedic religion. Similarly, when they point out Krishna’s saying in the Bhagavad Gita that ‘whichever path men take they all come to me’, they do not acknowledge the context of competing traditions in which the text emerged with a view to provide a synthesis. And only an ignorant Christian will say that 14:6 is one of the ‘I am sayings’ of Jesus which are unique to the New Testament, because the ‘I am sayings’ of Krishna in the Gita are more in number and greater in giving a universal appeal. The Buddhist, Jain and Sikh traditions also have similar claims. A humble recognition of this fact must drive us into a fresh reading of John14:6 in its context.

The context of John 14 is the farewell discourse of Jesus addressed to his desperate disciples with passion and intimacy. 14:6 is part of a dialogue. When Jesus mentioned his going to prepare a place and coming to take them, Thomas said, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going, so how can we know the way?’ To understand the sarcasm and echo of popular views involved in this question, we need to consult the other two contexts where Thomas appears prominently. Earlier, when Jesus insisted on going to Judea and raising Lazarus, despite discouraging comments from his disciples because of the hostile climate where his opponents were waiting upon his coming in order to stone him, Thomas said to his fellow-disciples, ‘Let us also go and die with him’ (11:16). After Jesus’ resurrection, it was Thomas who represented those who questioned Jesus’ resurrection in his real body, which led to a vision of the risen Jesus showing his wounds and inviting him to touch them, to which, Thomas exclaimed, ‘My Lord and my God’ (20:28). Again, let us not miss the mood and nuance of this exclamation. It is significant to note here that The Gospel of St. Thomas which was not included in the New Testament Canon is characteristic of a Gnostic position and there is no reference to the cross or the suffering love of God.

Apart from the immediate context of the dialogue, we need to look at the wider context which was intra-Jewish. Despite ongoing debate on the exact composition of John’s community, it is generally agreed that they were mainly Jewish Christians. Obviously, this community was facing a conflict situation created by the conservative wing of the Jewish leadership, as is amply evident in Jesus’ hot debates with them. In any case, the main purpose of the Gospel was to convince the wavering ones ‘in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through this faith you may have life by his name’ (20:31). There was no indication of mission among the gentiles and of awareness of the existence of other faith communities like Buddhists and Hindus. Even if one is acutely concerned about the ‘other’, as was the case of Peter in the final dialogue of the book, Jesus’ answer was, ‘If it should be my will…what is it to you? Follow me’! (21:22).

Accepting Jesus as the Christ was fundamental for the Jewish Christians. They consciously made this decision when there were several options among competing claims. Whenever the Jewish community was in distress and agony, particularly due to the enslaving rule of empires, there was an acute expectation of the coming of Messiah. The Rabbinic literature is full of dialogues about the real nature of Messiah and the time of his coming. A single Messiah was never envisaged, but many in different times, and this has continued until recent times when particular individuals have claimed to be the Messiah. As Hans Ucko observes,

Rabbinic literature saw the messiah surrounded by a council of shepherds and princes. Adam, Seth, Methuselah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David were seven shepherds who protected the flock of the Messiah, Israel. Princes would advise the Messiah – Samuel, Saul, Jesse, Elijah, Amos, Zephaniah and Hezekiah. They are themselves in rabbinic literature called Messiahs.

One midrash tells the story about Hezekiah, whom God almost made a Messiah. The earth pleaded with God that Hezekiah be made the Messiah. “But a voice from heaven said: ‘This is my secret, this is my secret’. And…when the prophet exclaimed sorrowfully,…How long, O Lord, how long?’ the voice replied: ‘The time of the Messiah will arrive when the treacherous dealers will have come’” (Ucko, Common Roots, New Horizons, Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994, p. 77).

Such sample references should motivate Christians to take up serious study of the rabbinic literature to have a comprehensive understanding of Messiah and competing claims in the time of Jesus. Jesus’ parable of the door of the sheepfold and the good shepherd and his allusion to the thief who came to steal and destroy become strikingly clear in this context (10:7-18). It is also relevant to refer to two instances in Acts where two revolutionaries and their unsuccessful movement are mentioned (5:36f; 21:37f). The particularity of Jesus coming from Galilee was further perplexing and was not acceptable for the average Jew (see Jn.1:46; 7:52). In this light it is understandable that, although he corrected the understanding of Messiah and modified expectations, all the acts and words of Jesus presented a convincing yet hard option for the Jewish Christian community.

