Abstract
Spiritual energy and power can be purposefully used to create structures and conditions that allow religious communities to co-exist. In the context of South Asia and particularly of India, can the very presence of Christians become a gift to the community? A useful pointer could be revisiting the concept of Jubilee Year as described in Leviticus, Isaiah and Luke that portrays the message of atonement, restoration, hospitality and renewal of the divine covenant - all of which are essential for inter-religious dialogue. The following paper seeks possible answers by addressing the concerns of the Christian layman and building up a framework for inter-religious dialogue, with a focus on being faithful to the Christian Gospel. The aim is to create conditions in which different accounts of the world of human experience can flourish together.
Introduction
The rise of secularism has nonetheless been unable to displace the faith of millions within the various religions of the world. Not only does the majority of the world’s populace align themselves with one religious faith or another but also people hold on to their religious beliefs even within irreligious political systems. This clearly demonstrates the potency of religion. Therefore this spiritual energy and power could be purposefully harnessed to bring about the conditions necessary for world peace, not just through the creation of structures that would allow religious communities to end differences, but by creating conditions in which different accounts of the world and human experience could co-exist. What could be a better occasion than the Jubilee Year to embark upon this journey?
Luke 4:16-21 describes Jesus proclaiming His mission in the synagogue. Jesus tells his hearers that he is speaking of the Jubilee Year described in both Leviticus and Isaiah. In Leviticus 25:8-55 ‘the year of Jubilee’ is described as an occasion for atonement, restoration of land and hospitality to those in need, be it to a fellow Israelite or to an outsider living in Israel. However, in Isaiah 61:1-2 ‘the year of Jubilee’ is portrayed as a message of hope for the exiled community, confirming their freedom and promises in the renewal of the divine covenant. These scripture extracts, in my estimation, point out that the key to understanding the Jubilee Year is to view it primarily as a communal event. The Jubilee Year reminds the community of its responsibility and privileges. Leviticus and Isaiah portray the Jubilee as a mark of the Lord’s favour through the restoration of community and ultimately creation, which is ‘shalom’. The beneficiaries are not only members of the community but outsiders too, it giving equal opportunity for justice, liberation, safety and peace.
In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus extends his fulfilment of the Jubilee to beyond the borders of Israel. He illustrates his mission by deliberately telling two stories which involve God’s blessing to Gentiles. In the first story, God uses Elijah to bless a widow and her son, and in the second a Syrian general is blessed by Elisha. These counter-cultural stories seem to cause a change in the synagogue’s atmosphere, from indifference to tension, and the people of Nazareth attempt to kill Jesus. They cannot tolerate his outrageously inclusive interpretation of Isaiah’s messianic vision. The shalom which Jesus proclaimed at Jubilee challenged the way Israel’s culture had come to exclude people, and by contrast embraced shalom relationships with those who were radically different to the Jewish community.
This has powerful present-day application for the church because a contemporary reading of the Jubilee Year challenges us not only to open our hearts to those living on the outermost fringes of society but also to promote shalom with those of other religious faiths, even in situations of disagreement, struggle or discord. This has even more significance in the context of South Asia, and particularly India, where the Christian community is a tiny and vulnerable minority among much larger populations of Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists. The former often face serious hardships as a result of practising their faith. This context has provided some Christians with a vision for inter-religious reconciliation. This reconciliation could be brought about partly because of the rich contribution the church makes in the areas of education, healthcare and social services, which are esteemed by people of other faiths. It could also come about if Christians considered themselves to be active peacemakers. Then their very presence could be a gift to the community. However, among those Christians who are interested in engaging in inter-religious dialogue, a number shy away as they feel inadequate at communicating and relating to others.
This article therefore seeks possible answers and perhaps even initial steps towards cultivating inter-religious dialogue, keeping India especially in focus. The first part addresses the concerns of the Christian layperson. It looks to build a framework for inter-religious dialogue with a focus on being faithful to the Christian Gospel. The aim is to answer the question not of how to create structures which allow religious communities to bury differences, but rather of how to create conditions within which people of sometimes very different experiences of the world can flourish together. The second part of the article will explore possible foundations for the establishment of an inter-religious partnership to promote peace and harmony, and provide some specific examples, including inter-cultural activities and prayer as well as formal dialogue.
