Jan 30, 2014

S.J. Samartha on inter-faith Dialogue

| 4 Comments
Introduction:
Stanley Jedidiah Samartha was the first director of the World Council of Churches (WCC) sub-unit on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies from 1970-1981. He was born in the year 1920 and died in the year 2001. He was an Indian theologian and a participant in inter-religious dialogue. , Samartha studied at Madras University, United Theological College in Bangalore, Union Theological Seminary in New York and the Hartford Seminary Foundation. He also did post-graduate studies at the University of Basel. In addition to his work as lecturer, professor and principal, he was the author of a number of books, including The Courage for Dialogue (WCC, 1981) and Between Two Cultures: Ecumenical Ministry in a Pluralist World (WCC, 1996).

S.J. Samartha on religious plurality:
The impressive phenomenon of religious plurality, according to Samartha, is a clear indication that religions are different responses to the Ultimate Mystery. The nature of this mystery provides the ontological basis for the empirical fact of religious plurality. Hence the nature, and in particular the distinctiveness of every religious tradition should be studied within such a philosophico-theological framework. Only then can the importance of religious pluralism be understood and appreciated. In a religiously plural world, Samartha considers religions as different responses to God or the Truth. He advances three reasons for the plurality of religious traditions.

First, since human beings respond to the Ultimate Reality from diverse chronological, geographical, historical, cultural, existential and other conditions, the responses to the Ultimate are bound to be plural. Second, religious traditions are human expressions of experiences of the Divine or Truth. “How can so great a Mystery be experienced in only one way and expressed through only one set of symbols? Religious plurality, therefore, is the homage which the finite mind pays to the inexhaustibility of the infinite.” Third, an ontological basis for the phenomenon of religious plurality is, as Samartha suggests, the pluralistic nature of reality: “Diversity is in the heart of Being itself.” The numerous religious traditions may therefore be understood as varied expressions of the heterogeneous essential characteristics of the nature of reality. However the diversities within the being of Mystery need not be interpreted as perpetually separate entities; rather they are all inter-related, constituting a complex whole, an advaitic reality.

Thus Samartha recognizes religions as traditions which have responded differently to the mystery of the Ultimate. Furthermore the mysterious ontological basis of Truth gives all religions a relative and interim character. Divine truth is received and preserved in earthen vessels. “No one who is part of a particular community of faith, shaped by linguistic, social and historical factors, can escape this cultural relativity.” Being so conditioned, no particular religion can claim absolute significance for all people and for all times. In other words, any particular religion can have decisive but only relative significance.

S.J. Samartha on inter-faith Dialogue:
For Samartha the context of religious plurality demands a life style that would render philosophical, theological, ethical and empirical justice to every religious tradition as well as promote mutual critical appreciation and edification, thereby enhancing the quality of life on the globe. Samartha advocates the dialogical way of life among people of different faiths. While enumerating different reasons for dialogue, Samartha is also aware of several obstacles in the way of dialogue, but he is hopeful that many of them could be overcome in due course of time. Samartha understands dialogue as:
A mood, a spirit, an attitude of love and respect towards neighbours of other faiths. It regards partners as persons, not as statistics. Understood and practiced as an intentional lifestyle, it goes far beyond a sterile co-existence or uncritical friendliness. It does not avoid controversies; it does not emphasize only points of general agreement; it recognizes difficulties in relationships as well. It is not a gathering of porcupines; neither is it a get together of jellyfish.

For Samartha, dialogue is not mere conversation. It is a serious engagement with neighbours of other faiths as all people go through the trials and responsibilities, joys and sorrows, quests and discoveries of existence on earth. It is not a superficial fellowship but a critical cooperative venture, a pilgrimage towards Truth in love, respect and human solidarity.

Samartha cites several important reasons for dialogue – historical, socioeconomic, and political, empirical, human and theological. Countries which had been under colonial rule for long have experienced a general renaissance giving birth to several socio-economic, political, and religiocultural movements. The pluralistic heritage of the peoples of Asia and Africa has been brought into sharper focus during the post-colonial years of political independence. In such a situation “where religions divide people into different communities and where political alignments tend to follow religious affiliations it is felt that inter-religious dialogues can help to bring people closer together.”

As many countries have become independent since the middle of the twentieth century, national development has become an urgent priority in those countries. In this endeavour there are certain human concerns which are common to people of all faiths. Inter-religious dialogues can prove to be helpful in this task of nation-building by pooling together the different perspectives and resources of the many religious traditions in addressing some of the common problems.

Then again, many people in secularized, scientifically and technologically advanced countries have become alarmed with the adverse effects of their so-called materialistic progress on society. Hence the earnest quest for authentic, relevant and mystical spirituality which can give purpose and direction to life as well as transform it. Inter-religious dialogues assume essential significance in such a quest.

Similarly the importance of personal relationships is being increasingly recognized in pluralistic societies. Religions cannot be known through academic studies of creeds and doctrines. While such knowledge has its value, it cannot compare with the significance of inter-faith personal relationships. “Informed understanding, critical appreciation and balanced judgment – these cannot arise except where people meet in friendliness and trust, in openness and commitment.” Furthermore in a world of increasing cruelty and violence there is need for ecumenical religious communities as ‘islands of hope in an ocean of despair.’ It is dialogue which facilitates the birth of such cross-religious communities.