When we highlight the intra-Jewish context of Jesus, we need to take note of and connect this with the basic affirmation that Jesus was the embodiment of the eternal divine word, which is internally present as light and life in all human beings, struggling to enlighten them - as recorded in the prologue of John. In a Hellenistic world such interpretation made lot of sense. But what we should not forget is that the particular embodiment was in the form of a Jew, called teacher and prophet and confessed as Messiah and the Son of God; and also that the eternal word which was embodied in Jesus continued to be present as light and life in every human being, struggling to enlighten them. It is not up to us to make judgements on other embodiments whether they are claimed to be of the cosmic word or principle, but it need not be an arrogant act if we test every claim against the claim of Jesus within the Jewish context.

The Contextual Meaning of the Words
It is interesting to note that the image of ‘way’ in relation to Jesus is used only in the dialogue mentioned in John14:4-6. The only other reference to ‘way’ in the Fourth Gospel is 1:23 where John the Baptist claims to be the one to prepare or straighten the way for the Lord, as spoken by Isaiah and referred to in the other three gospels (Mtt. 3:3; 11:10; Mk.1:2-3; Lk. 1:76; 3:4-5; 7:27). It is relevant to refer to Matthew 21:32 where Jesus says that ‘John came to show you the right way to live’. It was not necessarily a flattery when a group, before asking a hard question about paying tax to Rome, told Jesus, “Teacher, we know you are a sincere man; you teach in all sincerity the way of life that God requires, courting no man’s favour, whoever he may be” (Mtt. 22:16). In the same Gospel Jesus says the following:

Enter by the narrow gate. Wide is the gate and broad the road that leads to destruction, and many enter that way; narrow is the gate and constricted the road that leads to life, and those who find them are few (Mtt. 7:13-14).

Most commentators on John have protested against the tendency to take Jesus as a teacher or guide to the way of life and God, for they insist that in 14:6 Jesus himself is the way in an intimate spiritual sense. But what they cannot say is that therefore it is the easiest or shortest-cut way. Indeed it is the way of cross, as the life of Jesus clearly shows. As his behaviour and questions reveal, Thomas was not far from grasping this sense.

The next question is, how do we understand Jesus as the way to the Father and his house? Is the Father distant from Jesus by place or space? There is no suggestion in the Fourth Gospel to think so and this Gospel considerably excels all the books of the Bible in portraying God as Father, even at the risk of some Jews misunderstanding that Jesus was equal to God (5:18). Jesus claimed that he and his Father were one and they lived in each other (10:30, 38; 14:11,20). Without imposing any later doctrines, there is no indication to suggest here an ontological oneness but rather a relational intimacy. It has the centrifugal and centripetal movement of a relationship of being one and yet different in a dynamic way. This can be supported with the further indication that the oneness that existed between the Father and Jesus was not different from what his disciples could share. Jesus prayed: ‘May they all be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me’ (17:21). However, what is most striking in this gospel is that Jesus, as sent, attested and taught by his Father, sought constantly to work out the will of his Father (ch. 5). In this light, all we can say with some confidence and reason is that when Jesus claimed that he was the way and no one could come to the Father except by him, what he meant was not a spatial or geographical passage but a window to understand the will of God the Father at a time of crisis and confusion (see 7:16). Otherwise, we exclude millions of people before and after Christ who in some way had an experience of God which was reflected in their outstanding deeds. This is not to deny that Jesus opening a new avenue to understand the heart of God, but it is to affirm that God is not only the Father of Jesus but also the Father of all.

At the same time there is no reason to deny or undermine the eschatological dimension evident in this dialogue. The indication of ‘many dwelling places in my Father’s house’ was comforting to the disciples whose future was unclear. It continues to comfort millions of Jesus’ disciples living today who often experience despondence in their pursuit of justice and peace. At the same time, we should not miss what is said towards the end of this particular chapter: in reply to Judas’ question about his disclosure to the world, Jesus said, ‘Anyone who loves me will heed what I say; then my Father will love him; and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him’ (14:23). And it makes sense that although Jesus was one with the Father enjoying intimacy, realising his own position (if he was conscious of his being as the embodiment of the eternal Word or Son) and in identification with his followers, he said that ‘the Father is greater than I am’ (14:28). On the whole, what we see here are both our movement towards the Father’s dwelling places and the Father’s and Jesus’ movement towards us to make a dwelling place in us. Therefore, instead of visualising a one way traffic to ‘heaven’ we are asked to participate in the relational movement of God forth and back in and through his Son Jesus Christ. Being one with God and Christ here and now is part of this participation which helps us to understand the will of God today and to be ready even to risk our life keeping in mind our final dwelling with him.