Building a Framework for Inter-religious Dialogue
Western India, particularly Maharashtra, is unfortunately notorious for farmer suicides due to debt. Farmers here take loans at high rates of interest from moneylenders in order to grow crops. However, they are at the mercy of the monsoon rains, which are unpredictable. The lack of sufficient rain or the menace of pests can devastate their lives as they get into bad debt from which there seems to be no way out. One Christian couple, having often interceded before God for these farmers, was moved to adopt a village in the region. In addition, members of the village were taught to practise alternative farming, which does not depend on monsoon rains. Results were encouraging. Since water was scarce, a bore well (hand pump) was also installed for the villagers to use.
Before moving on from the village, this Christian couple expressed their desire to help someone. They asked the villagers, who are predominantly Hindu, ‘If we wanted to help one man who is most in dire need in the village, who would it be?’. They pointed out the lone Muslim family in the village, to whom assistance was duly provided to build a house. One can only imagine the whole episode creating ripple effects: a well-to-do couple (‘haves’) being selfless as they share with poor farmers on the verge of debt (‘have nots’) and stand up for Muslims who were in the minority, which in turn softens the majority Hindu community.
This story may not be about an exceptional act. However, what makes it notable is the rarity with which such events are reported. We are bombarded on a near daily basis with news stories that portray religion as the cause of seemingly wilful conflict the world over. We rarely hear stories about the peace-building power of religion. This contribution is often overlooked, in part because the sensationalist secular media rarely pays attention to the role of religious peacemakers as their work is often not dramatic enough. Furthermore, as far as the church is concerned, many within its community do not see much value in this work because it does not seek to bring new Christians into the church per se.
Jesus: The Prince of Peace
What would it take in India for a Christian layperson who is fundamentalist in faith, or for an Evangelical church, which can be ever so cautious, with many theologically trained Pentecostal or charismatic leaders often suspicious of building bridges with leaders of other faiths, to embark on a joint venture with other religious faiths and take up peacemaking? Since many Christian laypeople in India fear compromising their faith in religious dialogue as they feel it might dilute the purity of the Gospel, it is appropriate for Christians to firstly study the role of Christ in discussion. Isaiah 9:6 and Ephesians 2:14-17 affirm that Jesus is the ‘Prince of Peace’ because he makes Jews and Gentiles one, breaking their dividing wall of hostility and reconciling them. The durability of an inter-religious initiative and the local participation of Christian laypeople therefore depend on the answer to the question, ‘What is the role of the Lord Jesus, from the Christian perspective, at a religious round table?’.
Further on the subject of peace, accepting the United Nations 1984 Peace Medal, in 1984 the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti addressed the United Nations in New York. He asked some probing questions, singling out the failure of various peace initiatives and connecting this to peace (or otherwise) within individuals. He asked: Why is it, after all these millennia upon millennia, why is it that human beings throughout the world don’t live in peace? The society, the culture, the tradition, is created by all human beings. We have created this society. We are responsible for this society, which is corrupt, immoral, violent, divisive, cruel and so on. We have created this, this society in which we live. We are the society … And until human beings, each one of us, radically transforms himself, we will have perpetual wars, there will be no peace on earth … War is not in Beirut, it is in our hearts and minds … Is there psychological security, either in the family, in a group, in a community, in a nation? Is there any kind of security inwardly? … If we are not sure about that, certain, clear, we try to seek security outwardly, externally, through nations, through religious organisations, through some ideologies. So it is very important … that we should talk over together now and discover for ourselves if there is an inner security – security in our relationships with each other … No organisation in the world has prevented any wars … So it behoves us, and each one of us, to find out why we live this way. And whether it is possible radically to change our whole psyche. If there is not a revolution there, mere outward revolutions have very little meaning.
1
In addition, continuing on the theme of world peace beginning with the self and in the home, the old Chinese proverb goes: If there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character. If there is beauty in the character, there will be love in the home. If there is love in the home, there will be order in the nation. If there is order in the nation there will be peace in the world.
Schopenhauer depicts the opposite of this by relaying the plight of the Australian bulldog-ant, which literally devours itself in a self-initiated battle. He writes: If we cut a Bulldog Ant in half, the front and rear segments will enter into a savage fight. The head will seize the tail with its teeth, while the tail will sting the head with fury. The fight might last for hours.
