Gosbert T.M. Byamungu

Many religions prohibit their adherents from reading sacred scriptures of other religions and this is understandable. Dubbed Religionsmischerei (as distinguishable from Religionsmischung!), syncretism is depicted negatively as an illegitimate cocktail of differing religious practices, condemnable for its inherent lack of coherence. Its illegitimacy lies in the need to protect the faith, effected through the creation of virtual safe borders around it. The border walls off, through ignorance of other faiths, any possibility of corruption or “defection.” The faithful would therefore grow in their creed, nourished by its promises, and fed by its spirituality. Such traditional methods of protection were effective because movement was limited and interaction among peoples, minimum. With simple prohibitions nourished by the daemonization of the other, and with little possible information about the other, it was indeed possible to keep the people safe within the borders of catechetical conscription. Indeed, the law of apostacy entails a guarantee for people to refrain from possible “conversion.”

With the world having become smaller and interaction easier, the walls of separation have become thin. This has created a situation where people find a Bible, a Koran, a Vedic text, etc., placed side by side in a hotel room, for instance. This augments the possibility of exposure for people to read the sacred scriptures across the borders. The question is, is there a possibility of such a reading of the scriptures with a peaceful conscience? Would a hermeneutic arise and find endorsement as people read across?

Indeed, there is consciousness that any reading experience harbors an affective potential in which through multiple processes, rifts, tensions and juxtapositions are unavoidable. It would therefore be unhelpful to sugarcoat reality with unfettered optimism or to pretend that it is different from what it actually is. Yet, it is a matter of courageous honesty towards self-understanding to face the identity of the other, against whom our own identity can be vectored. The issue then becomes, what are the epistemic grounds for religious discourse to be uncomfortable with a cross-border hermeneutic, essentially if the “other believers” are neighbors, workmates or classmates? What are the fears/dangers involved in an intertextual exposure of this kind? The idea behind this seminar is to explore some answers to questions such as are posed here.

The Gist of the Question
Perhaps the whole discussion hinges on the monotheistic perspective of the major world religions, the belief that your God is also my God, however differently this God is conceived or adored. The belief that God’s mysterious identity embraces also his mysterious pervasive nature, finding him entails an ability to see his energy expressed in every meaningful experience in the cosmos. And apart from religious considerations, there are crucial sociocultural considerations that argue for interfaith encounter. We need to look around and see war-torn societies, especially those torn apart on account of religion. This wide spread violence whether secular or religious, is deeply a result of prejudice and/or ignorance of the other, who is daemonized and therefore hated. If humans were to take courage to approach each other in love, a possible future of destruction fed by a spiral of violence can be averted.

Religious discourse assumes a stance to help people cross the floods of life. Seen in this way, interfaith hermeneutics does not aim at agreement but at listening and understanding. To understand the other, one does not have to agree with what the other stands for. As one would put it, we do not have to create “common ground” in order to embrace the other. If the basic aim of interfaith rapprochement is to promote greater understanding between people of different faiths, a logical starting point would be to try to understand each other’s sacred writings. In them is embedded the treasure, that can be retrieved for creating a better world.

Thus, a healthy, sustained academic discussion between scholars and other experts across the spectrum of religious traditions would help clarify areas of agreement and disagreement in belief and practice. What that achieves is the eradication of ignorance of each other, and a creation of an ambience where acceptance might replace unhealthy prejudice.

Christians are therefore not expected to compromise the Gospel in the course of the dialogue, just as members of other faiths are not invited to compromise their beliefs. Indeed, Islam can easily tolerate Jews and Christians as “People of the Book,” but will never allow for the possibility of conversion from Islam to any other religious community. Thus, what can be done by each faith tradition, is to deepen one’s own faith in the light of enlightenment from the other faiths. Genuine religious disagreement can also be healthy: “We recognize that crucial issues divide us […] but for our conversations to be fruitful and honoring to God, we must stop misrepresenting or caricaturing each other, always speaking the truth to each other in love.”ii

Conclusion
The Temple, the Mosque, the Church, the Synagogue. Each is a visible locus which announces the presence of the divine on earth. Our religious camps remain to be insular communities, islands as it were, where bridges of communication are hardly built. This creates a field of undesired ignorance, isolation, prejudice and hatred. In contrast, the camps ought to be like lighthouses, radiating love, truth and justice. Critically, can the reading of holy scriptures across faith communities cast this light into the world of darkness in which we are now living? Can scholars and religious leaders allow a hermeneutic of retrieval, so that God can be let to speak through every “word” that promotes life and harmony among humans, and make this legitimate discourse? Can we serve the cause of religion in promoting peace through listening and understanding the other? This seminar aims at looking for answers as we critically engage this important question more closely.

Dr. Fr. Byamungu Gosbert is a Catholic Priest from Tanzania, currently working for the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity as professor of Ecumenical Biblical Hermeneutics at the Ecumenical Institute Bossey.

Notes
i. Syncretism was considered in ancient religious and philosophical discourse as an illegitimate blending of disparate religious elements or philosophical perspectives.
ii. Craig L. Blomberg, Introduction to How Wide the Divide?, Downers Grove, III: Inter Varsity, 1997, 27.

Next article: Seminar on Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scriptures in Pluralist Contexts:
Reflections - Aimee Moiso
Back to list of contents