‘Truth’ is the next term we need to consider. Again it occurs in John very distinctively. On the one hand it is used in the sense of an actual fact or perceived fact which is veracious and genuine (8:44-46). On the other hand, is the sense of the ultimate reality evident in Jesus’ claim that he is the truth? During his trial Jesus told Pilate, ‘My task is to bear witness to the truth…all who are not deaf to truth listen to my voice’(18:37). Pilate’s question, ‘What is truth?’ reflects how cynical and deaf he was as are many today! Jesus expected from his own community a fundamental openness to see and listen to what God was doing anew. True worship is worship with spirit and truth, and it may be said that one should worship in a spirit of truthfulness (4:23-24). And also, once again Jesus connected truth with action: ‘Those who live by the truth come to the light so that it may be clearly seen that God is in all they do’ (3:21). Later, turning to the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you stand by my teaching, you are truly my disciples; you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ (8:31-32). Truth is thus liberated from any abstract concept or reality and construed as fundamental openness and witnessing action.

Jesus did not bring the truth to a close or fixed point. He said that the advocate he would send was the ‘Spirit of truth’ (14:17), who will witness to Jesus along with the disciples (15:26-27) and guide them into all truth (16:13a). Those who affirm the cosmic presence and function of the Spirit from creation to consummation miss an important teaching following the last verse above: ‘for he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak only what he hears; and he will make known to you what is to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and make it known to you. All that the Father has is mine, and that is why I said, “He will take what is mine and make it known to you”’ (16:13b-15). While admitting the ambiguous meaning of this saying, Christians have to grapple with the question of whether the Spirit in her outworking in every person in some way at some point introduces him to Jesus Christ. Perhaps the Spirit faces repeated failure!

Occurrences of ‘life’ in John present a yet more complex picture. It is significant to note that the word ‘salvation’ comes only once in John where Jesus claims that it is from the Jews in his dialogue with the Samaritan woman (4:22). The recurrent term ‘everlasting life’ is connected with belief in Jesus and his words (3:16; 5:24; 6:40,47; 20:31), judgement (4:36; 5:28), God’s commandments and Jesus’ words (6:63,68; 12:50) and sharing in his flesh and blood (6:27-54). In the cosmic word there was life that was light (1:4) and those who follow Jesus will have the light of life (8:12). Jesus claimed, ‘I have come that they may have life, and may have it in all its fullness’ (10:10). As the Good Shepherd he laid down his life for the sheep (10:11). This corresponds to his saying that ‘unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains that and nothing more; but if it dies, it bears a rich harvest. Whoever loves himself is lost, but he who hates himself is in this world will be kept safe for eternal life’ (12:24-25). Even in a bereavement Jesus declared himself to be the resurrection and life (11:25). Jesus prayed to the Father mentioning himself in the third person (!): ‘you have made him sovereign over all mankind, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. This is eternal life: to know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’ (17:2-3). What do all these mean? Apart from encouraging his followers with a promise of eternal life, Jesus affirms that real life lies in one’s readiness to die for others and openness to know the one God and Christ whom he has sent. This goes well with the meaning of the way and truth we have seen above.

The Appeal for Today
Despite the complex nature of the texts, the above exercise has at least focused John.14:6 with reference to the fundamental message of a unique life which through a process of suffering and surviving or dying and rising sets a vision and model for humanity. It is clear that here there is no support for a rallying cry of triumphalism and outright condemnation of other faiths. It is rather an affirmation of a vulnerable faith community and call for a life of discipleship to follow the Jesus’ way. This is reiterated in the Johannine version of the Great Commission. Unlike the Matthean one, that gives room for a triumphalist interpretation as was done in the mission enterprise that went along with colonial expansion of the West in the Third World, the Johannine version is dramatic and succinct: to his disciples who were together behind locked doors for fear of the Jews, showing his hand and his side, Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father sent me, so I send you’. Then he breathed on them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit! If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you pronounce them unforgiven, unforgiven they remain’ (20:19-23). It is very significant that the Father, Son and the Spirit are brought into association with a victim community who are endowed with the authority of forgiving their victimisers. Then mission, to use the words of Kosuke Koyama, is to go not with a crusading mind but with a crucified mind. Honesty requires us to admit that totalitarian and triumphalistic tendencies in the history of Christian mission have distorted the original nature of mission, and their legacy continues. It is imperative for us to correct the situation and ask people of other faiths in dialogue to understand us with a sense of empathy. We need to make clear that we are called to participate in the mission of the Trinitarian God, which includes contributing to the mending of creation in every field, and in which calling people for a new orientation of life is not out of place. We need to let others know that it is not our fabrication but responding to the fascinating vision of a vulnerable community and their tradition.