2
This is perhaps an apt description of the inner struggle faced by every human between the desire to follow their own desires and to follow God. Apostle Paul describes this in Galatians 5:17 as nature versus spirit and in Romans 7:14-25 as evil versus good. However 2 Corinthians 5:19 states, ‘God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation’.
The Bible therefore speaks of peace firstly in individual life before it can overflow to others. The word ‘reconciliation’ is not just a reunion of people who have been separated from one another. Such a thing may be a restoration of relationship but it is not full reconciliation. To be reconciled is not to cover over the cracks and pretend that nothing has happened. Reconciliation is to face up to the cause of the disruption, realising that only when the cause has been dealt with can true friendship be restored. However, as Krishnamurthi probingly observed, no matter how good a reconciliation looks from the outside, its longevity will depend on a person’s reconciliation within themselves. For the Christian layperson, I believe this personal reconciliation to be foundational to a Christian dialogue of inter-religious peace because this will prepare the motive for action. That motive would be the pursuit of peace with other communities as a fruit of Christian living rather than for the purpose of averting conflict.
I would therefore suggest that if pursuing peace is not part of the overflow of the lordship of Christ in one’s life, it is doubtful whether any other motive could sustain peacebuilding attempts during times of conflict and difficulty, and the onslaught of time and conflicts. If peace initiatives are viewed as part of the said overflow, this will help in fostering confidence in three areas of understanding of inter-religious dialogue, namely that: a) it is not a compromise of the Scriptures, (b) it is about God’s solidarity with victims of religious fanaticism through the cross and (c) it fosters a spirit of forgiveness.
Inter-religious Dialogue Is Not a Compromise of the Scriptures
If Christian laypeople must take the initiative in inter-religious peacemaking, then it is imperative that they be assured that such initiative does not represent a dilution of Scriptures, as many fear in India. In Luke 14:31-32, Jesus speaks of an ambassador as someone who seeks terms of peace between warring nations. Acts 10:36-38 affirms that Jesus preached the ‘good news’ of peace, healing and deliverance. By contrast, according to Jeremiah 6:14 and 8:11 false prophets declare, ‘Peace, peace’, when there is no peace because they have neither healed the people’s wounds nor put an end to their greediness and injustice. The biblical peacemaker is physical as well as prophetic. The Bible emphasises the larger truth of complete reconciliation between feuding parties – physical and emotional. In the Bible, genuine peace is always both just and moral. 3
The Cross is God’s Solidarity with the Victims of Religious Fanaticism
The magnificent Christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 reveals that the Son of God did not stay in the safe immunity of heaven. He emptied and humbled himself to serve. He became little, weak and vulnerable. He entered into our pain, alienation and temptation. He allowed himself to become a victim of gross injustice. Christ knows what suffering is as he was betrayed, tortured and crucified by the religious leaders of his time. Therefore the cross is not a chance intrusion in the life of Jesus. It is in a way the natural outcome of a life of solidarity with the broken, the crushed, those torn between choices and those driven out from their homes. The coming of Christ in the flesh is not only God becoming man but standing in solidarity with the weak and oppressed. Jesus’ experience on the cross is the ultimate experience of God-forsakenness. Thus Christ is able to understand the pain of those who have suffered under religious fanaticism. The co-suffering of Christ with us leads to the moral challenge of creating an environment of peaceful reconciliation.
Inter-religious Dialogue Fosters the Spirit of Forgiveness
At the heart of the ‘New Birth’ is the recognition that God has granted us his gifts of love and forgiveness and therefore we are called to grant the same to others. God’s gift of salvation through Christ coming to earth has transforming power precisely because it offers to followers of Jesus a model of love expressed in daily life. Living in accordance with this forgiving, gracious peace of God may well entail suffering as it may involve the foregoing of justice which is rightfully due to a victim. Indeed, forgiveness is illogical and unjust because a victim waives the right to revenge against the perpetrators, but it is the only answer to endless hatred and bloodshed.
Inter-religious dialogue can be a platform for victims to be encouraged to express such feelings rather than repress them. The success of Bishop Desmond Tutu’s efforts through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a case in point. The prospect of suffering rather than retaliating with violence is certainly alien to modern notions of self-advancement; it is also alien to some contemporary expressions of Christianity that seek to impose their vision of a godly society upon others.