Samartha presents three theological reasons for justifying dialogue. Firstly, God has entered into a dialogical relationship with all humanity in a very special way through incarnation. Therefore to follow a dialogical lifestyle is to be part of God’s continuing work among human beings. Secondly, the gospel of forgiveness, reconciliation and new creation is full of the promise of the formation of a true ecumenical community in which all barriers are broken down and bonds of love are made stronger. The offer of such a gospel unavoidably depends on dialogue. Thirdly, truth in the Bible is not propositional but a relational concept. One experiences truth in dynamic personal relationships between God and human beings, and among human beings. Thus dialogue becomes a methodological channel in the search for truth.

There are however several obstacles to dialogue. In his writings, Samartha identifies some of them: lack of courage for dialogue; the fear that it dilutes Christian faith commitment and betrays Christian mission; the fear that it leads to religious relativism and syncretism; bitter memories of past relationships among people of different faiths; the presence of evil elements in religious traditions and human encounters; the apprehension of people of other faiths that dialogue is a disguised method of Christian mission to convert people; the perspective that the framework of dialogue is western; and the practical problems of communication in the dialogical relationship.

Conclusion:
Samartha is of the opinion that most of the obstacles to inter-religious dialogue are based on unjustified fears and lack of proper understanding about the nature and method of dialogue. He emphasizes that interreligious dialogue can take place meaningfully only when all the partners are genuinely committed to their respective faiths and yet maintain a receptive openness to the spiritualities of other people. It should however be kept in mind that there can be no such thing as pure religious dialogues. Politicoeconomic and socio-cultural factors also can influence inter-religious relationships. So also there can be no single approach to dialogue, because the partners hail from diverse cultural backgrounds and different historical situations and have developed highly complex attitudes towards the basic questions of life. For instance, some may enter into dialogue as they feel the urgency of cooperation on issues of common human concern, while others may seek dialogue to discover spiritual resources to edify human life and to ward off the ill-effects of secularization. There could be several other approaches to dialogue. Samartha hopes that some of the conceptual and methodological problems would be resolved in the course of the dialogical relationship itself. One way by which some of the barriers to dialogue could be removed is by building a sound theology of dialogue. It is in this area that Samartha has made a significant contribution. His paradigm for inter-religious relationships could be entitled as “A Theocentric Christo-Pneumatological Model.”
You can request me for proper footnote format.
Bibliography:
Samartha. Dialogue as a Quest for New Relationships, Journal of the Chair in Christianity, Vol. I, No.1. Geneva: WCC, 1989. Samartha. Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationships. Geneva: WCC, 1981. Samartha, One Christ – Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology. Bangalore: SATHRI, 1992. Samartha. The Progress and Promise of Inter-Religious Dialogues. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. IX, No.3. Philadelphia: N.P, 1972. Aprem, Mar. Indian Christian who is who. Bombay: Bombay Parish Church of the East, 1983. http://archive.wfn.org/2001/07/msg00231.html. (24/01/2014).
Tags :

4 comments:

  1. If you are interested in some new ideas on inter-faith dialogue and the Trinity, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.

    My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

    In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

    The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

    1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.

    2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the "body of Christ" (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.

    3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

    Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

    * The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

    ** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

    For more details, please see: www.religiouspluralism.ca

    Samuel Stuart Maynes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for stopping by and for the lengthy comments. I went to your about page and saw this "and I became convinced that all major religions are just different views of the same God." But a question arises- which God are you talking about?

      Yes your idea on Trinity relativism (If I should say) might bring various religious attention but the exclusiveness that lies in the core of every major religion will always stand as a barrier.

      The Golden rule rules for any pluralistic context.

      Delete
  2. Puanthanh, thanks... Despite apparent differences, the underlying similarities among religions suggest the possibility that they may all be merely different facets of the same multi-dimensional reality. The diversity of world religions may very well be rooted in the diversity of the divine life itself.

    If you read the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, you will see that I am merely expanding on what is already inherent (but sometimes obscured or hidden) in the orthodox concept of the Trinity. Indeed, when we examine world religions, we see in the personalities they portray and the language they use, a reflection of one or other (or some combination) of the three divine psychological personae.

    In the past, religious misunderstandings have caused immense grief, but civilization is rapidly approaching the point where the very survival of the world depends on overcoming anti-social religious conflicts, and the negative impacts of increasing population on the planet. The human race can no longer afford religious strife that divides people and disturbs urgent cooperation on mutual issues such as conservation and sharing of resources, combating climate change, stimulating healthy economic growth, etc.

    Peace in the world requires peace among religions. Religious pluralism is a necessary paradigm shift whose time has come. Absent any better idea, the Trinity Absolute concept of One God in three phases or personae is the only adequate metaphysical vehicle necessary and sufficient for a real form of religious pluralism that is more than just lukewarm toleration and talking past one another.”

    Samuel Stuart Maynes
    www.religiouspluralism.ca

    ReplyDelete
  3. As far as respecting and maintaining peace among various religious groups is concern. It is good and necessary. And almost all religions propagates that. But each religion has its own limit of tolerance because every religion has a point of exclusion.

    I will visit your website time to time for studies...
    Thanks once again..

    ReplyDelete