However, this does not fully solve the problem of any Christian mission or witness in a multi-faith context today. We may be tempted to fall in line with the typical Hindu claim of one truth - many religions. But we are not encouraged to point out that in the dynamic complexity of the Hindu religious traditions there have been conflicting truth-claims between sects and schools of thought within. On the other extreme, we may take the Islamic line of one truth - one religion. Again, Muslim scholars refer to historical-textual-critical approaches to the Bible and conflicting theological positions within the church with a view to score points for their claim of perfection and finality. But they hardly show any interest in subjecting the Qur’an to similar approaches, nor do they have any sympathy for a tradition like Sikhism which emerged about ten centuries later than Islam. On the whole, it will be confusing to subject Jesus to competitive bargaining in the public market of gods, goddesses, gurus and prophets!

We are finally left with our Jewish roots. We tend to forget the Jewish orientation of Jesus when we isolate verses like 14:6 from the context and when artists imagine indigenous forms of Jesus to counter the western images. It is terribly misleading. Even if the Christian tradition is irrelevant to today’s Jews, we need to affirm that the Jewish tradition is inextricably related to ours. The religious Jewish community still identifies with their original call to be a light to the nations, which is regarded as both a privilege and a responsibility. Jesus was a Jew who claimed that salvation was from the Jews, perhaps in the sense of being the only community which has preserved a tradition of slavery and liberation around which a cult is established. And no other scripture presents such a self-critical mode as the Hebrew scripture, striving to achieve justice, peace and love. Jesus followed the tradition very faithfully but challenging the excesses, as any Jewish teacher and prophet would have done. At the same time he was open to move on from traditional locations (‘neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem but everywhere’). His openness to God and experience of life, death and resurrection, opened a new horizon for outsiders to join a new movement and we are attached to that. In the end, our primary call is to be yoked with Jesus Christ. One can even say it is an additional burden for us to take upon us the greatest commandment of loving God with all our being and loving our neighbour as ourselves and this command again comes from the Jewish tradition. Just like the Jewish position, it is an additional burden for Christians to live with an acute awareness of the greatest responsibility set before us, which is of course compensated by the joy of freedom and hope. We need to be open about our repeated failures and strive to grow into greater maturity so that others can understand the unique position we are placed in.

It need not dilute the message of John that the Jewish Jesus was the embodiment of the cosmic word active everywhere. But any affirmation of the work of the Word and the Spirit needs a grounding to qualify the nature of that work. Abstract meanings are unhelpful. We need to distinguish between plurality and contradiction. Jesus Christ provides the necessary criteria for this. It is significant to note that in at least two places in the New Testament where his pre-existence as ‘Christ’ occurs, the context is clearly solidarity with a suffering community (1 Cori. 10:4; Heb. 11:23-26). Therefore instead of simply affirming Christ as unknown or anonymous, we should locate his focused presence and the success of his struggle as light and life using this clue. It is not enough to see the expressions of the eternal Word or ‘unknown Christ’ in the values such as truth, beauty, order and love, but in concrete expressions of showing solidarity with the vulnerable and committing for a continued struggle for their liberation and new life.

In today’s context, discussions about Truth in an undefined and abstract sense hardly help any participating party. Jesus seems to challenge us in relating it to life and the way to it. One may even think to replace the ambiguous word ‘truth’ with a word like ‘insights’. The Sikh scripture Adigranth, in which God’s name is Truth, has a telling verse: Truth is highest, but higher still is truthful living. Let being truthful take precedence over any search for unknown avenues of abstract truth, grounding it in concrete situations of life.

Rev. Dr Israel Selvanayagam is Principal of United College of the Ascension, Selly Oak, Birmingham, U.K.