Developing a Language of Non-violence
In inter-religious dialogue, a kind of thinking that alienates one party from another is the practice of moralistic judgments which can cause others to be filled with guilt, shame and fear. For example, one party might undermine another by assuming that others deserve punishment for wrongdoing. This kind of thinking, though unconscious, can be reflected in inter-faith conversations. Therefore, in order to lay empathetic foundations between parties, it is suggested that a language of non-violence be developed. Indeed, in the context of Christian living, Paul writes in Ephesians 4:29, ‘Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear’.
The relationship between language and violence is the subject of psychology professor OJ Harvey’s research at the University of Colorado. He took random samples of pieces of literature from many countries around the world and tabulated the frequency of words that classify and judge people. His study shows a high correlation between the frequent use of such words and the frequency of incidents of violence. It is unsurprising that there is considerably less violence in cultures where people think in terms of human needs than in cultures where people label one another as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and believe that ‘bad’ ones deserve to be punished. At the root of much, if not all, violence – whether verbal, psychological or physical, whether among family members, tribes or nations – is a kind of thinking that attributes the cause of conflict to ‘wrongness’ in one’s adversaries, and a corresponding inability to think of oneself or another in terms of vulnerability, i.e. what one might be feeling, fearing, yearning for or missing. 4
The word ‘jubilee’ is derived from the Hebrew word yobal, which literally means ‘ram’s horn’ and figuratively indicates ‘a trumpet blast of liberty’, or from the Latin verb jubilare, ‘shout for joy’. 5 Originally the Hebrew Jubilee year was concerned with land, property, property rights and returning to one’s land or family of origin. According to Leviticus 25, slaves and prisoners would also be freed, debts would be waived and the mercies of God would be celebrated by all. It was a celebration rooted in tribal culture. Therefore ‘Jubilee’ came to be associated with freedom. Even if these differences were disregarded, the shout of joy and call for battle from the same trumpet prepared the listeners accordingly. In the context of inter-religious dialogue this observation is significant. The ‘jubilee shout’ is for celebration and not for confrontation. This difference must be kept central to dialogue.
Practical application of this perspective can be found in Non-Violent Communication (NVC), a communication process developed by psychologist Marshall B Rosenberg based on the idea that all human actions are needs that people are seeking to meet. Though primarily compassionate, human beings resort to violence or behaviour that harms others when they cannot find more effective strategies for meeting needs. NVC has been described as a language of compassion, as a tool for positive social change: ‘Time and again people transcend the paralysing effects of psychological pain when they have sufficient contact with someone who can hear empathetically’. 6 NVC focuses on three aspects of communication: 1) honestly expressing ourselves to others, 2) understanding and sharing an emotion expressed by another and 3) expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others. Rather than focusing on what we agree or disagree upon, we must discover what we are needing. 7 Acknowledging and understanding these needs can create a shared basis for connection, cooperation and more harmonious relationships.
This is done in four ways – observations, feelings, needs and requests:
Observations: Learning to describe what we see or hear specifically and neutrally, much like a video camera might capture the moment without evaluation.
Feelings: Learning to name the emotional experience associated with our needs that have been met or that remain unmet.
Needs: In the context of NVC, ‘needs’ refers to what are most alive in us – our core values and deepest human longings.
Requests: Learning to identify and express a specific action that we believe will serve our needs, and then checking with others involved about their willingness to participate in meeting our needs in this way. The spirit of requests relies on our willingness to hear a denial, understanding that the denial is an expression to the effect that the other person’s needs are not being met and therefore continuing to work to find ways to meet everyone’s needs. Two questions that guide the search for solution are:
- What do I want this person to do that is different from what he or she is doing? - What do I want this person’s reason for acting to be – to do what I am asking him/her to do?
Irrespective of different theoretical perspectives on the nature of dialogue, policymakers and practitioners alike face challenges in enabling dialogue to happen effectively in practice. The quality of the dialogue, and promoting a sense of belonging between those involved, requires a recognition of the psychological dimension to this: the greater the understanding, the greater the potential for social cohesion. Having only the knowledge of social factors and societal structures is insufficient. Dialogues become effective when they address inequalities between groups, for which communication skills are imperative. NVC skills encourage people to interact positively, thus empowering them. This means that in turn they can deal effectively with potential misunderstandings, prejudice and conflict which arise among them.
In the context of 1 Peter 3:15-17, ‘dialogue’ also becomes an opportunity to give a reason for the hope that Christians have. ‘Dialogue’, John Stott writes, ‘is a conversation in which each party is serious in its approach both to the subject and the other person, and desires to listen and learn as well as to speak and instruct’. 8 This method of communication was very popular with Jesus and Paul. Not only did Jesus often engage his religious opponents, i.e. the Pharisees and Sadducees, but also other Jews, Samaritans, Greeks, Romans and ‘seekers’. The Acts of the Apostles are replete with Paul using this kind of communication, be it on Mars Hill, in Athens, at the Tyrannus Hall or from within a Roman prison. For example, in Acts 17 we see Paul engaging with Greek religion and philosophy to help his audience understand his faith. This is aptly articulated by David Lochhead, to the effect that dialogue should be defined not as a search for agreement but as a search for understanding. 9 Inter-religious dialogue helps Christians understand the situation of non-Christians and how the Gospel answers their needs; but also answers questions raised by people, to ‘involve them in a personal encounter with the claims of God’. 10
Praxis of Inter-religious Dialogue
The Pew Research Centre’s recent analysis of India painted a grim picture for the rest of the world. Among 198 countries, it ranked the subcontinent fourth worst in the world for religious intolerance. 11 As a Christian in India, I am called not only to respond but to be responsible, and being responsible means going beyond an intellectualist meeting of ideas which, often, leads to a dead end in inter-religious dialogue. Engaging in ideas without action and words without deeds is unprofitable. Meetings with two parties from different religions can provide a space for discussion on religious experience and theological exchange. They identify commonalities which can be celebrated and non-commonalities which must be treated with respect. However, to bring about collaborative action is difficult. This is because often in bringing together religious communities there is the issue of them being separated by historical trauma that has bred years of suspicion. To get them to look beyond their own, partisan interests and work with others for the sake of the common good is thus complex. The rest of the article will therefore look at hermeneutics, opportunities and options for such a positive development.
The Hermeneutics of Shalom
For ancient Greeks and Romans, peace was more important in theory than in practice: both communities were regularly at war. By contrast, in the Bible, peace is a key characteristic of God, a prominent concept and as important in practice as in theory. The English word ‘peace’ often connotes inner calm and tranquillity as well as absence of strife or hostility. However, the Hebrew word is much richer in meaning. The Hebrew word for peace, shalom, is derived from sh-l-m, a root word referring to wholeness and completion.
When used as a greeting (Genesis 29:6, 43:27-28 and 37:14, Exodus 18:7), shalom expresses a genuine concern for someone else regarding their health, wealth or general standard of life. 12 However, shalom should not be taken to mean the absence of conflict, for tension is a necessary result of the diversity upon which creation depends. Rather, shalom is the creative and non-violent management of conflict within the context of a greater unity that respects and nurtures diversity. Peace arises from one’s sense of connectedness and belonging to a greater whole, and ideally a series of ever greater wholes working from the micro to the macrocosmic, from person to planet, and from creation to Creator. Peace stands in contrast to war. So in Genesis 26:29-31, Abimelech and Isaac exchange oaths and make peace. A treaty of peace or friendly alliance precludes war between two parties. It is a state of positive friendship and security between two parties.
When we speak of shalom, we must therefore speak of a context that rejects conformity and homogeneity, respects individual and cultural differences and finds a way to navigate the challenges of diverse human interaction in a manner that allows that diversity to flourish without erupting into violent confrontation between cultures, groups and religions etc. The creativity that arises out of human diversity, and indeed the diversity of nature and the cosmos as a whole, is essential to the survival of life. In one strain of rabbinic thought, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 was taken as proof that God desires diversity over uniformity. The contemporary notion of peace would have suggested that the situation of Babel, before the Tower, was ideal. Everyone spoke one language, shared one culture and worked together in peace, and yet in this thinking the rabbis reject this ideal as a false good. 13
There have been differences and diverse groupings on earth since the beginning of time: a family, a community, a bigger community, a nation, ideas against ideas, ideologies opposing ideologies. Shalom includes the ability to treat each other with respect and compassion, as diverse scattered people, of different cultures and with multitudes of languages. We must learn to be different, to be true to our respective cultures of origin, whilst learning to utilise our differences for the common good by awakening to the fact that we belong to a greater whole. Diversity alone and homogeneity alone are individually insufficient and dangerous. The two working together, i.e. diversity within unity, move towards shalom. 14
Conciliation between two opposing sides is called peace, and on its account a being is sustained and the composite entity or community can continue to exist. Peace is not achieved by erasing the diversity of human expression. Peace is established when we learn to non-violently manage the tension that arises from the natural friction in peaceful co-existence. Since humanity is God’s creation, human life is sacred. Thus taking anyone’s life is a gross violation of God’s creation and law. However, the more we see the ‘other’ as a fellow human being, the harder it is to be manipulated into seeing them as an ‘enemy’. The history of propaganda shows that in order to prepare a people for war it is necessary to dehumanise the enemy. Only when we are fighting a faceless and dehumanised foe can we abandon the compassion that the rabbis noted as resting in the heart of even the most courageous of warriors.
A cursory observation today of human transactions reveals what is proverbially summarised thus: ‘The world is becoming smaller and smaller’. This increasing interdependence has been growing as a result of rapid technological advances and international trade as well as increasing transnational relations. We now depend very much on each other at both local and global levels. This means that we need to generate more sympathetic cooperation despite differences. Nevertheless, it is difficult to achieve a spirit of genuine cooperation as long as people remain indifferent to the value of the feelings and happiness of others and ultimately to human life.
Side-by-side Shalom
Picking up the pieces in 2008 after communal riots in Orissa, India, a Christian organisation felt called to build harmony between the factions. Uncertain about their acceptance in a volatile region, they nonetheless ventured forth. Having arrived, they called upon the spectators to participate in simple games and activities. The simple activities picked up pace as more people joined in. When it was time to distribute prizes for the winners, one young man after receiving the prize said to the organisers, ‘You did not ask my tribe, name, community, caste or to which village I belong but simply called all of us to play – thank you’.
To build trust they began with cultural and sports activities in the village. This continued for more than two years before the team realised that they had gained the trust of both groups, following which they initiated face-to-face conversation about conflict management. Every quarterly meeting involved activities, analysis and role play in helping the participants learn peaceful methods of problem solving. During a meeting, one of the young men confessed that the violence in which he and his community participated was instigated by outsiders. Having participated in the ordeal of the conflicting communities, he committed to be a volunteer for conflict management in their region.
Michael Barnes highlights the distinction in dialogue as being face-to-face or side-by-side, citing a Department for Communities and local government consultation. Face-to-face dialogue is an exchange of ideas which leads people to develop a better understanding of one another, including celebrating values held in common as well as acknowledging distinctiveness. Side-by-side dialogue refers to a collaborative social action which involves people working together to achieve real and positive change within their local community. 15
Side-by-side dialogue does not focus on understanding each other as much as it is a way of working together. Here the two parties implement projects which serve the common good, in a particular area. This non-verbal dialogue focuses on common life and needs. While the traditional model of inter-religious dialogue focuses on face-to-face resolution, millennials, who learn by experience, may find side-by-side a more appealing process.
The call for Christians to be socially involved is the call to follow Jesus’ life and ministry, which was not merely a demonstration of sympathy but expressed a solidarity that makes all of human life part of one’s own. The ‘Nazareth Manifesto’, based on Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4, gets its elaborate explanation in the remaining of Isaiah 61: 2-11 - it is a year of restoration, renewal and reconciliation. The Jubilee Year cannot be observed without practical implication for the community. In the context of inter-religious dialogue, I suggest four approaches to accomplish this. Each of them helps fulfil the second commandment, which is to love our neighbours as ourselves. These four approaches are practical applications for experiencing the benefits of the ‘Year of Jubilee’.
Frequent and Fervent Prayer for the Peace of (Various) Surrounding Communities
John Stott, who was instrumental in calling the church to focus on its social responsibility, advises us not to reject the exhortation to pray as a piece of pietistic irrelevance. God is not only the God of his covenant people but he is also the God of the nations. 16 Jesus taught us to pray for our enemies (Matthew 5:44). The Bible asserts the importance of prayer for rulers, the government, our homes and for the community (1 Timothy 2:2). As the local church prays frequently and fervently for the peace of various surrounding communities, it becomes sensitive to conflicting situations and needs. Individually, praying purposefully would make the person a better peacemaker. Furthermore, praying for such communities removes bitterness and creates the ability to forgive.
Active Promotion of Inter-religious Dialogue
Dialogue is not debate, and what we need is not debate but dialogue because debate creates a mentality of winners and losers whereas dialogue brings understanding. At its core, inter-religious dialogue brings together those of different faith traditions for conversation. It may involve any level of participant, from grassroots through to elite. Dialogue may have a variety of goals on the part of the participants and may take a range of forms. Through discussion, individuals and groups may come to a better understanding of other faith traditions and the many points of agreement that exist between them. Inter-religious understanding can therefore bring about the unity necessary for people of religion to work together in their communities. The promotion of this understanding could therefore be of benefit to communities.
Although dialogue is an important step, we must remember that there are no quick or easy solutions. We cannot hide the differences that exist between various faiths, and neither can we hope to replace existing religions with a new universal belief, or force everyone to convert to Christianity. Each religion has made its own distinctive positive (and negative) contributions to the world, which cannot be ignored despite the perhaps understandable prejudice against them.
Where silence and misunderstandings exist, learning about other religions can be a powerful step forward. Being educated about other religions does not mean conversion but may facilitate understanding and respect for other faiths. To understand another tradition, David Lochhead writes, one need not agree with its precepts. 17 This is one of the qualities that made Daniel effective at the Babylonian (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar) and Persian (Darius, Cyrus) kingly courts. Centuries later we find Paul, who was a Jew by birth and Roman by citizenship, well versed in Jewish and Hellenistic culture and academia, using it all for the proclamation of the Gospel.
Inter-religious dialogue is therefore not evangelism, but it can be viewed as an activity that complements and enhances evangelism. Through dialogues we can learn about and adapt vocabulary which is offensive to one another. For example, the word ‘crusade’, used to denote Christian preaching on a mass scale, would mean something totally different to non-Christians. Communicating in a spirit of humility and engaging in self-criticism would also be helpful to build trust. Relationships will consequently improve as a clarified understanding of the faith and lives of neighbours erases misconceptions about other religions.
Inter-religious Involvement in Solving Social Problems
The critique of Christian doctrines, practices and traditions is a theological task requiring Christians and the broader church to exercise the courage of prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11), who criticise not only problems within the community of God’s people but also larger social injustices and ethical crises. Paul Knitter points out that the central teachings of Jesus disclose his ‘preferential concern’ for the poor and the outcast, 18 rather than for religious ideas (Luke 4:18). This is the fulfilment of God’s mandate to humans in Genesis 1:26-28, i.e. the responsibility of caring for all creatures, which urges Christians to actively prevent the damage to or abuse of all creatures and to protect their habitation, the earth. This is stewardship of ‘life’.
Though the aim of inter-religious dialogue is ‘understanding’, as Panikkar asserts, 19 many global institutions and even countries find inter-religious dialogue to be a fertile ground for seeking common means to practically solve social and ethical problems in our day. Many social evils have their roots in religious beliefs and associated conflicts, but solutions can also be found in the same place, starting with dialogue. Thus, participating in these kinds of meetings is itself a first step towards social involvement. The unanimous rejection of bigotry through inter-religious dialogue has a powerful influence on social and moral issues because religion plays a major role in forming people’s moral norms and values.
Many social problems, such as poverty, incurable diseases, terrorism and the destruction of the ecosystem, have in fact already brought many people to work together. Though hermeneutical interpretations and the theology of principal concepts – love, justice, mercy, good works, duty – differ from one religion to another, much commonality can be witnessed and experienced in practice. While inter-religious dialogue may be not able to help different religions agree on a particular religious idea, inter-religious social action will be able to unite them together to deal with societal concerns.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of joint programmes is that they can, as it were, ‘sanitise’ the external factors that incite a particular community to violence against another. It is not religion per se that causes conflict, but individuals who exploit religion for personal, commercial and political gains. These threats must be exposed. After communal conflicts in some districts in Central India, one of the organisations involved in peacebuilding noted that, among some regions where maximum violence had been perpetuated, there were a few villages where different communities had stood up for one another and protected each other. This was possible because the leaders of the communities had identified influences coming from outside their communities and responded to them. Such a preventative act was part of the overflow from joint social actions carried out by different religious communities.
Relief/humanitarian Assistance
Motivated by a desire to help the less fortunate, many religious NGOs are involved in humanitarian assistance. Their desire is to relieve suffering, whether that be due to natural disaster or humanmade calamity. Many are also engaged in longer-term development projects. Humanitarian assistance programmes can help build peace by promoting poverty reduction and addressing economic inequality. They may also support the development of civil society organisations that provide venues for peaceful participation and conflict management. In my experience, many NGOs assert that participatory processes to identify community needs and to promote community development can help to prevent violent conflict. These planning processes contribute to peacebuilding by bringing community leaders together across ethnic/religious divisions and intermixing groups that oppose each other.
According to Ashutosh Varshney’s acclaimed research based on four Indian cities, communal conflict tends to degenerate into violence when inter-community associational links are weak. Strong associational forms of civic engagement, such as integrated business organisations, trade unions, political parties and professional associations, are able to control outbreaks of ethnic violence as these cut across the boundaries of group identity. 20
While researching the many villages affected by the 2008 riots in Kandhamal (Odisha, India), it came as no surprise to one of the responding Christian organisations that the young people who were co-opted into such acts were unemployed. Therefore the team began to offer skills in livelihood and sustainability. They have successfully implemented joint projects with non-Christian organisations, such as food security and skills development for unemployed youth. This organisation has experienced successful implementation of their community projects in many other regions with non-Christian organisations because they have adopted a working policy to partner with any organisation that shares similar values.
Conclusion
Despite the progressive secularisation brought about by worldwide modernisation, and despite a decline in religious identification in some parts of the world, the vast majority of humanity continues to follow one religion or another. This undying faith in God, evident even in irreligious political systems, clearly demonstrates the potency of religion. This spiritual energy and power could be purposefully used to bring about the spiritual conditions necessary for world peace.
However, Hans Küng has observed that, ‘There will be no peace among nations unless there is peace among religions. And there will be no peace among religions unless there is greater, more effective dialogue among them’. 21 For the last decade or so, governments have been seriously interested in religion. The reasons are obvious – faith communities are an important element of religion in either being problematic, or in playing a positive role in the public arena.
In our recent efforts during July to August 2018, while working to provide disaster relief after floods in Kerala, India, we were made aware of the different perspectives between religions. The first scenario came from our team (a Christian NGO), that as word was spreading regarding our proposal to seek to work with local partners in the region, many of the locals responded with the question of whether these partners should be Christian. The question, though unassuming, reveals deep-rooted beliefs which need to be challenged. Indeed, many professing Christians in India have little or no interaction with non-Christians, viewing members of other religions as threats to the faith who must be converted or avoided. But in times like these when there is a constant awareness of fear and tension that exists in many parts of our world due to communal disharmony, is it Christian for Christians to remain passive? How can we stand aloof with a fear of syncretism? It is ironic that while most Christians seek the physical peace of Jerusalem even as they hope for a spiritual Jerusalem, in their communities they only seek spiritual peace while making no contribution to physical peace.
The second scenario came from news media which had reported admiration of Air Force personnel involved in rescue operations. This relates to the fact that when they brought food and medical aid to those who sought shelter in a church building, the church leaders had asked that it also be delivered to the temple which had turned into a shelter too, because the leaders felt that the supplies they had would last for some time whereas the people in the temple were in urgent need. Would it be utopian to seek a reversal of the first scenario (i.e. to witness more of the attitude displayed in the second), not just in times of disaster but in daily life generally?
It is surely for us in this generation to strive for real peace – if not for ourselves, for our children. It is the time to explore inter-religious dialogue as a way of acting as ‘blessed peacemakers’ or, as John Stott said, ‘The purpose of dialogue for the Christian is obedient witness to Jesus Christ and declares it to the Church as that which belongs to Christ the Lord. In this encounter the Church is changed and the world is changed and Christ is glorified’. 22 But for inter-religious dialogue to build peace, we must not allow it to be mere lip service. The traditional sequence of dialogue is face-to-face followed by side-to-side. This would be the true practice of shalom, which mandates the stewardship of all creation.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.